corona virus alerts - Latest cruising Information for vessels/locations/rules

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

@TigerPaws, et al.

I don't know about Australia, but America has Homeland Security personnel, currently not working at the airports. Do you think they wouldn't be hot on the tail of this money maker?

And, Oz, now has the opportunity to create a new bureaucracy for pandemic case tracing. You think they won't grasp the opportunity?

Even the fines for not following social isolation principles are bringing "windfalls" into States' coffers.

Ann

I saw that after 9/11 and 2008. Big companies salivating over the windfall. Most of the money kissed away.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

https://apple.news/AisnLVi0ERUqRyPizEJkrXw


“China for the first time publicized a breakdown of people testing positive for the novel coronavirus without outward signs of being sick, revealing that those among them who remain symptom-free throughout infection are in the majority.

Among 6,764 people who tested positive for infection without showing symptoms, only one fifth of them -- 1,297 -- have so far developed symptoms and been re-classified as confirmed cases, China’s National Health Commission spokesman Mi Feng said at a briefing in Beijing Wednesday.”



If this data holds up then the actual infection rate is up to 5 times more than the “confirmed case” rate. Which means the percentage of infected persons that get serious complications is much lower than 1%. And it also means we will have a very hard time getting rid of this disease because 80% of the infected are unwitting carriers.

China clearly knew this many weeks ago which is a bit infuriating as well.

Perhaps consistent with the above study:

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3118744

[Sand crab]

China announces jump in death toll. It seems that they accidentally failed to report about 33% of the dead in Wuhan.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/c...china-n1186006

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

So instead "stay de f*** at home! " it will be "leave your smartphone home! " in the future, after apple and google built in their new tracking stuff for big gov into the firmware.

Technology distancing is a good thing, better than social distancing.

And some autos are fitted with OnStar gps systems.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

And some autos are fitted with OnStar gps systems.

Solution GPS/Cell Jamming. Easy and cheap.

[Midnight Son]

The article rehashes some information, but if you read between the lines. It boils down to 'Test, Track and Treat', rinse and repeat. For the whole world, or we are back to the middle ages, as far as travel goes.


Aircraft Carrier Outbreak Could Hold Clue to Coronavirus’ Spread


https://gcaptain.com/aircraft-carrie...avirus-spread/


'Sweeping testing of the entire crew of the coronavirus-stricken U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt may have revealed a clue about the pandemic: The majority of the positive cases so far are among sailors who are asymptomatic, officials say.'


Stay safe

[Montanan]

Some notes from today's livestreamed briefing of New York Governor Cuomo,

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been highly contagious, its natural Rnaught is above 1, for example, 1.2+ to 2.0+. The lockdown / shelter at home has induced social distancing and reduced the infection rates to below 1, presently estimated to be about .9 which causes the new cases to decline. The regulatory and policy operating range is between .9 and less than 1.2, not a precise manageable science.

If social distancing protocols are eased then the infection rate could easily rise to be above 1 and then the new cases of the disease will increase and the medical care capabilities can become stressed again and many persons become ill and die.

Testing / tracing / self isolation capabilities are inadequate as the infrastructure for doing such was established to handle just routine demands and the new tests are not available in large quantities. Realize that New York has accomplished 500,000 tests in 30 days, which is higher than the three next largest number of test performed by States combined. Yet that is just a small fraction of the State's population. Testing capabilities are de minimis, for many reasons, and the capacity is not going to be able to be increased rapidly. This means that the ability to "contain" surges outbreaks by use of testing protocols is not presently viable.

The new normal needs to provide for safeguarding the high infection capabilities of this virus. It is a matter of calibrating and mitigating risk.
Social distancing practices need to be kept in place and our daily ways and means need to be adapted to accommodate for exposure and spread.

Longer term, we need to rethink what is important in our lives, reprioritize and reorganize so as to fulfill our values and to realize our productivity.

Remains a challenging and dangerous situation.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Some notes from today's livestreamed briefing of New York Governor Cuomo,

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been highly contagious, its natural Rnaught is above 1, for example, 1.2+ to 2.0+. The lockdown / shelter at home has induced social distancing and reduced the infection rates to below 1, presently estimated to be about .9 which causes the new cases to decline. The regulatory and policy operating range is between .9 and less than 1.2, not a precise manageable science.

