Is it possible to travel responsibly (during a pandemic)?
- Thread starter uncfnp
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
@Dan. I sincerely hope you, your family, friends, and those that come into contact with you and your magic circle, continue to avoid getting this horrible virus. Today, we heard that the brother of one of my wife's friends just passed away after spending two weeks on a ventilator. He was in his early 50s, healthy with no underlying issues, and was doing what he was supposed to do as far as Covid precautions. Yet, he caught the virus, had to be put on a ventilator, and died. Because of him, and others we know that have died from Covid, I think unnecessary traveling at this time, against CDC guidance, is like playing Russian Roulette with your own life as well as others. Yes, you can spin the cylinder indefinitely and not hit the loaded cylinder, but it only takes one time to ruin your, or someone else's life. As I said, I hope you and everyone that comes in contact with you stays healthy and safe.
Have you considered that you might have just been lucky all this time? That there are people dead or injured who did all the same things as you?
A pandemic is an event with scale, all possible outcomes WILL happen, that any given outcome has happened is no proof of anything, only the overall statistics matter.
People take some terrible risks, such as drinking and driving, and mostly get away with them, but when millions do it people die. Are you happy for millions to do as you do? Will there be no mistakes?
While I think Dan is irresponsible, or at least deluded, I think he should be congratulated on being honest about his reasoning and motivation.
In the U.K. we high high quality radio new from the BBC and the flagship program gets to interview literally anyone they want, 99.99% of people including the most senior politicians (except Boris) will say yes.
That have had interviews with proper psychologists (from places like Cambridge, Imperial and the like) discussing these human factors of infection spread. A thing I picked up on, as a flaw in my own behaviour and that of microbiologists I know extremely well, is that people over estimate their ability to reason about the pandemic. So they fool themselves into believing that they can take precautions and be safe in a way better than the next person so the rules don’t really apply to them. Lots of people doing this in a little way is of course a disaster.
In the U.K. we high high quality radio new from the BBC and the flagship program gets to interview literally anyone they want, 99.99% of people including the most senior politicians (except Boris) will say yes.
That have had interviews with proper psychologists (from places like Cambridge, Imperial and the like) discussing these human factors of infection spread. A thing I picked up on, as a flaw in my own behaviour and that of microbiologists I know extremely well, is that people over estimate their ability to reason about the pandemic. So they fool themselves into believing that they can take precautions and be safe in a way better than the next person so the rules don’t really apply to them. Lots of people doing this in a little way is of course a disaster.
Nailed it !
I don’t think it’s as much as an acknowledgement of reason as it is a wish that things weren’t the way they are. I have friends that object to the bar and dining closure because that’s for the crowded elbow to elbow joints but they only go to high end establishments where the tables are far apart and the servers very attentive. Also, they’ve been vaccinated.
drrich2
Contributor
From an article by Yoni Heisler, Feb. 7th, in the publication BGR accessed via Apple News+:
"Not one to mince words, Fauci told CNN this week that as the new strains become more common, there’s a “very high rate” that someone who had COVID-19 will get it again if exposed to these new strains.
“If it becomes dominant, the experience of our colleagues in South Africa indicates that even if you’ve been infected with the original virus that there is a very high rate of reinfection to the point where previous infection does not seem to protect you against reinfection,” Dr. Fauci said.
“A lot of people say, ‘Look, I had it, I’m good to go, I don’t need to get vaccinated,” Fauci added. “Not the case. You still need to be vaccinated and this is precisely why.”
And while existing COVID-19 vaccines are perhaps less effective against the South African strain, the vaccine could still offer up enough protection to prevent a mild case of COVID from becoming severe."
While the relationship to the current topic is a bit tenuous, the issue of how protective a prior case is might bear on the decision, and some of you may find it interesting. Also at issue is that antibody levels drop off over time; I've read elsewhere that some T cells may retain a 'memory' of the virus, so even with low antibody levels one may be substantially better off for having been immunized, but it raises the question of how long immunization protects and how much it does so.
