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

[TreeFalls]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...uise-industry-bar-people-70-ships/5020325002/
Here is an article that mentions it as a "proposal".

 

[pezgirlroy]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...uise-industry-bar-people-70-ships/5020325002/
Here is an article that mentions it as a "proposal".

Thank you. This is different than what was said above. The proposal is if over 70 you need a doctor's note of your health fitness. I am harping on this because we are supposed to go on a cruise with my 75 year old parents end of April. They are in very good health. I am okay with postponing but they are not.

 

[mswhittaker]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...uise-industry-bar-people-70-ships/5020325002/

 

[xuxa777]

He referenced that proposal in the interview but did not mention the doctors note. Obviously very fluid. When asked directly he was very cagey (the new rules will be difficult) and said he can't say anymore and will let the government announce the changes this afternoon.

 

[sethschroeder]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...uise-industry-bar-people-70-ships/5020325002/
Here is an article that mentions it as a "proposal".

I am not sure how being 70+ factors in. The only thing that makes sense is that older people have a higher mortality rate so they don't want to be sued for being negligent?

 

[ahain]

I am not sure how being 70+ factors in. The only thing that makes sense is that older people have a higher mortality rate so they don't want to be sued for being negligent?

I'm thinking maybe it's because people 70+ are at a higher risk of developing life-threatening issues, and the cruise lines don't want that added liability. As I understand, part of the Cruise Industry proposal included cruiseline-funded evacuation, which I'm certain they would prefer to avoid whenever possible.

 

[Intr3pid]

Except it is not ALL data. Its simply the group who was tested and the group who was potentially exposed to the disease.

-snip-

Except your "hard data" is lacking actual general population results. So its just a theory on your "hard data" actually encompassing all who are sick especially those who don't exhibit more severe symptoms.

The data is most Hubei data. Most adults and most children. It's the largest dataset you are gong to find. CDC has confirmed these numbers, so unless you have a similar-sized dataset on the contrary to show us, there is nothing more to add here.

Except there is. Have you been following the disease since January? Well I personally have as someone who travels roughly every other week of the year.
-snip-
They called getting a test in Wuhan as winning the lottery in the media back in January.

Media, headlines, personal anecdotes. - how about some actual data on children not getting the same attention or monitoring for this virus?

Not sure how hard it is to understand that adults are more likely to come in to contact with a disease based on traveling, cruise ships, and "exotic" locations.

No harder than it is to understand that kids are less likely to come in to contact with a disease and - thus - at a lower risk of contracting it. See my prior post on all possible reasons why the kids are not contracting the virus as much. All those factors combine to give you a lower risk factor. Not a zero risk - a lower risk.

Do you not think if kids were not effect at all that it would not be all over the news? Or do you have some grand conspiracy in mind?

Not affected at all? No one believes so. Lower risk - that's more like it. And if media is really your thing, there is plenty of news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...erly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/

 

[sethschroeder]

Media, headlines, personal anecdotes. - how about some actual data on children not getting the same attention or monitoring for this virus?

Look at this point you can think whatever you want. If you can't agree that the data is missing a full sample size for comparison among age demographics there is nothing I can do. You seem to think everyone is getting tested which is 100% not the case.

I even quoted the CDC stating children are more often getting cold like symptoms. Meaning in the limited number of tests they would either not be taken to the doctor or not have a precious test used on a group with 0 total deaths globally.

Not affected at all? No one believes so. Lower risk - that's more like it. And if media is really your thing, there is plenty of news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...erly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/

Except its talking about mortality rate not infection rate. Also it even states they don't know if children are less effected which I have been saying SINCE THE START.

From the article:
“If it bears out that kids are less prone to infection, then I suspect there’s something more mechanical than immunological going on,” said Esper, the pediatric infection expert. “Something about the receptors in children’s bodies or their lungs is interfering with the virus’ ability to attach itself.”

"But many epidemiologists suspect mild symptoms may simply be masking that children are getting infected the same rates as adults."

So again my whole point is right now with the data at hand its not a good idea to say children are less likely to get infected with the same exposure as adults to the virus.