If social distancing protocols are eased then the infection rate could easily rise to be above 1 and then the new cases of the disease will increase and the medical care capabilities can become stressed again and many persons become ill and die.

Testing / tracing / self isolation capabilities are inadequate as the infrastructure for doing such was established to handle just routine demands and the new tests are not available in large quantities. Realize that New York has accomplished 500,000 tests in 30 days, which is higher than the three next largest number of test performed by States combined. Yet that is just a small fraction of the State's population. Testing capabilities are de minimis, for many reasons, and the capacity is not going to be able to be increased rapidly. This means that the ability to "contain" surges outbreaks by use of testing protocols is not presently viable.

The new normal needs to provide for safeguarding the high infection capabilities of this virus. It is a matter of calibrating and mitigating risk.
Social distancing practices need to be kept in place and our daily ways and means need to be adapted to accommodate for exposure and spread.

Longer term, we need to rethink what is important in our lives, reprioritize and reorganize so as to fulfill our values and to realize our productivity.

Remains a challenging and dangerous situation.

I keep hearing about testing and contact tracing. What happens when people refuse to be tested and or talk to the contact tracers?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Some notes from today's livestreamed briefing of New York Governor Cuomo,

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been highly contagious, its natural Rnaught is above 1, for example, 1.2+ to 2.0+. The lockdown / shelter at home has induced social distancing and reduced the infection rates to below 1, presently estimated to be about .9 which causes the new cases to decline. The regulatory and policy operating range is between .9 and less than 1.2, not a precise manageable science.

If social distancing protocols are eased then the infection rate could easily rise to be above 1 and then the new cases of the disease will increase and the medical care capabilities can become stressed again and many persons become ill and die.

Testing / tracing / self isolation capabilities are inadequate as the infrastructure for doing such was established to handle just routine demands and the new tests are not available in large quantities. Realize that New York has accomplished 500,000 tests in 30 days, which is higher than the three next largest number of test performed by States combined. Yet that is just a small fraction of the State's population. Testing capabilities are de minimis, for many reasons, and the capacity is not going to be able to be increased rapidly. This means that the ability to "contain" surges outbreaks by use of testing protocols is not presently viable.

The new normal needs to provide for safeguarding the high infection capabilities of this virus. It is a matter of calibrating and mitigating risk.
Social distancing practices need to be kept in place and our daily ways and means need to be adapted to accommodate for exposure and spread.

Longer term, we need to rethink what is important in our lives, reprioritize and reorganize so as to fulfill our values and to realize our productivity.

Remains a challenging and dangerous situation.

Who's "notes" are these? What portion of this is from a summary of what Gov. Cuomo stated, and what portion (if any) are your personal thoughts and commentary. With all the unknown variables concerning the virus itself, along with all the controversy over the adequacy of responses by govt officials, let's try and at least be clear on who is saying what please.

[Montanan]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-key-f...131700430.html

The end of the coronavirus pandemic will most likely be tied to the development of a vaccine — a process that could take about 18 months. But countries under lockdown could resume normal activities before then, based on how much the virus is spreading.

To determine how readily a virus gets transmitted, epidemiologists look to a figure called the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-naught). It represents the average number of people who a single patient is expected to infect, among a group that has no immunity to the virus.

In February, Chinese researchers estimated that the R0 in the city of Wuhan, where the outbreak started, was about 2 to 2.5, meaning the average coronavirus patient infected at least two other people. More recently, researchers have determined that the virus was probably more contagious back then, with an R0 of 5.7.

When the outbreak has run its course, the R0 will drop below 1, meaning every person will infect fewer than one other person on average.

China has already reached this point, since its infections have tapered off. The country has seen an average of 75 infections a day in April, compared with more than 15,000 at its peak in mid-February, according to official data.

By contrast, daily cases in the US have exceeded 24,000 since March 31. The vast majority of these cases come from New York, which is now the epicenter of the US outbreak.

In New York, new infections appear to have reached a plateau, suggesting the state has flattened its curve, or the rate at which people are infected.

"The curve going up means people are infecting on average more than one person at the inflection point. When it starts to come down, you're infecting on average one person. When it is coming down, that means you're infecting on average less than one person," Dr. Elizabeth Halloran, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington, told Business Insider.