I don't understand the paradox where the vaccine is likely to provide substantial protection against the South African variant (by exposing us to a man-made version of spike protein), whereas a prior infection not enough (which exposes a person to that spike protein, and more, on the original virus!). The virus ought to expose a person to everything the vaccine does...and more. I would expect it to be at least as effective at inducing immunity as the vaccine.
Risk assessment keeps getting muddier.
"Not one to mince words, Fauci told CNN this week that as the new strains become more common, there’s a “very high rate” that someone who had COVID-19 will get it again if exposed to these new strains.
“If it becomes dominant, the experience of our colleagues in South Africa indicates that even if you’ve been infected with the original virus that there is a very high rate of reinfection to the point where previous infection does not seem to protect you against reinfection,” Dr. Fauci said.
“A lot of people say, ‘Look, I had it, I’m good to go, I don’t need to get vaccinated,” Fauci added. “Not the case. You still need to be vaccinated and this is precisely why.”
And while existing COVID-19 vaccines are perhaps less effective against the South African strain, the vaccine could still offer up enough protection to prevent a mild case of COVID from becoming severe."
While the relationship to the current topic is a bit tenuous, the issue of how protective a prior case is might bear on the decision, and some of you may find it interesting. Also at issue is that antibody levels drop off over time; I've read elsewhere that some T cells may retain a 'memory' of the virus, so even with low antibody levels one may be substantially better off for having been immunized, but it raises the question of how long immunization protects and how much it does so.
I don't understand the paradox where the vaccine is likely to provide substantial protection against the South African variant (by exposing us to a man-made version of spike protein), whereas a prior infection not enough (which exposes a person to that spike protein, and more, on the original virus!). The virus ought to expose a person to everything the vaccine does...and more. I would expect it to be at least as effective at inducing immunity as the vaccine.
Risk assessment keeps getting muddier.
divinh
Contributor
I have a college friend that I've been having weekly Zoom chats with, along with the rest of our group. He and his wife had a social pod to have regular weekend dinners with. They've been doing it for months. Two weeks ago, one person in their social pod got sick and tested positive, which corresponded with his wife getting sick and testing positive. He's tested negative twice now. She lost her sense of smell and taste, had three days of fever, and fatigue. The other person had it much worse, felt fine for a day, and is back to feeling like the first day of symptoms. He and his wife felt like they were taking all the precautions. They felt their social pod was too. The other person, who got sick first, went to an office gathering. She probably thought she was doing all the precautions too. It's hard to know when someone has broken protocol, until someone gets sick.
Getting on a plane at this point seems like a big unknown. Everyone getting on should have followed safety protocol, but who knows to what extent and whether they felt a minor infraction would lead to anything. Masking in airports and on flights mitigate the risks, but what about when snack/meal service happens?
Since the start of the pandemic, my biggest infraction was flying to another State and staying there for five days. I had to clean out my brother's belongings when he passed away suddenly from bleeding in the brain, likely from a burst blood vessel. (He was otherwise healthy and I thought he would outlive me.) I felt that it was essential travel, as I couldn't get someone there to do the task for me. I still feel like I took a risk and might have put others at risk. The flight was packed and we were served snacks and beverages. This was back in early October. Had it been during the holidays, I feel the risk would have been much greater. Today, I feel the risk is still pretty high, with the number of infected people moving about. Percentage-wise, rates are dropping, but things are pretty high. We've just accepted it as such.
Getting on a plane at this point seems like a big unknown. Everyone getting on should have followed safety protocol, but who knows to what extent and whether they felt a minor infraction would lead to anything. Masking in airports and on flights mitigate the risks, but what about when snack/meal service happens?
Since the start of the pandemic, my biggest infraction was flying to another State and staying there for five days. I had to clean out my brother's belongings when he passed away suddenly from bleeding in the brain, likely from a burst blood vessel. (He was otherwise healthy and I thought he would outlive me.) I felt that it was essential travel, as I couldn't get someone there to do the task for me. I still feel like I took a risk and might have put others at risk. The flight was packed and we were served snacks and beverages. This was back in early October. Had it been during the holidays, I feel the risk would have been much greater. Today, I feel the risk is still pretty high, with the number of infected people moving about. Percentage-wise, rates are dropping, but things are pretty high. We've just accepted it as such.
Similar threads
- Question
