HAL's Poor Response to Corona Virus

[MAVIP]

12 minutes ago, USN59-79 said:

That is true at the moment.  What we experienced on the Westerdam was that doesn't matter if the perception is that you could have an infected person on board.  We were refused entry in a number of countries because we had no way of proving that no one was infected.  

But you certainly read in USA that tests were flown out to the Princess ship on the Californian coast? And I understand that worldwide there will be a lack of certain parts of the test instruments because of the more or less stand still of the Chinese production facilities? And how many personnel at a laboratory will be needed to test the samples from all passengers and personnel on ONE cruiseship?

The right thing to do IMO is: controll embarking passengers. I read the HAL "rules" and it seems to me that is the best thing to do with the knowledge of today. 

But, of course, we follow the news and rules of our health authorities, both nearing our eighties and with light health issues (like almost everybody our age). I understand your concern and wish you wisdom with your decision. 

[BarbarianPaul]

58 minutes ago, USN59-79 said:

That is true at the moment.  What we experienced on the Westerdam was that doesn't matter if the perception is that you could have an infected person on board.  We were refused entry in a number of countries because we had no way of proving that no one was infected.  

All true, but Holland America also made the decision to dock in Hong Kong and board 800 new passengers when some other lines had already stopped, and the city was already in a state of emergency. Granted, all of this was in its early stages, but I wouldn’t describe these actions as “an over abundance of caution.”

[MAVIP]

23 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

All true, but Holland America also made the decision to dock in Hong Kong and board 800 new passengers when some other lines had already stopped, and the city was already in a state of emergency. Granted, all of this was in its early stages, but I wouldn’t describe these actions as “an over abundance of caution.”

Quite a few were not allowed to board depending on passport and countries visited, if I remember well.

[BarbarianPaul]

2 hours ago, MAVIP said:

Quite a few were not allowed to board depending on passport and countries visited, if I remember well.

I just don't think they should have docked in Hong Kong at all.

[USN59-79]

18 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

I just don't think they should have docked in Hong Kong at all.

I am not so sure about that.  Hong Kong is a city of about 7 million.  While there were some cases of the virus there at the time, I suspect that there are more in the Seattle area now than were there on 1 February.  Should Seattle be shut down as a port for the upcoming Alaska cruise season?  One thing I thought was strange was when we arrived in Cambodia the ship arranged my flight home.  The ticket was from Phnom Penh to Kuala Lumper to Hong Kong to Seattle.  I asked at the front desk if they thought is was smart to route me through Hong Kong, when Hong Kong seemed to be the cause of our problems.  They replied "Not to worry, the airport is a secure area."  Eventually Malaysia refused to let that plane fly to Kuala Lumper, so it became a moot point.  

[kazu]

3 hours ago, BarbarianPaul said:

I just don't think they should have docked in Hong Kong at all.

 

Hind sight is wonderful, isn’t it?  There were lots of precautions taken.  

 

And while you are criticizing HAL and their decisions, feel free to pick on the air lines too -  Air Canada was flying to Hong Kong despite barring China generally.

 

Most were.  Hong Kong was considered low risk at the time.

 

[BarbarianPaul]

25 minutes ago, kazu said:

 

Hind sight is wonderful, isn’t it?  There were lots of precautions taken.  

 

And while you are criticizing HAL and their decisions, feel free to pick on the air lines too -  Air Canada was flying to Hong Kong despite barring China generally.

 

Most were.  Hong Kong was considered low risk at the time.
 

[BarbarianPaul]

26 minutes ago, kazu said:

 

Hind sight is wonderful, isn’t it?  There were lots of precautions taken.  

 

And while you are criticizing HAL and their decisions, feel free to pick on the air lines too -  Air Canada was flying to Hong Kong despite barring China generally.

 

Most were.  Hong Kong was considered low risk at the time.

 

Kazu...

 

My wife and I I were on the Westerdam from Jan. 16 to Feb. 1 and disembarked in Hong Kong. It felt weird and we didn’t feel either safe or comfortable. It’s not 20/20 hindsight because I was there and experienced it and the city didn’t feel “low risk” at all. All the unique tourist spots were closed and the entire population was in masks, as you’d expect during a state of emergency. The Hong Kong Art Museum, which had reopened after a multi year remodel, which we were excited to see, was of course closed, along with every other museum in the city. 
 