In Seattle, she said, the curve has already started to drop thanks largely to strict social-distancing ordinances.

"The R0 depends on how fast people are interacting with each other," Halloran said. "In our case in Seattle, everybody's behaving themselves and people are really distancing."

But that doesn't mean that Washington, or any other state, can reopen just yet. The R0 could easily rise again if lockdowns are lifted too soon.

Longer lockdowns could make sure the R0 stays low

China resumed transportation into and out of the city of Wuhan on April 8, but many health experts worry that the country could see a second wave of cases. On Sunday, China reported more than 100 new coronavirus cases — its highest number since March 5.

Singapore has also seen cases sharply rise in April, despite slowing the spread of the virus with extensive screening and contact tracing at the beginning of the outbreak. The entire country was placed under lockdown last week.

State officials have expressed concern about a similar scenario playing out in the US.

"Go look at other countries that went through exactly this, started to reopen and then they saw the infection rate go back up again," Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York said at a press briefing on Tuesday. "The worst scenario would be if we did all of this, we got that number down, everybody went to extraordinary means, and then we go to reopen and we reopen too fast."

Halloran agreed that lifting lockdowns now would open the door to a second wave of infections.

"If we just said, 'OK, guys, we're all tired of staying home — we're going to open the schools and everybody can go and hang out in the cafés,' I would expect we'd have another big rebound and it would not be pretty," she said.

Halloran outlined a checklist for bringing the R0 below 1 and keeping it there.

First, the US must be able to test everybody for infection, she said. From there, infected people who don't require hospitalization should be taken to a center where they're unlikely to spread the virus to others. Officials should also trace and quarantine each infected person's contacts, similar to efforts underway in San Francisco and Massachusetts.

"If we want to open things up now, we'd need to be able to slow things down by finding the people who are actually infected and getting them out of circulation as quickly as possible," Halloran said.

Finally, Halloran said, the US should provide personal protective equipment for every front-line worker. Doctors and nurses throughout the country are reporting shortages of gloves, gowns, and masks.

"All of those things are basically available," Halloran said. "They're just not available in quantities yet."

Implementing these measures across the country, she added, could allow the US to lift lockdowns before a vaccine comes on the market.

"You'd still have some infections, but we wouldn't have to completely stifle the economy waiting for a vaccine, which might or might not be available in 18 months," she said. "The infection would sort of limp along in the population."

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Exile

Who's "notes" are these? What portion of this is from a summary of what Gov. Cuomo stated, and what portion (if any) are your personal thoughts and commentary. With all the unknown variables concerning the virus itself, along with all the controversy over the adequacy of responses by govt officials, let's try and at least be clear on who is saying what please.

My notes, scribed during and from livestream. They are Gov. Cuomo's thoughts and remarks, not mine.

Key attribute discussed was how to control the R0 so as to manage it to be below or at least near 1.0. That is the primary continuing challenge.

The medical infrastructures adequacy as to hospitals has been increased and is almost adequate for the present state of the pandemic but is fragile and inadequate for a large second spike. Front line workers have high infection rate drawing down the available staff and fatigue is a factor as to sustainability. Large scale testing technology and infrastructure remains inadequate for testing, tracing and self-isolation which could aid in removing infected persons from the population; not something that will be able to be resolved soon. Handcuffs the ability to "manage" the situation as that tool can not be fully utilized.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

I keep hearing about testing and contact tracing. What happens when people refuse to be tested and or talk to the contact tracers?

TigerPaws, so you are highlighting the potential of non-compliant individuals. Well this is a situation wherein one becomes either a part of the solution or part of the problem.

There be Covidiots and society will have to contend with them.

One can't reasonable force someone to take an invasive test, just like DUI suspects can opt to not be tested. When they don't agree to be tested then they can have privileges denied and / or penalties assessed. In this instance, I suppose requiring the person to self-isolate for a requisite period of time would be the normal routine. The choice being take the test in which case it tests negative or positive; or stay in a room and be monitored for a period of time.

Very similar to the present requirement of self-isolation for persons that travel and enter a jurisdiction. And if a person will not voluntarily self-isolate then forced isolation is imposed, and of course, entry can be banned for those that are not willing to be reasonable as to aiding in compliance for protocols. Australia and New Zealand's policy is that all arrivals which are few because of the limits they have imposed are taken by the authorities to specific hotels and placed in a room and are not allowed to leave that room and are provided lodging, meals, medicine at government expense for 14 days. They are not allowed to interact face to face with anyone but can use the phone and internet to communicate during their quarantine.

