What happens if the bookings are so low Carnival cancels

[Mother27]

48 minutes ago, amyotravel said:

This is also a first because of the abundance of real time social media discussion (like here! ha!).

Exactly! These days it's "all news-all the time" - including social media - like almost never before. Our cruise isn't until September, so I'm not worried - yet. It's hard, though, with "news" (and "advice") coming at you from every direction.

[1kaper]

4 minutes ago, Mother27 said:

Exactly! These days it's "all news-all the time" - including social media - like almost never before. Our cruise isn't until September, so I'm not worried - yet. It's hard, though, with "news" (and "advice") coming at you from every direction.

the best part about not going until September is you should have a much better view of how things are handled, how big of a concern this is, etc.  You’ll have much more information by then. 

[missholly24]

On 3/7/2020 at 10:40 AM, tonit964 said:

I think most people are more worried about being quarantined than the virus and that's why they are choosing to cancel.

They have never had anyone quarantined for the flu or Noro before.

That's me! I'm only slightly worried about quarantined (who can check out of life for 2 weeks? LOL) and zero percent worried about the actual virus d/t my relatively young age. People shouldn't cruise over 65-70 right now in my opinion. 

[1kaper]

Just now, missholly24 said:

That's me! I'm only slightly worried about quarantined (who can check out of life for 2 weeks? LOL) and zero percent worried about the actual virus d/t my relatively young age. People shouldn't cruise over 65-70 right now in my opinion. 

My concern was quarantine on the ship, which I didn’t think they’d do after the first Princess. And it looks like they won’t now. Still watching to see how this second one goes. 
I don’t want to be quarantined but I think we could manage. We are all also low risk. 
 

my biggest concern now is the government warnings.  Canada is bringing those second cruise ship passengers home but my concern is they might get to the point where they no longer do that and what would that mean for us. 
 

as for now we are still going. I have some time to cancel so it’s just wait and see. 

[Mother27]

6 minutes ago, 1kaper said:

the best part about not going until September is you should have a much better view of how things are handled, how big of a concern this is, etc.  You’ll have much more information by then. 

That's what is keeping me "sane".

[missholly24]

7 minutes ago, 1kaper said:

My concern was quarantine on the ship, which I didn’t think they’d do after the first Princess. And it looks like they won’t now. Still watching to see how this second one goes. 
I don’t want to be quarantined but I think we could manage. We are all also low risk. 
 

my biggest concern now is the government warnings.  Canada is bringing those second cruise ship passengers home but my concern is they might get to the point where they no longer do that and what would that mean for us. 
 

as for now we are still going. I have some time to cancel so it’s just wait and see. 

Yes same here. We don't sail until August. We should know tons by then. It might just blow over. I'm a nurse and my gut tells me many many people have this virus and we just don't know. Mortality is pretty low so that's encouraging. Cautiously optimistic! 

[Joe817]

18 minutes ago, Mother27 said:

That's what is keeping me "sane".

Us too! 🙏

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, FLAlaska said:

I try to use my logic. I don't recall this reaction with the Swine Flu which WAS more deadly and was actually called a pandemic. Unless the governments aren't telling us something, the reaction to this virus seems way out of proportion to all the other virus and flu's we've seen.  I take a step back. There are over a billion people in China, and 80,000 were infected, 3000 died. There are over 350 million in the US, and we are looking at 14 deaths and 500 infections. Every life matters, but those numbers are minor.  

 

Even the percentages of people on the cruise ships that got infected were small. It all seems much ado about nothing, TO THIS POINT. But we all handle things our own way and media driven fear doesn't do any one any good.

 

Except the US is already at 500 cases and 22 deaths and we are still in the very early stages of the outbreak here. China did a great job of clamping down on the infected areas. I don't see that happening here. I think exponential spread in the US and worldwide is still coming. 

