The State Department advises U.S. citizens to reconsider foreign travel - update on 3/11, page 8.

[Numtini]

If you're still willing to go to work, school, and ride transit systems then you should be willing to go on a cruise.

Stunned beyond the capability of responding.

 

[spiders]

Stunned beyond the capability of responding.

Here's a picture of the current transatlantic crossings right now. Are you going to suggest to me that those planes are cleaner than cruise ships? Are you going to suggest that there aren't a few people who are going to the bathroom, not washing their hands, and then touching other people's seats as they find their way back to their seat?

I'm stunned that so many people think people practice good hygiene off cruise ships.

 

[sethschroeder]

As long as children display any symptom at any point - whether initially asymptotic - they are considered a case. Severity doesn't matter. The chart shows you the number of cases. What you are referring to is about explaining the fatality rates (also shown) among children.

Except I am saying the numbers are flawed based on initial testing not happening across all demographics of society. Even now most of the world has limited supply of tests so they are not testing everyone. They also will not waste tests on age demographics with no risk of death (to this point and hopefully it stays that way).

Read the actual research not a random chart you found or total global numbers. You can also likely find articles on this as well as I have come across a few since late last week.

From the actual research results out of China:

Pulled from Findings section:

The household secondary attack rate was 15%, and children were as likely to be infected as adults.

Pulled from Transmission Characteristics section:

"Attack rates were similar across infectee age categories (Table 3), though there is some indication of elevated attack rates in older age groups (Figure 1). Notably, the rate of infection in children under 10 (7.4%) was similar to the population average (7.9%). There was no significant association between probability of infection and age of the index case. Surprisingly, in univariate analysis a longer time in the community prior to isolation was associated with a reduced risk of causing infections. However, this association was no longer significant after adjusting for contact frequency and type. "

Table 3: Risk factors for SAR-CoV-3 infection among close contacts (% of total population based on census getting COVID-19)

0-9	7.4%
10-19	7.1%
20-29	6.1%
30-39	6.0%
40-49	4.9%
50-59	9.1%
60-69	15.4%
70+	9.7%

 

[sethschroeder]

Here's a picture of the current transatlantic crossings right now. Are you going to suggest to me that those planes are cleaner than cruise ships? Are you going to suggest that there aren't a few people who are going to the bathroom, not washing their hands, and then touching other people's seats as they find their way back to their seat?

I'm stunned that so many people think people practice good hygiene off cruise ships.

It has nothing to do with hygiene off the ship or on the ship. The airplane has an air filtration system, you are typically stuck in your seat, half those flights will have a majority of people sleeping, you are not touching other peoples food/utensils, you are not on the plane for 4/5/6/7 days in a confined location, and people are right now in today's climate more cautious on a flight vs a multi-day cruise.

I will also say this:
All travel is restricted for my company. I would feel much safer on a plane than a cruise though because I can stay in my corner of the plane for the 3-4 hour flight, washing my hands, avoid eating anything on the plane, and getting out of there. On a cruise I am forced in to close proximity with everyone over multiple days.

Now if that flight was going to take 3 days before landing then you might be on to something.

 

[gotomu212]

Heres the thing I read between the lines in the State Dept warning- “we are reaching capacity and may not be able to come get you and help you”. Princess Grand has KNOWN cases on board for 4 days and people were held captive at sea putting themselves at greater risk of infection and delaying care for the infected. There may come a time when they are not able to provide a port docking and quarantine spots for cruisers. There’s also a good chance that you will get stuck in a foreign port and under whatever measures that government deems appropriate (which could include prolonged time exposed to the virus).

I think Americans are used to the idea that our government is extremely powerful and that help is at hand, but just like we see in natural disasters, sometimes there is no help and we are not set up on an individual level to deal.

 

[knewton64]

Please use common sense when making your travel / vacation plans .

Also , please remember whatever choices you make could impact others.....

 

[xuxa777]

Here's a picture of the current transatlantic crossings right now. Are you going to suggest to me that those planes are cleaner than cruise ships? Are you going to suggest that there aren't a few people who are going to the bathroom, not washing their hands, and then touching other people's seats as they find their way back to their seat?

I'm stunned that so many people think people practice good hygiene off cruise ships.

