What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swansong said:
Most countries won't let anyone disembark unless all passengers comply with vaccination requirements as well.
Click to expand...

Define most. A quick google search shows England, Spain, Portugal, Greece, France, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Costa Rica, Denmark, Austria, Netherlands, Poland, Mexcio, Switzerland, Czech Repub, and several other smaller countries have all fully removed entry requirements.


Pretty much just Canada, China, New Zealand, and a few others that require a vaccine.


Edit: Cool tool from Kayak
https://www.kayak.com/travel-restrictions?

According to Kayak, there's like a dozen countries that are open to vaccinated travelers but closed to unvaccinated.

Edit 2: This is surprising to me as well. I figured it was just countries with a sizable knuckledragging population like the US, England, etc.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. When I said "most" I was thinking the Caribbean countries, where most US-based cruisers go. When I was researching this prior to Covid, the cruise companies were mostly informing passengers that "this cruise requires these, that cruise requires those" etc.
 
Swansong said:
Interesting. When I said "most" I was thinking the Caribbean countries, where most US-based cruisers go. When I was researching this prior to Covid, the cruise companies were mostly informing passengers that "this cruise requires these, that cruise requires those" etc.
Click to expand...

Don’t underestimate the Swiss cruise market!
 
leswp1 said:
Totally off topic but listening to the Beeb about the drought in Europe- the Loire riverbed is dry in some places. Other rivers are having sig less water. I wondered about how they were going to deal with river cruises.
Click to expand...
Cruises least of their worries, can't get ships with gas, oil and coal on them to their destinations
 
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti...wComments=true

New CDC guidance. At least they are honest about their motivations- "to limit social and economic impacts, quarantine of exposed persons is no longer recommended, regardless of vaccination status"

This steams me. Translation- we don't give a fuck about prevention. We don't care if you personally bear the economic or personal impact of getting sick, missing work, getting those in your house sick, them missing work, the kids having to stay home so you miss work... And if you get long covid- oh gee! Or if you get sequential infections with all of the sequelae they are seeing occur- well, that doesn't count because its the economy stupid.

And people are so freaking stupid they will be all excited they don't need to do stuff to prevent. How is it economically sound for all these people to get sick, miss work/school, disrupt the workplace/class with their absences. I feel like I am living in an Orwellian Virtual world where people suffer individually while being told no one is suffering.

/end rant

Meanwhile mr les is negative at day 5 and counting. Thank goodness!
 
leswp1 said:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti...wComments=true

New CDC guidance. At least they are honest about their motivations- "to limit social and economic impacts, quarantine of exposed persons is no longer recommended, regardless of vaccination status"

This steams me. Translation- we don't give a fuck about prevention. We don't care if you personally bear the economic or personal impact of getting sick, missing work, getting those in your house sick, them missing work, the kids having to stay home so you miss work... And if you get long covid- oh gee! Or if you get sequential infections with all of the sequelae they are seeing occur- well, that doesn't count because its the economy stupid.

And people are so freaking stupid they will be all excited they don't need to do stuff to prevent. How is it economically sound for all these people to get sick, miss work/school, disrupt the workplace/class with their absences. I feel like I am living in an Orwellian Virtual world where people suffer individually while being told no one is suffering.

/end rant

Meanwhile mr les is negative at day 5 and counting. Thank goodness!
Click to expand...

In fairness - these updated guidelines will have fewer kids missing school, people missing work etc due to exposures and waiting for negative tests.

Under the previous guidelines, given the trend of newer variants being less severe, for most people, the life disruption consequences of getting covid were much worse than the actual infection itself.
 
Just a point of clarification.

Newer variants (Omicron BA.xxx) are not proven to be less severe innately. There is much mixed data on that, and no conclusion can be drawn. They are in effect less severe due to acquired immunity, via vaccination and/or infection, but that's different from saying "new variants are less severe". They aren't, at least in a definitive way.
 
Swansong said:
They are in effect less severe due to acquired immunity, via vaccination and/or infection, but that's different from saying "new variants are less severe".
Click to expand...

Thank you for this clarification. What is the technical terminology for severity (in a vacuum), severity (with immunity) etc? And is there a measure of immunity that is different from the measure of severity vs the baseline of no immunity, or is that just a circular definition?
 
I don't know enough to answer that question, sorry. It is virtually impossible to measure actual levels of immunity - we use antibody/t-cell/other cell levels to determine approximate level of immune response but even that is more "well this person has all the fight'n cells, so they should be ok unless other factors involved". I don't want to sound like an actual scientician here so I'm using purposefully goofy language.

They also use things like IFR and CFR, as death is a pretty good indicator of severity. But not always.

The CDC has some stuff on this:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...framework.html

That's influenza related but I'm mostly sure the concepts are general.
 