[1kaper]

34 minutes ago, missholly24 said:

Yes same here. We don't sail until August. We should know tons by then. It might just blow over. I'm a nurse and my gut tells me many many people have this virus and we just don't know. Mortality is pretty low so that's encouraging. Cautiously optimistic! 

and shortly before I posted in this thread Canada’s Chief public health officer is recommending Canadians avoid all cruise ship travel. And that any Canadian who does is not that the government will get them home. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by 1kaper

[oldracer]

We have three cruises scheduled; Apr 11 2020 Carnival Vista, Sep 5 2020 Royal Princess Cruise Tour to Alaska and May 5 2021 to Asia on Grand Princess. The one in April we are taking our two oldest Granddaughters (10 & 12). No plans to cancel. I think the other two are far enough out that there will enough data to make definitive decisions based on much more solid facts. Full speed ahead, just don't cancel our cruise because the government is trying to make themselves look good by doing something.

[ksmcdonald]

[Stick93]

I like my odds - put in age and health status and I am ready to board!

[sanger727]

14 hours ago, ksmcdonald said:

 

And it is incredibly inaccurate and deceptive to compare the seasonal flu which has been around for a hundred years and has spread so far and wide that it has the ability to infection a billion people a year to a brand new novel virus that has been around for 2-3 months and has just entered the US within the last few weeks. That's a bit like saying Coca cola is a better product than a start ups competing beverage because they have more sales. Come back to this graphic in a year or two and see how the two actually compare. I'm not saying one is more dangerous than the other; I think that data at this point is insufficient to make that claim. But this data is a ridiculous comparison.

[ksmcdonald]

33 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

And it is incredibly inaccurate and deceptive to compare the seasonal flu which has been around for a hundred years and has spread so far and wide that it has the ability to infection a billion people a year to a brand new novel virus that has been around for 2-3 months and has just entered the US within the last few weeks. That's a bit like saying Coca cola is a better product than a start ups competing beverage because they have more sales. Come back to this graphic in a year or two and see how the two actually compare. I'm not saying one is more dangerous than the other; I think that data at this point is insufficient to make that claim. But this data is a ridiculous comparison.

 

Deaths are always serious but in outbreaks of viruses, (especially new viruses) fatalities always start out high since the most susceptible to catch the virus are also most susceptible to die from it's effects... as it spreads and more general population (read healthier people) catch it and the number of deaths drops. With proper quarantine we can stop the spread... but then those initial statistics will remain to skew the perception of the fatal nature of that particular outbreak.  

 

There are thousands of people that have this virus that don't even know it or are not sick enough to even go to a doctor.  They just feel bad for a few days.  Most people have not even been tested, especially the ones that aren't sick enough to seek medical help.  The numbers the news is talking about are people that have actually been tested (which is a very, very small percent of people who actually have it).  Once the non-tested corona virus numbers are added into the equation, then the perceived danger  will most likely go down.

 

 

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

52 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

And it is incredibly inaccurate and deceptive to compare the seasonal flu which has been around for a hundred years and has spread so far and wide that it has the ability to infection a billion people a year to a brand new novel virus that has been around for 2-3 months and has just entered the US within the last few weeks. That's a bit like saying Coca cola is a better product than a start ups competing beverage because they have more sales. Come back to this graphic in a year or two and see how the two actually compare. I'm not saying one is more dangerous than the other; I think that data at this point is insufficient to make that claim. But this data is a ridiculous comparison.

 

14 minutes ago, ksmcdonald said:

 

Deaths are always serious but in outbreaks of viruses, (especially new viruses) fatalities always start out high since the most susceptible to catch the virus are also most susceptible to die from it's effects... as it spreads and more general population (read healthier people) catch it and the number of deaths drops. With proper quarantine we can stop the spread... but then those initial statistics will remain to skew the perception of the fatal nature of that particular outbreak.  

 

There are thousands of people that have this virus that don't even know it or are not sick enough to even go to a doctor.  They just feel bad for a few days.  Most people have not even been tested, especially the ones that aren't sick enough to seek medical help.  The numbers the news is talking about are people that have actually been tested (which is a very, very small percent of people who actually have it).  Once the non-tested corona virus numbers are added into the equation, then the perceived danger  will most likely go down.

