Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About cruisemom42

  • Rank
    20,000+ Club

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Definitely will keep positive thoughts for you. Hope you get results that put your mind at ease.
  2. Yes, that should be the same thing. The figure I mentioned is cited in Table 2 in the link below (not sure if it is accessible to all; I have an account): https://academic.oup.com/biostatistics/article/20/2/273/4817524 Of course, it is for all vaccines, some of which may be renewals of existing vaccines and most of which are probably well-tested types. But still, it is pretty robust.
  3. We got a lot of rain on Monday afternoon from the "storm" as it passed up the coast -- and strong gusts of wind. Had a 45 minute power outage at one point, but luckily it was back on before we started to swelter. I've got little new to talk about... Working, reading, doing a little more cooking. Not very exciting stuff. I put off the new TV for now as it just seems like something I'd have to shop for IRL, not online. I have two "virtual" events to participate in today, so I have to go find some work appropriate clothes and put on my make-up. I'm growing to hate Zoom -- can I just say my webcam is broken??
  4. Well it is of course doubtful until the approval is actually received. However, doubt can be overplayed. We have at least 3 reasonable vaccine candidates (not considering the Chinese and Russian ones) that are entering now or will enter by September into Phase 3 trials. A recent retrospective review of 15 years' worth of drug development data published in the journal Biostatistics, which looked at the % chance of approval given a drug or vaccine's current stage (in clinical trials), found that for all vaccines entering Phase III trials, the likelihood of obtaining an approval was 85.4%. That's certainly not a figure to sneeze at, and we have three "shots on goal". Also, just because some of our leaders have not exactly done a stellar job of leading and coordinating the response does not mean that scientists, regulators and manufacturers have not been working collaboratively on this. Here's a recent quote from Peggy Hamburg, foreign secretary of the National Academy of Medicine and a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, on the effort to remove hurdles to development of a vaccine for COVID-19: "Regulatory authorities around the world are coming together in ways that are very, very important to reduce barriers and to make sure that they’re bringing the best possible science to bear on decision making, trying to identify what are the critical questions that have to be asked and answered, what kind of study designs and preclinical work is going to be necessary, so that you don’t have companies facing different regulatory authorities with different standards and requests and approaches, so that the hard questions can be more effectively addressed through bringing together the best minds, wherever they are."
  5. Fred. Olsen line retains two ships launched in 1972-73 and originally sailed as Royal Viking Star (currently named Black Watch) and Royal Viking Sky (Boudicca). Royal Viking ships were built to a very high standard in their day and still have their loyal fans. Their sister ship, Royal Viking Sea (also launched in 1973) is currently sailing as Albatros in the German line Phoenix Reissen. Phoenix Reissen also added another older Royal Viking ship, Royal Viking Sun to their fleet last year (purchased from Holland America where she served as Prinsendam) -- but she is not as old as the first three, having been launched in 1988, and is also somewhat larger.
  6. ontheweb -- I think right now the entire COVID situation is a mix of both positive and negative news. Unfortunately, on many days the news can seem mostly negative (for good reason -- people sense that no one really has a sure hand on the wheel in many countries/areas/regions/states). People have different outlooks on life. There's no real right or wrong. Optimists feel it is better to dwell on the good news. Pessimists/cynics think it is better to think the worst and then perhaps the outcome won't be as bad as predicted and they will be relieved. Or if it is as bad, they will feel prepared. Pessimists often call themselves realists, but I personally think the realist steers a middle course. Yes, there is negative news, but when you look at the big picture (or take the long view -- whatever you want to call it), EVERYTHING is not doom and gloom. This is not an extinction event. But I do think we need to be prepared for cruising to not restart for a long while yet -- especially given the experiences reported this week. I don't think most of those posting negative posts do so with the thought of crushing all hope. They feel they are "countering" baseless optimism -- and given what has been posted in some places on this site, I think that is needed. Just don't take it too personally.
  7. Are you looking at ships that are still with their primary company (e.g., mostly mass market, larger lines) or are you wanting to know about older ships that may still be in service with smaller outfits like Fred Olsen or similar?
  8. Oh, how disappointing for you! That sounds like it would have been fantastic.
  9. Indeed, I love how many people will tell you where you "should" visit. Some genuinely want to share their enthusiasm (misguided as it sometimes is) but with others one senses that it is more a way of saying "I have been here and you have not." Travel to me is not a big punch list of places to see before I kick the bucket. I want to go to places that have history I'm interested in, or that I feel a connection to, or that move me for some other reason. And I agree most of us go through phases in our lives. What interested me with regard to travel 15 years ago may not be the same thing that interests me now. I subscribe to several travel e-newsletters. Over the weekend I got one with the "Top 25 sites in the US you must visit". I've visited about 18 of them. Do I feel a need to rush out and visit the remaining 7? No. They're just not places that draw me.
  10. I'm not a big "moaner" about the changes to the ships' livery over time. I think the yellow and gray color scheme was a bit drab. Maybe better suited to cold Atlantic crossings than modern cruising. Or maybe it's that the gray hulls looked a bit too much like the gray colors that ships were painted during WWII service. If I were to be sitting on Half Moon Cay and looking out to sea at a HAL ship, I think the navy/white color scheme is very pleasing and looks 'ship-shape' and both modern and traditional. I also don't really think small tweaks to design on the funnel over time matter overmuch. I've been cruising since childhood and have seen lines come and go. Just the fact that there is still a HAL name out there is fine with me, whether the Halve Maen is there or not is just a trifle. I read a quote somewhere that was something like "Some people wear history lightly, others grasp it tight in both hands like a pearl necklace about to be ripped off one's neck." I think sometimes (as a 55-and-under cruiser) that HAL has an awful lot of the latter among its faithful. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I would also caution that you speak as someone who is a true enthusiast, who recognizes small differences between ships and appreciates them. HAL also has to attract more "casual" cruisers -- often someone who cruises only occasionally and wants to know that what s/he enjoyed on their previous cruise is going to be the same on this new ship but on the same line. I feel that is especially true for things like specialty dining and for entertainment options such as the Music Walk venues. IMO HAL has suffered somewhat due to this lack of consistency -- too many different ship types, and not all of them offer the same experience. That, to me, doesn't represent a coherent "brand" but rather a bunch of ships huddling under one umbrella without a strong identity.
  11. So if this is the actual schedule for Westerdam, then the Polar Code would also have impacted her late 2020 sailings scheduled for Antarctica (if there are/were any), as well as all of 2021 and 2022 Antarctica "cruising" offerings? (Sorry, I think we've gone over this ground already, but be patient, the third time may be the charm in terms of me actually understanding it!!) In your opinion, is there anything we are all overlooking that is causing so many mass market cruise lines to offer an "Antarctic cruising" experience in the next two years even though all of the regulations that have been discussed here would seem to say that it is impossible?
  12. I voted "Other" since we could only select one option and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least to me. The "Other" for me would be this: maintain a focus on longer and interesting cruises and smaller ships. However, I would have also liked the option of adding more entertainment/enrichment (with focus on the enrichment part), and also add more contemporary shows/music -- though what is available on the ships now is not bad (the ships that have all of the music options, which is now most of them)... And if they satisfy my criteria for longer, interesting voyages on smaller ships I would also be happy to see them move to a price point that is higher than mass market, though perhaps not as high as premium lines that are more inclusive.
  13. yeah, sorry -- my reply was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I was going to write that I would be happy to provide food for the crash survivors but thought that might be a bit over the top. The smoking part, sadly, is true.
  • Create New...