Also a number of those planes are flying near empty or close to it, so probably better hygiene on those planes

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-5...6262-11EA-8552-CEA14744363C&at_medium=custom7

 

[Intr3pid]

Except I am saying the numbers are flawed based on initial testing not happening across all demographics of society. Even now most of the world has limited supply of tests so they are not testing everyone. They also will not waste tests on age demographics with no risk of death (to this point and hopefully it stays that way).

Read the actual research not a random chart you found or total global numbers. You can also likely find articles on this as well as I have come across a few since late last week.

First of all, numbers are never flawed - only the conclusions are. Such as the conclusion that since we haven't tested children, the transmission rates must be the same...

Let's now discuss the non-peer-reviewed, 228-case, Shenzhen-only-data research paper versus the "random" chart that ArsTechnica has put together using actual 80K-case, all-China data from WHO.

The research paper looked at the travelers returning to Shenzhen from the Hubei province showing COVID-19 symptoms and being isolated either at their homes or in a supervised facility after their arrival. The paper looked at the transmission effects of the virus on close contacts. Close contacts were defined as those sharing a room, apartment, or other sleeping arrangements. In all, 228 full initial cases were analyzed with a total of 1,286 close contacts.

* The paper found 98 infections among the 1,286 close contacts - with no real differences by age groups.
* 228 original cases gave rise to 98 further infections, or a 40% transmission rate.
* Of the 98, only 11 were young children (and 6 more under the age of 19).
* Just 15% of the close contacts got infected.
* Just 8% of the original cases were children (up to the age of 19), i.e. a 92% adult population among the original cases.

Here are the reasonable conclusions to draw from this research.

In a highly specific and small part of the population:

1. If you isolate a family in close quarters for 14 days along with an infected patient, one in six family members is likely to be infected regardless of the age. Put differently, close-quarters, quarantined living with an infected patient seems to infect all family members similarly regardless of age.

2. If you quarantine this family for 14 days, the odds of infecting another person are reduced to just 40%. Put differently, quarantine seems to work.

Here are the flawed conclusions to draw from this research.

1. The results we found in 228 travelers and their 11 child transmissions in Shenzhen can be extended to the broader population in China and elsewhere.
2. The risk of infection among children in a broader interactive world is the same as that measured in an infected, quarantined family.
3. Children (8% of the original cases) transmit COVID-19 the same way as the adults (92% of the original cases).

In short, the research tells us little about the infection rates and transmission features in the broader population interacting in an open world. It's simply a study of the transmission of COVID-19 from the infected adults to their close contacts in a quarantined setting for a very specific part of the population.

Where in the middle does cruising sit depends on how you travel and interact socially. You can take extra care and lower that risk - or you can make it a free-for-all and end up on a military base for a month.

 

[sethschroeder]

First of all, numbers are never flawed - only the conclusions are.

Incomplete is a better word.

The global numbers are incomplete in nature based on limited tests being conducted. I also never stated that the research I posted would replicate to a global scale.

The information so far are less children are reported as cases. There is no reasoning from the data you submitted as to why the numbers are different.

Children could be under reported or they truly could not be contracting the virus. I haven't found any medical information stating children are immune or less susceptible to catching the virus if put in the same circumstances as an adult.

Do you have data from other sources which show children are being infected at a lower rate when exposed to the same contamination as an adult? That research is all I found and it's not peer reviewed since it was published 7 days ago.

The way it seemed you wanted to outline your graph was saying children are less susceptible to being sick.

I am refuting that saying there is no information showing children become sick less often when exposed.

I am also not saying they are asymptomatic more often either.

My goal was simply to warn against generalized information when saying one group or another could or could not be contracting the virus and giving it to others. As I said in my first response find actual research articles on it to get better facts as things unfold.

Sorry if I came off agressive to you as I have been following this since January and have been dealing with people trying to downplay and brush it off.

 

[knewton64]

Italy is now in total lockdown ...
So if anyone of you have travel plans there ...

 

[DisUniversal]

Nobody going to WDW seems to be concerned. I get way closer to people at WDW then I do on a cruise. Closer then I like. Shoulder to shoulder in line for an hour, touching the same railings, thousands of people sharing the same seats, what about that haunted mansion elevator ....the list goes on. Yet it doesn’t seem to be a concern. At least not until we hear about the first case at a WDW resort.

