Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About Joebucks

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The old "I have sources. Peer-reviewed ones too. That means they are law". Two can play the game of opinions Stanford medical professors: COVID-19 death toll estimates may be 'orders of magnitude' too high They believe the projections are 'deeply flawed' https://www.theblaze.com/news/stanford_coronavirus_too_high_death Dr Deborah Birx ‘doesn’t trust the CDC’ as experts fear coronavirus cases have been INFLATED https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11599541/dr-deborah-birx-doesnt-trust-coronavirus-cdc-data-inflated/ In case you don't know Deborah Birx Deborah L. Birx, M.D. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator & U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief April 4, 2014 - Present Just like you say, I'll take Dr. Birx's word over our friend's word on the issue of COVID mortality. Now that we have compared the size of our sources to see whos is bigger, I have another question. Besides the 2017-2018 flu numbers being magically revised in November of 2019, does the COVID death counts also come with take backs in case they revise those too? Or is it only possible that the number that doesn't support your case is the one that is revised? We can split hairs over all of this all we want. Here are some facts I will leave this discussion with - The death rate is far lower than originally thought - It has been here longer than originally thought - Vaccines do not contain the flu - There are fake reportings out there - It's a virus to be concerned about
  2. There's a difference between being a "COVID denier" and straight up reality denier. There's a reason the why a flu season is split between two years. You likely aren't tracking the same disease at the beginning and end of the same year. Also, the peak is closer to where the two years meet. Hence flu season. Counting an entire 12 months is irrelevant. It's around the peak that matters. COVID-19 has also been here since January. 6 months, not 3 months. Same time as the bulk of a flu season. Let's also establish that you didn't know 80,000 people died from the flu that year. No one did. Because it wasn't shoved in our faces. Now that we know, we scramble to find ways to justify that our current position is the most correct. That was also WITH a flu vaccine being available that year. Would you agree or disagree that flu deaths would have been higher for a vaccine, since that is what this whole thread is about in the first place, right? Also, let me guess. You probably believe those flu deaths were either overstated or accurate while COVID is understated. All while there's countless pieces of evidence out there that the results of COVID are being falsified. To further trounce this whole topic, the flu vaccine was about 40% effective that year. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm Before you pull the "it's better than nothing" lever, really think about the position you are taking. Because the average person again, is probably expecting a lot higher effective rate than that. If this whole thread is banking on how we can cruise without a vaccine, the data out there tells us that there is no complete safeguard. It also tells us that most people won't get a vaccine. Let's even call everything constant. Let's remove the COVID-19 fake results. Let's even for your argument's sake coronavirus even doubles it at 160k deaths. How sensible would it be that you went care-free in 2017-2018 flu season from 80k deaths, and scared to death in 2020 COVID season? I know you're already looking to fire back an excuse, but I'll give you a better answer as I've said multiple times already, hype. Atop your high horse of reading from the media, who is the one really denying anything? I understand COVID is here. You are the one denying reality.
  3. The data out there now suggests people have had COVID for longer than we previously thought. Here in Ohio, antibody testing determined it was likely here in January. We are nearing half of the people who died from it, were in a nursing home. Either it targets the elderly like we're told, we're fudging the numbers of the crowd who already has high deaths, or both. So remember, when everyone panicked in March/April that everyone was going to die, it had already been here for months.
  4. The point I made is not about the 5 deaths. We're always talking about the "facts" about COVID. The media loves to tout the 100,000 number fact. Here's a fact, we know that a number of these deaths are being fudged. The media doesn't tout that one though. If you think those 5 gunshots were the only ones, it is pointless to debate this with you. We'll ignore that, but easily accept the story that we're under reporting all of these COVID deaths somehow. People don't remember that two years ago, 80k people died from the flu. No one mandated the flu vaccine. People weren't dying without it. Me even using the word flu in the same post as COVID gets people's blood boiling because you're taught to never compare the two. Those numbers weren't fudged to prove a point either. Yet, two completely different responses. Hype. That falls into the hype column
  5. Funny I read this comment just as I got done reading an article that Washington State had been reporting gunshot deaths as COVID deaths. Not even close to being the first article about deaths being wrongly reported. Whatever the reason may be, it seems to be a common trend. So I take your "fact" with a grain of salt. The CDC is even indicating the death rate is far below 1% of the infected. Hype.
  6. The truth of the matter is we found out more people had it than we initially thought. Through laws of averages, there were asymptomatic people on these ships before the shutdown. Then what you ask? Funny when the media hype isn't there, the consequences aren't as serious.
  7. The more studies they do, the more they realize people had it, and didn't even know. Yet, this is the deadliest infection that we need to shut the world down from. Hmmm
  8. Call me crazy, but we can cruise without a vaccine the same way we've cruised without a vaccine for a variant of every virus over the past few decades that ends up killing people. We have flu vaccines already. If you put into perspective how many people still die from the flu, this whole discussion becomes rather silly.
  9. It's a shame that true context doesn't find its way as much as rage and myth do. "Petri dish" "Greedy CEO" etc will rule. He gave the perfect answer on this. No one knows for sure what the future of all of the ports look like. They can't send every ship to HMC and PC. People want black and white answers, and then they want action and compensation when those promises can't be met. It looks to me they are going to look at what they have, and go from there.
  10. It's very hard for something to double forever. However, I don't expect a retreat. I definitely expect growth. I think we will see more "Cococay" like experiences as people who are concerned about safety, lack of choices for the family, and looking for more of a "resort" experience may open up to such a thing. Plus, if cruising does grow, it's necessary to not completely clog up every port.
  11. We have learned that we once again overreacted. All of those who were roasted for calling it "just the flu" weren't that far off.
  12. Is Carnival the one choosing to pay overtime, or is the shipyard's responsibility? Either way, I still don't believe the ship is sold out. No matter how exciting a cruise may be, when was the last time a Carnival ship was completely sold out a year in advance, for the entire winter? You can put together whatever scenarios you want, but it's still just not plausible. Sales reps telling you it is sold out is still not hearing it from the source. I could be wrong. If I was Carnival, with all of the uncertainty going on around everything right now, I'd definitely seek to limit risk and losses. I'd rather open bookings later vs having to handle more refunds.
  13. I think far too many people get caught up in marketing headlines or preconceived notions, and don't look into stuff like this. I always say the most important things are the final price, and the experience you want. Far too many people on here are easily distracted with all of the other noise. To each their own, but it's good to compare options. Your method obviously helped prove why this is important. For us, currently, I don't think we have broken $2,000 total for a week of cruising. Not including hotels at ports. I don't think it is bare bones, because we still literally do everything we want to. If I want a fancy meal, excursion, or drink, I do it. I stay far away from the notion of "I'm on vacation, so I need to have everything, in unlimited form".
  14. You should work for their marketing department. Great presentation on all of the benefits, just with the old omitted price trick. Somewhere along the line, marketing got sophisticated enough to convince people that paying 2-4x more for stuff and bundling in extras, is a massive savings. It's definitely a great cruise line. I may even sail them sooner than later. The mass market model won because not everyone wants to spend and arm and a leg on stuff that has no value to them. Which is exactly what one-size fits all approaches are, no matter how much you debate them. You are correct that some people will come in and spend more than some other lines may include for a similar or better price, with a different experience. It isn't for everyone though, as you often valiantly fight for
  15. Ratios are overrated and deceptive. There are lots of factors that skew those numbers. If you have a poorly conceived main venue like a theater, pool, or club, ratios mean nothing. With that said, I wouldn't be mad if ships did get a little less crowded. Other than that, I could care less about the rest.
  • Create New...