The only thing we can so far is children to seem to beat the virus every single time which is thankfully a good thing.

 

[drcarter]

Children seem to be more of a carrier of the virus. There is a toddler in the Houston area who tested positive. Parents also positive, returned from California recently.

 

[TreeFalls]

Children seem to be more of a carrier of the virus. There is a toddler in the Houston area who tested positive. Parents also positive, returned from California recently.

Stories like this are so frustrating to me. I just have a feeling there are a lot more asymptomatic "carriers" out there than we know about, but we won't know for sure until we can be more liberal with the testing.

 

[princesscinderella]

I just got a letter from our kids school, which comes from the archdiocese (they go to catholic school) that any cruise plans are not advised over spring break (which is a month away) and that if you do cruise, they will consider the child threat level three and there is a mandatory 14 day quarantine period upon return.

 

[mom4fun]

I'm thinking maybe it's because people 70+ are at a higher risk of developing life-threatening issues, and the cruise lines don't want that added liability. As I understand, part of the Cruise Industry proposal included cruiseline-funded evacuation, which I'm certain they would prefer to avoid whenever possible.

This makes perfect sense. Just like they won’t let you cruise when you are so many weeks pregnant.

 

[Intr3pid]

I even quoted the CDC stating children are more often getting cold like symptoms. Meaning in the limited number of tests they would either not be taken to the doctor or not have a precious test used on a group with 0 total deaths globally.

No, we didn't see any such CDC quotes. This is what CDC stated:
---
These limited reports suggest that children with confirmed COVID-19 have generally presented with mild symptoms, and though severe complications (acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock) have been reported, they appear to be uncommon.
---
It tells us clearly that child cases are not slipping through the cracks. Whether the symptoms are mild or severe, they are symptoms. They are looking at all cases. As I said, a case is a case is a case. Severity is irrelevant in the counts. There is absolutely no evidence of your theory that somehow children are not being tested and - as a result - associated cases under-reported.

Except its talking about mortality rate not infection rate.

Incorrect - it's both. Read more carefully:
---
In China, only 2.4 percent of reported cases were children and only 0.2 percent of reported cases were children who got critically ill, according to the World Health Organization.
---
Next, it's not a research article - just a media report. I only linked it to show that media IS talking about the lower incidence among children. Such as through these quotes:
---
University of Texas Medical Research:
"“With respiratory infections like this, we usually see a U-shaped curve on who gets hits hardest. Young children at one end of the U because their immune systems aren’t yet developed and old people at the other end because their immune systems grow weaker,” said Vineet Menachery, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch. “With this virus, one side of the U is just completely missing.”
---
Cleveland Clinic:
"Figuring out why children are so unaffected could lead to breakthroughs in understanding how and why the virus sickens and kills other age groups, said Frank Esper, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic."
---
Now read what you quoted one more time:
"“If it bears out that kids are less prone to infection, then I suspect there’s something more mechanical than immunological going on,” said Esper, the pediatric infection expert. "

So, yes - that's what's on the experts' minds Kids seem to be less prone to infection. We don't know why or how, but the numbers are baffling them into raising this question.

From the article:
"But many epidemiologists suspect mild symptoms may simply be masking that children are getting infected the same rates as adults.

Oh, yes, they are looking at that same research report. There are suspicions. Maybe. But then, the article also floats another maybe:
---
Some experts have floated a theory that because children are so heavily exposed to four other mild coronaviruses, which circulate every year and cause the common cold, that may give kids some kind of strengthened immunity.
---
No proof - just your mainstream media at work.

All that said, read the article one more time and tell us the following.

Did any expert anywhere identify a lack of testing as the reason for such a discrepancy between the infection numbers and the population makeup?

Is there any data to support your theory that a lack of testing in some of the most cared-for members of the population is the reason behind this huge discrepancy?

 

[sethschroeder]

It tells us clearly that child cases are not slipping through the cracks.

If a child has cold like symptoms I don't see doctors using extremely limited tests on that child.

Did any expert anywhere identify a lack of testing as the reason for such a discrepancy between the infection numbers and the population makeup?

