Not a good sign for cruise ship industry return before vaccine

[ReefHound]

I am sorry but that is ridiculous. It was the design of the study.

No, only following up with those who report symptoms is ridiculous. That kind of thinking is how we got to where we are, initially only viewing those with symptoms as a threat. To only test those who develop symptoms renders the study completely blind to asymptomatic infection and transmission. If that was the design, it was gross negligence.

 

[uncfnp]

No, only following up with those who report symptoms is ridiculous. That kind of thinking is how we got to where we are, initially only viewing those with symptoms as a threat. To only test those who develop symptoms renders the study completely blind to asymptomatic infection and transmission. If that was the design, it was gross negligence.

Perhaps your insights are exactly want is needed to end this pandemic. Have you considered running for president? Or better yet start your own research company?

I am sorry. This is so absurd and shows such a complete lack of understanding (or willingness to be educated) I am out. Have at it...

 

[ReefHound]

I already had at it and your only response is a personal attack. I stand by my opinion that any study of vaccine subjects that only follows up with the tiny subset that self-reports symptoms is grossly negligent in overlooking a mountain of potentially crucial data. Asymptomatics spreaders are thought to be responsible for almost 50% of all covid infections. Whether a vaccinated person can be contagious has to be as important if not more important as if they are personally protected. It's mindboggling that anyone could have studied one element so deeply as to be able to declare it 95% effective and ask for emergency approval yet be clueless about the other aspect.

 

[ggunn]

Even if all the vaccine does is keep people from getting sick, then bring it on; I'll be getting it as soon as I can. Half a loaf is better than none.

 

[drrich2]

Looking at the priority list for who is to get the vaccine first (from a state newspaper article today; heavily weighted to nursing home residents and staff, some health care workers, hoping later to make teachers a priority), the primary goal of administering the vaccine is to prevent the vaccinated people from serious cases of COVID-19. If the vaccine did only that, and did nothing for infectiousness (which I think unlikely), it would still be a 'go.'

It's also important these vaccines are being put forward under emergency use authorization requests, and have been developed in drastically less time than past vaccines. Some of what there is to know about them will have to be learned going forward.

I agree that the impact of vaccinations on curbing transmission potential is very important. It will probably be a 'shade of gray' issue in real world practice.

1.) Immunization isn't 100% effective to begin with.
2.) Impact at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and a year may all be different.
3.) If an immunized person contracts the virus, his/her immune response should build much faster than someone never exposed. He might get infectious...for 3 to 5 days (pulling numbers out to thin air) instead of a longer period.
4.) There will be individual factors as yet poorly understood (a.g.; impact of age, other health conditions).

It would indeed be interesting to know what the asymptomatic infection rate of vaccinated people over time is, and how long they test positive vs. unvaccinated people, and to what extent and for what duration they are infectious, if at all.

Even not knowing that, I'd love them to vaccinate me right now! And I'm glad to transmissibility of this coronavirus is drastically less than that of measles. Were that not the case...the relative importance of personal protection vs. transmission protection might be another discussion.

 

[Stoo]

...how do you get an "out break" ?

Easy, the tests aren't 100% reliable.

I'd be interested in knowing how the tests were verified. Did they just ask people, or did they require actual documented proof?

I'm not saying people lie, but I'm not saying people tell the truth either, especially when they have a $3500 week on the line.

 

[nwflyboy]

I'm not saying people lie...

I am.

Come on. I know of many people who lie every day and so do you (have you watched any TV lately?). I know people who flew off on a foreign vacation in violation of rules here and there, because they were just tired of all this covid stuff, and upon arrival, they ignored every rule and public health guideline, just went about their vacay like it was 2019. They laugh about it. Covid, schmovid. There are countless examples (the Sturgis motorcycle festival, every Trump campaign rally, last weekend's busy air travel week, the list goes on). People don't believe rules apply to them - maybe you've noticed?

If you don't think people lie routinely about such things then you must have been hibernating for the past 50 years.

 

[chillyinCanada]

What is going to be interesting is how the side effects of the COVID vaccination impact people's willingness to take it. The media hasn't covered this but reports are coming out that the MRNA vaccines have some nasty side effects that last 24-36 hours... Migraine like headache, joint and muscle pain, nausea, etc... Kind of like having the Flu or a bad case of COVID that lasts for a short time frame. Many people couldn't work the next day and stayed home sick after the 1st dose and during the MRNA based vaccine tests that all required 1 vaccination followed by a 2nd a prescribed time frame later there were quite a few who after experiencing the side effects of the 1st refused the 2nd vaccine in the trials.

Personally, I don't think I'd let 2 days of sickness dissuade me from getting vaccinated per the 2 dose protocol (but I haven't experienced the side effects a 1st dose yet). I think the Oxford vaccine that has been based on prior vaccine development techniques and is not MRNA based is the one to watch. That vaccine got a bad wrap because they screwed up the initial dose in 50% of the participants and ended up with 2 batches of data but the data still proved very promising and without the side effects that the MRNA based vaccines have found to be perhaps commonplace. I think it very well may be a better vaccine but whoever handles their PR made a major screw up and failed to spin the mistake as best as possible being, 2 databases and sampling groups that have received different doses, even if by mistake, are better than one.

 

[Stoo]

If you don't think people lie routinely about such things then you must have been hibernating for the past 50 years.

LOL. I think you missed my sarcasm.

 

[ggunn]

I am.

Come on. I know of many people who lie every day and so do you (have you watched any TV lately?). I know people who flew off on a foreign vacation in violation of rules here and there, because they were just tired of all this covid stuff, and upon arrival, they ignored every rule and public health guideline, just went about their vacay like it was 2019. They laugh about it. Covid, schmovid. There are countless examples (the Sturgis motorcycle festival, every Trump campaign rally, last weekend's busy air travel week, the list goes on). People don't believe rules apply to them - maybe you've noticed?

If you don't think people lie routinely about such things then you must have been hibernating for the past 50 years.

It doesn't help that the risk factors for an individual are still relatively low while for public health they are very high. There are many people who ignore the viral countermeasures and don't get sick, and this "proves" that there isn't anything to worry about. The aggregate result is, however... well, look around.