Quarantine protocols have been implemented worldwide for many, many centuries. What is new is the ability to employ advanced technologies to have a degree of assurance that if a person test negative that they are in fact negative and thus do not need to undergo the usual quarantine length of time. Because this virus is new and much is still uncertain about it, the proper length of time for self-isolation remains uncertain. Presently the CDC and the WHO guidelines are 14 days, yet in the Lombardy Province of Italy which has been especially hard hit, they just recently increased that to 28 days because they are finding persons that remain asymptomatic but continue to test positive to the virus even after 30 days.

BTW: Quarantine is Italian and means 40 days. The period of time a ship had to remain at anchor before being able to moor to land with out an outbreak of disease.

All very straightforward and has been accomplished worldwide.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Montanan

TigerPaws, so you are highlighting the potential of non-compliant individuals. Well this is a situation wherein one becomes either a part of the solution or part of the problem.

There be Covidiots and society will have to contend with them.

One can't reasonable force someone to take an invasive test, just like DUI suspects can opt to not be tested. When they don't agree to be tested then they can have privileges denied and / or penalties assessed. In this instance, I suppose requiring the person to self-isolate for a requisite period of time would be the normal routine. The choice being take the test in which case it tests negative or positive; or stay in a room and be monitored for a period of time.

Very similar to the present requirement of self-isolation for persons that travel and enter a jurisdiction. And if a person will not voluntarily self-isolate then forced isolation is imposed, and of course, entry can be banned for those that are not willing to be reasonable as to aiding in compliance for protocols. Australia and New Zealand's policy is that all arrivals which are few because of the limits they have imposed are taken by the authorities to specific hotels and placed in a room and are not allowed to leave that room and are provided lodging, meals, medicine at government expense for 14 days. They are not allowed to interact face to face with anyone but can use the phone and internet to communicate during their quarantine.

Quarantine protocols have been implemented worldwide for many, many centuries. What is new is the ability to employ advanced technologies to have a degree of assurance that if a person test negative that they are in fact negative and thus do not need to undergo the usual quarantine length of time. Because this virus is new and much is still uncertain about it, the proper length of time for self-isolation remains uncertain. Presently the CDC and the WHO guidelines are 14 days, yet in the Lombardy Province of Italy which has been especially hard hit, they just recently increased that to 28 days because they are finding persons that remain asymptomatic but continue to test positive to the virus even after 30 days.

BTW: Quarantine is Italian and means 40 days. The period of time a ship had to remain at anchor before being able to moor to land with out an outbreak of disease.

All very straightforward and has been accomplished worldwide.

Currently in the U.S. under established Law a court order is required to forcibly quarantine someone. And that person has the right to challenge the court order.

FYI the lady who broke a court ordered quarantine in 2014 Ebola situation is still winding its way through the courts today.

Good luck enforcing a quarantine order if more than a few people refuse to abide by it.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

Currently in the U.S. under established Law a court order is required to forcibly quarantine someone. And that person has the right to challenge the court order.

FYI the lady who broke a court ordered quarantine in 2014 Ebola situation is still winding its way through the courts today.

Good luck enforcing a quarantine order if more than a few people refuse to abide by it.

State laws provide for public health emergency orders. Travel restrictions, closure of schools and business, Stay At Home, Shelter In Place, Quarantine are all with in the scope of the laws.

And it is routine to enforce such with police powers.

Fortunately very few persons object to reasonable societal compliance protocols and practices. It is the few that will not follow social distancing protocols that require evermore aggressive rules to be established, such as imposing limits of occupancy of stores and shutting down of locations that induce travel and / or "non-essential" activities, e.g. closure of lodgings [motels / lodgings, boat charters] and short term home rentals [AirBnB].

The few can be resolved by the many if they opt to be a part of the problem instead of being a part of the solution.

[Montanan]

Recovery from coronavirus may not confer immunity, warn experts
AFP Relax NewsApril 17, 2020, 10:00 AM MDT

https://www.yahoo.com/news/recovery-...160036732.html

Laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.
Laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.
Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, told AFP.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

- False negatives -

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

- Immunity passports -

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.