Is there any data to support your theory that a lack of testing in some of the most cared-for members of the population is the reason behind this huge discrepancy?

The CDC which I have already outlined previously. I am not sure why you keep going in circles.

"There have been very few reports of the clinical outcomes for children with COVID-19 to date. Limited reports from China suggest that children with confirmed COVID-19 may present with mild symptoms "

The CDC is calling out limited reports POSSIBLY because of mild symptoms. Note I am not saying this is a fact, they are not saying this is a fact, they are saying this is a possibility (maybe a small one or a big one but they don't clarify to that level).

Its a lack of data points to get a clear picture on the virus impact regarding age demographics.

Again there was a severe lack of tests in China until much more recently. They were sending people home who had somewhat severe (in my book) symptoms.

Again I have been following this since January so there was tons of reports I just looked for the first news article I could find dating back to early February:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/world/asia/china-coronavirus-tests.html
This calls out how they were sending home those with lesions on lungs, fever, and diarrhea without even testing them.

I am not saying children get more mild symptoms and go undetected. I am also not saying children do not get infected more often. I am simply pointing out the plausible response that we don't have enough information.

Another article outlining lack of information:
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/03/11/children-and-coronavirus-4-questions-answered.html
Another about lack of data:
https://health.usnews.com/conditions/articles/how-does-the-coronavirus-affect-children-and-infants
Dr. John Swartzberg, clinical professor emeritus of infectious diseases and vaccinology at the University of California—Berkeley School of Public Health, adds a note of caution. Yes, he says, “the preliminary epidemiological data suggest that children don’t seem to get as sick as adults, but I want to emphasize that this is very preliminary data out of China.”

Swartzberg also stresses: “We don’t even know for certain that (children) are getting less disease. There are less than two months of data. We don’t know, in children and adults, how many are infected and don’t even have any symptoms. There could be a lot of us walking around with (what seems like) colds who have this, or they may be asymptomatic.” That, of course, would make the disease and death rates even lower than already thought.

The only thing most seem to agree on is that Children are at a decreased risk of death.

 

[mmouse37]

President just announced that he is suspending all travel from Europe (UK Excluded) into the United States for 30 days starting on Friday.

Edited

MJ

 

[Coffee66]

President just announced that he is suspending all travel from Europe (UK Excluded) for 30 days starting on Friday.

MJ

God Bless. Good for all.

 

[mom2brooke76]

President just announced that he is suspending all travel from Europe (UK Excluded) into the United States for 30 days starting on Friday.

Edited

MJ

What are your thoughts on cruises being suspended? My husband seems to think that’s next.

 

[bunnm09]

What are your thoughts on cruises being suspended? My husband seems to think that’s next.

I think it’s next for sure. Seems like all large gatherings are being canceled, like fans at the NCAA tournament. It doesn’t make a ton of sense to ban crowds from events but let people get on cruise ships

edit to say the NBA just suspended the entire season. When decisions like that are being made it’s hard to see cruises continuing. I just hope we get refunds instead of making us rebook in a certain timeframe

 

[spurscar]

At this point I'd really prefer a full refund for a mid-April cruise. Disney needs to consider offering this instead of future credit only. I hate being in a waiting period to see if they're going to cancel but I feel like it is inevitable at this point.

 

[LeiaOfAlderaan]

What are your thoughts on cruises being suspended?

I’ve been trying to keep up with port closures. Monterey and Santa Barbara are asking cruise ships not to visit. Seattle has cancelled the first 2 Alaskan cruises in April. Vancouver has mentioned possibly closing their port. I heard Norway has also closed their ports. If more ports close I don’t see how cruises can keep going.

My personal opinion is that if you have cruises leaving from areas with widespread community transmission (as CA has and it will only get worse) it is a bad idea to have cruises leaving from those ports. It only takes one super spreader to get on the ship, as we saw with the Grand Princess, and it turns into a bad situation.

My attitude a week ago was “I’m healthy, I’ll still go”. After learning about the importance of flattening the curve I have done a 180 and I don’t want to contribute to the spread of this virus that is targeting the most vulnerable in society, so I’ll be cancelling even if DCL doesn’t.