Cruise news
@Jeff_AZ @Trampslady_18966 @PrincipalTinker @Kitty_Ellas_Mom
2 Likes
Wasnāt there reporting that government officials were tampering with the CDC site?
1 Like
Donāt recall. 
well after I wrote that comment I saw headlines in WP that officials are at it again.
Youāre probably recalling this:
Obviously, the whole issue of whether things are going through the proper vetting process is fairly significant.
The specific issue being debated is interesting in and of itself.
On the one hand, if someone is a close contact and doesnāt have symptoms, and is going to be quarantining for the 14 day incubation period anyway, the test results are sort of meaningless at the case level. Plus, an early negative before a response develops could lead someone that has since developed positivity to think they can safely not quarantine.
But on the other hand, from a surveillance aspect, itās almost intentionally not testing the very people most likely to be positive, causing all of the monitoring data to be artificially low.
Itās happening here for sure. Spouses of positives not bothering to get tested, with or without symptoms, because they figure they need to quarantine anyway. But it means our testing numbers are not including a lot of current cases. Again, why I mostly watch hospitalization numbers. I believe everyone hospitalized for anything is being tested, so at least that is consistent.
5 Likes
This bit is brilliant once explained !
And yes you pulled up what I had read
1 Like
Thanks, I heard they were working on this. They are not really changing the way they flow air through the cabins? I know the design issue was that they were recirculating air through blocks of cabins (which gave passengers the virus in quarantine. Will filters take care of this?
1 Like
I went back to the WP piece and thought I would leave it aloneā¦ donāt want to stir the pot and run 
2 Likes
Your comments being more about vulnerable populations and possibly n95 mask wearing.
But, before I get to my couple of comments about that, I have to comment on the NPR articles @stlouie posted about CDC guidance concerning aerosol transmission. There was a quote in the second article, after the CDC retracted the aerosol guidance. Somebody said about the CDC that they were āconsistently inconsistentā. This is so priceless. And one of the reasons weāve got so little real info.
Anyway, back to the covid vulnerable and mitigations, especially masks. As I never fail to mention on this thread, DH is 84. Heās got COPD. I read to him my cousinās comments about a friend who recovered from covid but now has 38% lung capacity. That brought him up short, as he thought of 38% of what heās got now. I said, do you want to do anything differently? He was thoughtful a moment, and then said, nah, Iām good. Heās not being cavalier with either his health or mine.
It occurred to me that he and his peers grew up in a time when healthcare was way different. Not much in the way of antibiotics, vaccines or specialty surgery/medicine. Itās not in their vocabulary or habit to think the way their grandkids have grown up and are now raising their children.
He will mask up where required. Heād take umbrage at specific protocols designed to protect him particularly. Especially if he didnāt have a say as to whether or not heās on board with that protocol.
I do have another thought to bring up but I have to be somewhere and this is probably enough.
2 Likes
This is very much part of it. I also see a lot of older folks with the mindset that they are at peace with their lives and whatever happens, happens!
3 Likes
This very much. Theyāve had a good run. And theyāre not being uncaring about everyone else. Theyāre used to being part of a community, just not in a medical/health care way.
3 Likes
Yes, and itās their choice as long as someone has offered it to them. But no one really has. The authorities have treated everyone all the same, and applied the same restrictions to everyone, with the weak caveat that especially vulnerable people should stay home. Thatās it. Thatās the extent of it- no better masks, no targeted education, zip. How can they (or any of us, really) make a choice if they donāt have the info?
And some vulnerable people donāt even know theyāre vulnerable. People with bad COPD like your DH probably know, but people with bad hypertension may not.
So what we have is a situation where healthy people may have too many protections, and vulnerable people have too few, because of one-size-fits-all policy. I think it is time to tailor that policy a little.
5 Likes
Iām hoping to have time to sit and read this thoroughly tomorrow. 
1 Like
If it were up to me, Iād give vulnerable people n95 masks, ask everyone else to wear regular masks, and we all wash our hands and live our lives.
Iād surveil congregate housing, warn folks on bars, restaurants and public transportation- but allow all of it to be open.
And thatās it.
If we keep it simple, thereād be a higher chance of compliance and acceptance. IMHO this maze of restrictions and requirements is sucking up time, money and energy with increasingly diminishing returns.
/rant
9 Likes
Til when? What marks the end do you think?
1 Like
Until it becomes endemic or we get a vaccine. I doubt many will opt to be extra-cautious forever, but some will.
So then the question is, when is it endemic? I imagine there is some epidemiological benchmark for that, or one could be created. Something like: 25 hospitalizations/million ppl or thereabouts.
2 Likes
Absolutely.
1 Like
I donāt think weāll have a mark. I think weāll continue to choose our own comfort level of mitigations, the weakest population pockets will continue to spike until they donāt, and weāll gradually fill in the business blanks that have so regrettably been left behind.
Hopefully somewhere in that the CDC or somebody will relearn science.
Which might be unfair, and I apologize to those at the CDC that remain scientific.
3 Likes
I actually 
every bit of this post. Well done.
1 Like
Aw. 
Thanks.
1 Like