I find your post a mix of facts, conjecture, supposition, and misinformation: in other words, a typical answer to a forum.
Let’s take a look:
Let’s do that
You post a newspaper article filled with “maybes”. It is speculation. I’ll stick with doctors and CDC/WHO guidance, every time.
The point was that SARS/MERS have lower rates of asymptomatic transmission which make them easier to screen for. Here is something from the CDC, if that helps you.
You’re giving a layman’s opinion, based apparently on reading newspaper articles. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin? Here’ s what Dr. Fauci says about hydroxychloroquine:
When asked if the drug was promising Friday, Fauci, standing next to Trump, said “the answer is no” because “the evidence you’re talking about … is anecdotal evidence.”
New York is beginning a massive trial involving those medicines. Again, if you’re going to appeal to authority, check with the authorities first.
This sentence is poorly crafted. You are correct in that the case of the Diamond Princess will result in data for scientists and doctors. But a layman cannot derive data from it, since data requires a rigorous protocol for gathering. The only things a layman can gather from the Diamond Princess case are impressions, and perhaps fear.
The Diamond Princess case would generate anything but fear. A 0.5% CFR and the amount of positive tests that didn’t report any symptoms at all generate hope, not fear.
This statement is incorrect. One reason is the way the statement is written. There are tests for the novel coronavirus referred to as COVID-19. Hence, you can be screened for it, to the degree you can access the test. Hence, the first sentence is factually incorrect.
Hence the word effectively. The tests available need to be utilized where they are most effective. That does not include asymptomatic transportation workers currently. Hopefully that will be soon, and test production is certainly ramping up.
That’s not what doctors following guidance from CDC and WHO are saying. Why, therefore, are you saying it? How can screening be a poor use of resources? To make such a statement you must have knowledge of the resources available to each company, which you do not.
Because I can look at the amount of resources the screening process outlined in your OP would use up and compare it to the benefit it would give. If the ship was heading to Antarctica tomorrow, that might be necessary, but it isn’t for this outbreak and it’s not a good policy for future outbreaks. Two to an RV for something with proven asymptomatic transmission? Who wrote these guidelines?
This statement relies on half truths and conjecture. Some mariners will get the virus: true. But most mariners, statiscally speaking, won’t. This statemtent .…attempting to completely exclude it will just use up resources… is incorrect. See my reasoning above.
You can run the numbers if you want.
IMO, this is a poorly worded assertion, We have had “…diseases spread by aerosol transmission…” for all of human history, the common cold being one. The statement is so overly generalized as to be useless to the subject at hand.
The overall impression I get from your post is, “Nothing helps. We’re all doomed. Put your faith in unverified treatments. Let me mention Ebola to make you shit your pants. Oh, and again, nothing works.”
The impression you should get from my post is 'While this is a serious matter, it is not Ebola or Captain Tripps. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact on hospitals as much as possible. Companies should review their plans for future outbreaks that may be more serious. Screening protocols should weigh cost and benefit and be effective if implemented.
This statement is obtuse to a reader in the U.S. and UK (maybe not in China). Would you care to elaborate on it?
My Cadre shall hear of your insolence! We shall ensure your coffeemaker fails after 3 pots as punishment! Socialism with Chinese characteristics shall prevail!
By the way, in a later post you made a comment to a reader
You may want to refrain from this comment. It is a hallmark of internet trollers, especially state actors wanting to foment disinformation and fear. You don’t want to be accused of that…
Shipping is the life’s blood of the world. If shipping stops, people starve. Misinformation and fear mongering serve only to divide people and disrupt trade. Many mariners need to sail. I get your view: nothing works, we’re all doomed.
Now I’d like to hear from the people who help make the world work.