Several fellow cruisers who were traveling on for the next few weeks were afraid to get off. But we had to. We had booked a post cruise hotel stay, so were forced to stay the night. 
 

I’ve had many wonderful cruises on HA, and hopefully will in the future, but, like Shanghai and Beijing, I think they should have bypassed Hong Kong. I know many airlines were still flying to Hong Kong. Who knows, if they weren’t, my wife and I might still be there!

Our experience was obviously nothing in comparison to what our fellow passengers who continued on endured. But it’s still not a pleasant memory. 
 

Regarding the Hong Kong debarkation, I didn’t experience any precautions taken. 

 

[USN59-79]

We felt the city was very low risk, despite the fact that about 90% of the population was wearing masks.  The crew of our Cathay Pacific flight also wore masks throughout the flight.  We brought masks with us and wore them in Hong Kong.  We got in early and went directly to the ship to drop off our bags.  Then took the shuttle to Plaza Hollywood and the Metro to downtown Kowloon.  Found a restaurant that served roast goose and had a great lunch, did a little shopping, then went back to the ship to be on board for the lifeboat drill.  No one on the ship wore a mask, so we put them away.  With 800 new passengers boarding in Hong Kong, I don't know how they could have substituted a new port in just a day or two.  My complaint was that they insisted that they were still going to China at that late date.

[MAVIP]

11 hours ago, BarbarianPaul said:

I just don't think they should have docked in Hong Kong at all.

Easy to say. What about the (number mentioned by you) 800 (extra!) passengers  left in Hongkong in that case? 

Edited March 9, 2020 by MAVIP
in that case

[Level six]

8 hours ago, USN59-79 said:

My complaint was that they insisted that they were still going to China at that late date.

 

I think they had already changed the itinerary for the FEB 1 cruise.  I was supposed to be on that cruise and the itinerary change came the day we were to leave to HK, about Jan 28 if I recall.  

 

Of course, I did not go.  I am glad I made that decision.  I would have hated the sail to no where cruise, some enjoyed it, I wouldn't have.  

 

Plus, passengers were only tested once in Cambodia?  I think  two tests are needed to prove no virus.  Please correct me if I am wrong about passengers being tested only once. Anyway, I know no one tested positive, but I would have hated feeling like I may be a carrier of the virus and spread to others in my family or community.

[BarbarianPaul]

9 hours ago, USN59-79 said:

We felt the city was very low risk, despite the fact that about 90% of the population was wearing masks.  The crew of our Cathay Pacific flight also wore masks throughout the flight.  We brought masks with us and wore them in Hong Kong.  We got in early and went directly to the ship to drop off our bags.  Then took the shuttle to Plaza Hollywood and the Metro to downtown Kowloon.  Found a restaurant that served roast goose and had a great lunch, did a little shopping, then went back to the ship to be on board for the lifeboat drill.  No one on the ship wore a mask, so we put them away.  With 800 new passengers boarding in Hong Kong, I don't know how they could have substituted a new port in just a day or two.  My complaint was that they insisted that they were still going to China at that late date.

The captain had announced prior to our arrival in Hong Kong that Shanghai had been cancelled and the next cruise would conclude in Yokohama. 
 

Pointless now to argue the wisdom of the stop in Hong Kong. Why don’t we move on.

 

 

[BarbarianPaul]

5 hours ago, MAVIP said:

Easy to say. What about the (number mentioned by you) 800 (extra!) passengers  left in Hongkong in that case? 

I know, it is easy to say, and it would have been a logistical nightmare. 

[Level six]

True, doesn't matter now, but maybe it will help in future similar situations. 

 

 

[gilboman]

15 hours ago, kazu said:

 

Hind sight is wonderful, isn’t it?  There were lots of precautions taken.  

 

And while you are criticizing HAL and their decisions, feel free to pick on the air lines too -  Air Canada was flying to Hong Kong despite barring China generally.

 

Most were.  Hong Kong was considered low risk at the time.