 

 

 

To connect these 2 posts: 

 

The latter post explains why the posted stats in question are relevant.  The flu numbers don't have a high percentage of unreported cases.  Further, the fact remains, people in the US should be more concerned with flu. 

[sanger727]

58 minutes ago, ksmcdonald said:

 

Deaths are always serious but in outbreaks of viruses, (especially new viruses) fatalities always start out high since the most susceptible to catch the virus are also most susceptible to die from it's effects... as it spreads and more general population (read healthier people) catch it and the number of deaths drops. With proper quarantine we can stop the spread... but then those initial statistics will remain to skew the perception of the fatal nature of that particular outbreak.  

 

There are thousands of people that have this virus that don't even know it or are not sick enough to even go to a doctor.  They just feel bad for a few days.  Most people have not even been tested, especially the ones that aren't sick enough to seek medical help.  The numbers the news is talking about are people that have actually been tested (which is a very, very small percent of people who actually have it).  Once the non-tested corona virus numbers are added into the equation, then the perceived danger  will most likely go down.

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, PrincessArlena'sDad said:

 

To connect these 2 posts: 

 

The latter post explains why the posted stats in question are relevant.  The flu numbers don't have a high percentage of unreported cases.  Further, the fact remains, people in the US should be more concerned with flu. 

 

 Just to be clear. I was not making a judgement about which virus is more dangerous or more fatal. I don't think data exists right now to compare the two. Which was my point. People keep saying that the flu is more dangerous because there are many many many more deaths. That is a horribly skewed way of looking at it because the flu has been around so much longer and has had time to spread to so many more people. At this point we don't know which virus will be more dangerous but you can't compare the flu kills hundreds of thousands worldwide to the coronavirus killing 3-4,000 and say that the flu is inherently more dangerous. Which is why I compared this to comparing a global company to a local company. Of course the global companies sales are more. they have been around longer and the infrastructure to sell and market to more markets with more brand recognition. Those are not apples to apples comparisons based on the raw number of sales.

Edited March 10, 2020 by sanger727

[ksmcdonald]

32 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

 

 Just to be clear. I was not making a judgement about which virus is more dangerous or more fatal. I don't think data exists right now to compare the two. Which was my point. People keep saying that the flu is more dangerous because there are many many many more deaths. That is a horribly skewed way of looking at it because the flu has been around so much longer and has had time to spread to so many more people. At this point we don't know which virus will be more dangerous but you can't compare the flu kills hundreds of thousands worldwide to the coronavirus killing 3-4,000 and say that the flu is inherently more dangerous. Which is why I compared this to comparing a global company to a local company. Of course the global companies sales are more. they have been around longer and the infrastructure to sell and market to more markets with more brand recognition. Those are not apples to apples comparisons based on the raw number of sales.

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody is staying home because they are afraid of catching the flu, which is much more prevalent in everyday life than this virus.  So why would people consider staying home because of this virus?  The coronavirus and flu are both dangerous for the same group of people, the elderly and people with comprised immune systems or underlying medical issues.  It is more likely you will get the flu when cruising than corona.  So people should stop overacting.   If you aren't afraid of catching the flu (which is just as dangerous), then you shouldn't be afraid of cornoavirus.  The media is blowing this so far out of portion.  

 

 

[sanger727]

31 minutes ago, ksmcdonald said:

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody is staying home because they are afraid of catching the flu, which is much more prevalent in everyday life than this virus.  So why would people consider staying home because of this virus?  The coronavirus and flu are both dangerous for the same group of people, the elderly and people with comprised immune systems or underlying medical issues.  It is more likely you will get the flu when cruising than corona.  So people should stop overacting.   If you aren't afraid of catching the flu (which is just as dangerous), then you shouldn't be afraid of cornoavirus.  The media is blowing this so far out of portion.  

 

 

 

100% agree. While I did feel better with the flu because I always get my flu shot (I am aware it's not 100% effective). I did not change my lifestyle choices based on it being flu season and I have no intention of changing my lifestyle choices based on it being coronavirus season. 