That's what I've been staying. People spend a good part of their day in lines, packed in the multiple people. At the end of the line, they get on a ride where their hands touch the same hand grips or restraints that everyone else does. If it's a thrill ride, they may be yelling or screaming, which while not the same as a cough, could spread something in the air. Lots of opportunities to snack from food carts as well. At the end of the day, rather than remain in a contained environment like a ship, they go to hotels where they are around more people...or home....or to the airport. I think in hindsight they are going to realize that the theme parks are what they should have been paying the most attention to from the beginning.

Cruise ships, while presenting some risk, seem to be one of the very few places where they have lots of measures in place to attempt to prevent the spread of this thing and should they fail, they have procedures in place to halt the spread.

 

[ofcabbagesandkings]

I am currently on a cruise ship (Celebrity) and I just said to someone, "When they shut Disney World down, I will start to think about caring."

Respectfully, at that point, you will be far too late and behind on preparing compared to everyone who is taking this seriously now.

Stunned beyond the capability of responding.

Agree. My alma mater just announced they are switching classes to online. The NYC transit system is using medical-grade supplies to sterilize but they know even that won't be enough, but at least it will be something for people who don't have the privilege of being able to work from home. Many people don't have the choice to stop going to work or ride public transportation because they can't afford to do otherwise. A cruise is 100% optional and at this point, they are all refundable so there really is no good reason to take the risk. I can't believe anyone would compare going on a cruise to using public transport to get to the job you need to pay your rent and feed your kids.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Heres the thing I read between the lines in the State Dept warning- “we are reaching capacity and may not be able to come get you and help you”.

That's what I took away from the message too. If you want to go ahead and travel on a cruise, you're doing it at your own risk against advice of the State Department, and they are going to get to a point quickly where they're not going to come in to foreign ports and evacuate US citizens. You're on your own.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

A bunch of the planes doing TA are deadheading. They are dealing with European airport rules.

 

[hrhdhd]

Respectfully, at that point, you will be far too late and behind on preparing compared to everyone who is taking this seriously now.

Preparing how? Buying tp and water?

 

[ofcabbagesandkings]

Preparing how? Buying tp and water?

Enough supplies to be quarantined in your home for 14 days to 30 days if you are found to have been in contact with an infected person (per recommendations being given by the government). By avoiding public gatherings, unnecessary travel, and by establishing good hand washing and cleaning habits. By making an effort to touch your face less. By not making light of the situation or in some cases, even spreading disinformation (it's just like the regular flu!) when people's lives are in danger. (To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone on this board of doing that, I'm answering the question more broadly.)

Oh, I’m sorry. You’re right. The virus does make a distinction between cruises and public transportation that is required to get to your job. That subway is now 100% sterile.

Stock up on that Charmin!

The point is that there is a difference between essential and non-essential travel, and non-essential travel should be avoided for everyone's well-being, because preventative steps can protect the community at large if we can contain the spread to a degree that hospitals will not be overwhelmed. It's not about whether a subway commuter is more likely to get it than the cruise traveler, it's about minimizing the travel that can be minimized in order to make the best effort at protecting the public. Look, I had two trips canceled this year before I even had a choice, and I was really looking forward to them, and it sucks. But containing this and saving lives matters more than my personal inconvenience.

 

[Intr3pid]

Incomplete is a better word.

The global numbers are incomplete in nature based on limited tests being conducted. I also never stated that the research I posted would replicate to a global scale.

The information so far are less children are reported as cases. There is no reasoning from the data you submitted as to why the numbers are different.

Children could be under reported or they truly could not be contracting the virus. I haven't found any medical information stating children are immune or less susceptible to catching the virus if put in the same circumstances as an adult.

Do you have data from other sources which show children are being infected at a lower rate when exposed to the same contamination as an adult? That research is all I found and it's not peer reviewed since it was published 7 days ago.

The way it seemed you wanted to outline your graph was saying children are less susceptible to being sick.

I am refuting that saying there is no information showing children become sick less often when exposed.

I am also not saying they are asymptomatic more often either.

My goal was simply to warn against generalized information when saying one group or another could or could not be contracting the virus and giving it to others. As I said in my first response find actual research articles on it to get better facts as things unfold.

Sorry if I came off agressive to you as I have been following this since January and have been dealing with people trying to downplay and brush it off.