 

Hong Kong is still low risk. much lower than the US at this point and all of Europe really. But lots of cruises still departing from the US

[Level six]

2 hours ago, gilboman said:

Hong Kong is still low risk. much lower than the US at this point and all of Europe really. But lots of cruises still departing from the US

 But at the time, when Wuhan was being shut down, and  over 500,000 people from Wuhan took trains to HK the week before, it seemed pretty high risk.  And flights were cancelled from US to HK the day the ship left HK on FEB 1, so someone thought it was high risk.

  

[sail7seas]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:26 PM, npcl said:

I don't expect so.  The cruise lines choices now are either try an keep sailing where they can.  Maybe being a little more proactive on canceling and relocating ships.  Or start figuring out if they can pay their bills including loan costs on their ships without using bankruptcy protection. I expect that there is any more spread out of China that you might see new builds orders being canceled or delayed.

 

On the other hand if this does turn into a pandemic with the current numbers then things will go back to normal fairly quickly because no reason for a government to quarantine if the virus is already wide spread in their country.

 

In any case I expect a hard time for the cruise industry and some very very cheap fares next year.

 

 

 

WHO,  yesterday,   declared corona virus a Pandemic,  I t has and is spreading word-wide.

 

 

 

Are  you sure all (most) of the cruise lines will   be sailing next year?  Viking's announcement today, (and Princess's     do not bode well)   IMO

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by sail7seas

[iancal]

A number of HAL’s post Hong. Kong statements/ press releases were simply not factual.  Claiming that there were no positive c virus passengers on board because of testing might be acceptable if you consider checking someone’s temperature a check.  
 

In actual fact at that point in time they had no medically acceptable way of testing for the virus. HAL’s statements were, to be generous, misleading in the extreme.

Edited March 12, 2020 by iancal

[CI66774]

On 3/9/2020 at 10:21 AM, gilboman said:

Hong Kong is still low risk. much lower than the US at this point and all of Europe really. But lots of cruises still departing from the US

Not true. Per million (in population), HK has a much higher infection rate than the U.S.

[awhcruiser]

Holland America Line stands by the difficult decision of our sister-brand Princess Cruises to suspend their cruise operations. However, our cruises remain fully operational. We want to assure our guests that we are closely monitoring the global updates and changes. If and when changes need to be made, we will communicate with all affected guests. We also appreciate your patience as we experience an exceptional volume of calls. We continue to prioritize guests who are currently sailing or due to depart in the next week. Thank you for your continued loyalty and support.

 

[Brentwood Bay]

The "low" infection rate in the US is almost certainly due to the woeful lack of testing.  South Korea tests 10000 people per day.  The US still hasn't tested that many to date.  Time to wake up and get serious.

[iancal]

My understanding is it that the test actually requires 2 tests from each person.  So when an organization or state claims they have done X number of tests it is for the media.  Divide that number by two to determine how many people have been tested.

 

China appears to be making great progress.  Italy appears to be on the front side of the curve.  Not so sure about the US....still early days.

Edited March 12, 2020 by iancal

[USN59-79]

1 hour ago, iancal said:

My understanding is it that the test actually requires 2 tests from each person.  So when an organization or state claims they have done X number of tests it is for the media.  Divide that number by two to determine how many people have been tested.

 

China appears to be making great progress.  Italy appears to be on the front side of the curve.  Not so sure about the US....still early days.

I don't believe that two tests per person is the protocol.  When we were tested in Cambodia, our temperature was taken, then a swab was inserted deep in the nasal passage and another swab inserted in the throat.  The end of the swab was cut off and it was inserted in a test tube, sealed, labeled, and sent to the Pasteur Institute Lab in Phnom Penh.  Within 24 hours the results were returned.  I think that a second test would only be done if the first test had come back positive.  The way the Chinese Government controls all information in their country, I would be skeptical of any information that they publish.

[ozzie0075]

2 hours ago, Brentwood Bay said:

The "low" infection rate in the US is almost certainly due to the woeful lack of testing.  South Korea tests 10000 people per day.  The US still hasn't tested that many to date.  Time to wake up and get serious.

 

Agree the US was woefully unprepared for this outbreak and is going to pay for for a while.  The last 24hrs has been insane with all of the closures.  Hopefully Hal decides to put passengers health before profits like some other lines have already done. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. 

[iancal]

This is a dynamic situation.

 

Give HAL some time.  Don’t forget, HAL is very much a follower, not a leader.  My guess is that they will eventually do the right thing.  It simply takes them more time.