[Earthworm Jim]

On 3/9/2020 at 9:14 AM, buckeyefrank said:

Not true at all.  Nobody knows the mortality rate of the corona virus because there isn't enough of a history.  Almost all the people that have died, have died WITH corono virus, not necessarily BECAUSE of corona virus.  Most had at least 2 pre-existing medical conditions.  Not to mention, there are plenty of cases that are unreported because the people have no or very minor cold-like symptoms.  It may end up being that way, but nobody knows.

 

Well of course they have other issues. That's true of flu deaths too. Healthy people don't die of the flu. And yes, coronavirus cases go unreported. But probably 95% of flu cases are unreported. Do you report it when you have the flu? Of course not. You stay and bed a day or two and go right back to work.

 

Stop spreading misinformation. For any of you confused about which one of us is right, here are some links so you can see for yourself:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/10/can-face-mask-stop-coronavirus-covid-19-facts-checked

"This would make Covid-19 about 10 times more deadly than seasonal flu..."

 

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/03/03/flu-update

"Based on the latest data, the coronavirus appears to be deadlier."

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the 3.4% mortality rate for COVID-19 is higher than the flu's global mortality rate. "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected,"

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

"Doctors and scientists are working on estimating the mortality rate of COVID-19, but at present, it is thought to be higher than that of most strains of the flu."

Edited March 10, 2020 by Earthworm Jim

[buckeyefrank]

18 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Well of course they have other issues. That's true of flu deaths too. Healthy people don't die of the flu. And yes, coronavirus cases go unreported. But probably 95% of flu cases are unreported. Do you report it when you have the flu? Of course not. You stay and bed a day or two and go right back to work.

 

Stop spreading misinformation. For any of you confused about which one of us is right, here are some links so you can see for yourself:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/10/can-face-mask-stop-coronavirus-covid-19-facts-checked

"This would make Covid-19 about 10 times more deadly than seasonal flu..."

 

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/03/03/flu-update

"Based on the latest data, the coronavirus appears to be deadlier."

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the 3.4% mortality rate for COVID-19 is higher than the flu's global mortality rate. "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected,"

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

"Doctors and scientists are working on estimating the mortality rate of COVID-19, but at present, it is thought to be higher than that of most strains of the flu."

Minor point but there's no possible way the numbers produced by the CDC for the flu every year have 95% of the people who get it, not report it.  This year they have reported that at least 34,000,000 cases.  If 95% of the flu cases were unreported, there would be 680,000,000 cases in the US.  Almost triple the population.  The numbers they are reporting for the flu infections are a SWAG (scientific wild a** guess) and most likely include a large buffer for the 95% of unreported cases.  The numbers for the COVID-19 virus in the US are generally thought to be only those people tested and confirmed to have the virus.  That's a HUGE difference and an apples to oranges comparison.

 

I am not spreading misinformation.  At this point nobody knows the mortality rate of this virus.  Even the articles you mention above say "appears", "estimate", etc.  Almost every new virus when it comes out has a massive spike in deaths initially.  Once is starts spreading to the general population, the rate goes down.

 

At the end of the day, I am really confused as to why there is such widespread panic.  H1N1 was much worse than the current virus and there was no mass hysteria involved.  I'm in Ohio and we have 3 cases confirmed in the north-east quadrant.  Why are colleges and school systems closing down?  Why do we have no TP?  Why are people hording bottled water when we have running water delivered right to our homes the last I checked.

Edited March 11, 2020 by buckeyefrank

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

 

18 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Well of course they have other issues. That's true of flu deaths too. Healthy people don't die of the flu. And yes, coronavirus cases go unreported. But probably 95% of flu cases are unreported. Do you report it when you have the flu? Of course not. You stay and bed a day or two and go right back to work.

 

Stop spreading misinformation. For any of you confused about which one of us is right, here are some links so you can see for yourself:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/10/can-face-mask-stop-coronavirus-covid-19-facts-checked

"This would make Covid-19 about 10 times more deadly than seasonal flu..."