Last edited:
Swansong said:
Just a point of clarification.

Newer variants (Omicron BA.xxx) are not proven to be less severe innately. There is much mixed data on that, and no conclusion can be drawn. They are in effect less severe due to acquired immunity, via vaccination and/or infection, but that's different from saying "new variants are less severe". They aren't, at least in a definitive way.
Click to expand...

Agreed - For the purposes of this discussion though, I am talking about the severity of infection that most people are experiencing today. That may well be because of so much inquired immunity as you mention.

My real point was that under the previous guidelines - more people were missing work / school due to the protocols than due to actually being sick.
 
ericredaxe said:
Agreed - For the purposes of this discussion though, I am talking about the severity of infection that most people are experiencing today. That may well be because of so much inquired immunity as you mention.

My real point was that under the previous guidelines - more people were missing work / school due to the protocols than due to actually being sick.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
ericredaxe said:
Agreed - For the purposes of this discussion though, I am talking about the severity of infection that most people are experiencing today. That may well be because of so much inquired immunity as you mention.

My real point was that under the previous guidelines - more people were missing work / school due to the protocols than due to actually being sick.
Click to expand...

This may be true but now there is a free-for-all as far as go to work while you are infectious. People are getting sick, not dying, but sick enough to miss work or school. The way this is set up it will be close to impossible to protect yourself (your kids, anyone who is in the workplace) the way the guidelines are. It is not medically sound advice to stop good infectious control measures because people who get exposed need to be quarantined to keep the rest of the populace safer. You bet your sweet a55 that if this was TB or measles no one would be suggesting something this stupid. We shut down whole effing schools when one person has TB.

Great for people who have benefits and sick time. They can burn PTO to stay home if they or their kids are sick or infectious.

Really bad for people who are working multiple part time jobs, with no benefits and a guideline that encourages return to work at a time they would be most infectious. Most people are not wearing fit N95 masks. Folks who are not financially stable aren't going to be able to afford them. Those jobs have always been unforgiving as far as missed work. The previous guidelines people had a specific guidance that was a hard no. Now there is no focus on prevention these people will once again be at higher risk for impact- more settings for exposure, kids with high risk for exposure, lack of finances to avoid exposure. For these people missing work can be catastrophic financially and they have no way to protect themselves from the risks the settings will impose.

So the take home- if you are well off you are excited. You get to live your life and if someone is positive it is an inconvenience. You get excited and get to pretend there will be less disruption. If you are not well off then you are screwed while people run around touting how there will be so much less disruption.

You don't want people to stay out if exposed then have the balls to give appropriate guidelines do decrease transmission rather than decide that too many people are spoiled brats and we can't make them do what they need to keep more people from getting sick. WIll you totally prevent transmission? No. But this is the equivalent of guaranteeing increased spread.

No strong feelings here.
 
Last edited:
leswp1 said:
This may be true but now there is a free-for-all as far as go to work while you are infectious. People are getting sick, not dying, but sick enough to miss work or school. The way this is set up it will be close to impossible to protect yourself (your kids, anyone who is in the workplace) the way the guidelines are. It is not medically sound advice to stop good infectious control measures because people who get exposed need to be quarantined to keep the rest of the populace safer. You bet your sweet a55 that if this was TB or measles no one would be suggesting something this stupid. We shut down whole effing schools when one person has TB.

Great for people who have benefits and sick time. They can burn PTO to stay home if they or their kids are sick or infectious.

Really bad for people who are working multiple part time jobs, with no benefits and a guideline that encourages return to work at a time they would be most infectious. Most people are not wearing fit N95 masks. Folks who are not financially stable aren't going to be able to afford them. Those jobs have always been unforgiving as far as missed work. The previous guidelines people had a specific guidance that was a hard no. Now there is no focus on prevention these people will once again be at higher risk for impact- more settings for exposure, kids with high risk for exposure, lack of finances to avoid exposure. For these people missing work can be catastrophic financially and they have no way to protect themselves from the risks the settings will impose.

So the take home- if you are well off you are excited. You get to live your life and if someone is positive it is an inconvenience. You get excited and get to pretend there will be less disruption. If you are not well off then you are screwed while people run around touting how there will be so much less disruption.

You don't want people to stay out if exposed then have the balls to give appropriate guidelines do decrease transmission rather than decide that too many people are spoiled brats and we can't make them do what they need to keep more people from getting sick. WIll you totally prevent transmission? No. But this is the equivalent of guaranteeing increased spread.

No strong feelings here.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand why people focus so much on the ‘sick’ part versus what it does to your body long term. There is so much we don’t know about the virus and if reasonable precautions prevent the spread we’d do well to take them. If people wore masks in large, indoor public gatherings and stayed home when they are sick we would keep it under control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top