No, there is no independent research currently done outside of WHO/CDC, and I suspect there won't be one for a while due to the stretched resources.

The research paper essentially analyzed the Shenzhen CDC data in coming up with its own findings (it didn't do its own primary research). What you really need is the broader WHO/CDC data. My understanding is, Shenzhen CDC uses the same process/protocols as CDC elsewhere in China, so a lower incidence of child cases elsewhere in China doesn't quite jive with these findings.

Only WHO/CDC have complete data, and they are pretty clear about what they have seen:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/children-faq.html

Now, let's examine the chart I posted and overlay with population data. At the time the chart was created, almost 80%-90% of the cases were in China, so the chart more or less represented Chinese numbers. And while it's not easy to tell from the chart, it looks like only about 3% of the total cases were in the 0-19 age group.

Next, let's look at the Chinese age data and assume that the Hubei province represents broader Chinese age demographics:
https://www.indexmundi.com/china/age_structure.html

We notice anywhere from 17% to 29% of the subject population would fall in the 0-19 age group.

And that's a big difference. A mere 3% infection rate vs a 20% population makeup.

There may be many reasons behind it, such as:
-- Children have healthier lungs or other natural features resisting infection;
-- Children are more active or have a lifestyle preventing lingering around in infected places;
-- Children are more protected and cared for by their parents and others;
-- Few testing kits are available to set aside for children;
-- Symptoms are milder (for reasons above), so it's less of a priority to test them;
-- Children interact socially in protected spaces and are a priority for keeping healthy;
-- etc

And most likely, it's a combination of the above.

But that's exactly what lowers the risk factor for them. It's all of those reasons and more - but the result is clear. They are less likely to be infected - whether it's down to their immune systems, social protection, parental care, etc. Everything combines to give you a lower risk factor. The difference (3% vs 20%) is too large to ascribe just to the lack of available test kits or any single reason.

 

[spiders]

Enough supplies to be quarantined in your home for 14 days to 30 days if you are found to have been in contact with an infected person (per recommendations being given by the government). By avoiding public gatherings, unnecessary travel, and by establishing good hand washing and cleaning habits. By making an effort to touch your face less. By not making light of the situation or in some cases, even spreading disinformation (it's just like the regular flu!) when people's lives are in danger. (To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone on this board of doing that, I'm answering the question more broadly.)



The point is that there is a difference between essential and non-essential travel, and non-essential travel should be avoided for everyone's well-being, because preventative steps can protect the community at large if we can contain the spread to a degree that hospitals will not be overwhelmed. It's not about whether a subway commuter is more likely to get it than the cruise traveler, it's about minimizing the travel that can be minimized in order to make the best effort at protecting the public. Look, I had two trips canceled this year before I even had a choice, and I was really looking forward to them, and it sucks. But containing this and saving lives matters more than my personal inconvenience.

You’re not containing anything. It’s already everywhere.

If you’re in a higher risk category or just simply scared then stay home and self-quarantine yourself. But don’t expect others to alter their lives to accommodate someone’s else’s fear.

 

[ofcabbagesandkings]

You’re not containing anything. It’s already everywhere.

If you’re in a higher risk category or just simply scared then stay home and self-quarantine yourself. But don’t expect others to alter their lives to accommodate someone’s else’s fear.

You're going to be altering your life whether you like it or not, because governments won't agree with your assessment. I'm suggesting that people be prepared for that reality. Like the people of Italy who currently can't leave their country or even their region without being stopped from doing so.

 

[sethschroeder]

Only WHO/CDC have complete data, and they are pretty clear about what they have seen:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/children-faq.html

Which backs up my point, data collected of those who have been tested show lower infection in children in total numbers compared to the total group. They are not stating though children get sick less when in the same environment.

Which has been my point from the start.

If children get less severe infections more often (which the CDC states as possible) then they will be tested less leading to less cases reported.

The only thing the CDC confirmed is that children are notore susceptible than anyone else.

Again my only thing is that there is no direct statement saying children are for sure at less of a risk. So trying to say such is wreck less in my opinion.

One last thing the CDC even states from limited information from other cornavirus diseases but not COVID-19 is where they are getting a possible hypothesis. Those previous diseases they outline had 2500 MERs and 8100 SARs cases. That is a tiny minute sample size which they outline as such in how they define its a possibility but not even close to a fact.