 

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/03/03/flu-update

"Based on the latest data, the coronavirus appears to be deadlier."

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the 3.4% mortality rate for COVID-19 is higher than the flu's global mortality rate. "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected,"

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

"Doctors and scientists are working on estimating the mortality rate of COVID-19, but at present, it is thought to be higher than that of most strains of the flu."

 

19 minutes ago, buckeyefrank said:

Minor point but there's no possible way the numbers produced by the CDC for the flu every year have 95% of the people who get it, not report it.  This year they have reported that at least 34,000,000 cases.  If 95% of the flu cases were unreported, there would be 680,000,000 cases in the US.  Almost triple the population.  The numbers they are reporting for the flu infections are a SWAG (scientific wild a** guess) and most likely include a large buffer for the 95% of unreported cases.  The numbers for the COVID-19 virus in the US are generally thought to be only those people tested and confirmed to have the virus.  That's a HUGE difference and an apples to oranges comparison.

 

I am not spreading misinformation.  At this point nobody knows the mortality rate of this virus.  Even the articles you mention above say "appears", "estimate", etc.  Almost every new virus when it comes out has a massive spike in deaths initially.  Once is starts spreading to the general population, the rate goes down.

 

At the end of the day, I am really confused as to why there is such widespread panic.  H1N1 was much worse than the current virus and there was no mass hysteria involved.  I'm in Ohio and we have 3 cases confirmed in the north-east quadrant.  Why are colleges and school systems closing down?  Why do we have no TP?  Why are people hording bottled water when we have running water delivered right to our homes the last I checked.

Buckeye Frank: you beat me to the punch.  I was going to say the same thing, re: flu numbers include unreported cases, but coronavirus numbers do not.  Which means it is completely non-sensical to try and compare the two mortality rates.

 

Bottom line: they have NO IDEA what percentage of coronavirus cases are unreported.  

 

As to why the widespread hysteria?  Media coverage. They love their fake news.  Whether it to be solely profit driven (click bait + printed edition sales) or not... that would be speculation.  And, the sheeple just follow.

 

Our Costco was sold out of all dairy products.  To all those people hoarding milk: it's going to go bad anyway before it can all be consumed, and just go to waste.

[Jerseygirl1416]

18 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

But probably 95% of flu cases are unreported. Do you report it when you have the flu? Of course not. You stay and bed a day or two and go right back to work.

 

I absolutely disagree with this. Lots of people go to the doctor when they think they have the flu because most know it’s a long time with symptoms and they try to get medications like Tamiflu. So know I don’t think 95% of flu cases are unreported. I think that’s complete misinformation. It’s probably more like 95% of corona virus cases that are unreported at this point.

[Radiioman46]

Speaking to those who are concerned about being quarantined:

 

How many cruise ships have been quarantined because of this Corona Virus? 

 

Two? Out of over 230+ cruise ships world wide? Two Princess ships. Fact check me on this. 

 

I guess I'm plagued with looking at things with a math/probability bias. MyBad. 

[Ihearttravel11]

2 minutes ago, Radiioman46 said:

Speaking to those who are concerned about being quarantined:

 

How many cruise ships have been quarantined because of this Corona Virus? 

 

Two? Out of over 230+ cruise ships world wide? Two Princess ships. Fact check me on this. 

 

I guess I'm plagued with looking at things with a math/probability bias. MyBad. 

I was thinking about this earlier. I am a worrier and Type-A personality, so I talk myself onto the ledge and talk myself down. This was my basis in thinking about things earlier today. We travel in May, and will decide at the very end of this month if we will stay on plan or reschedule.

[Earthworm Jim]

1 hour ago, Jerseygirl1416 said:

I absolutely disagree with this. Lots of people go to the doctor when they think they have the flu because most know it’s a long time with symptoms and they try to get medications like Tamiflu. So know I don’t think 95% of flu cases are unreported. I think that’s complete misinformation. It’s probably more like 95% of corona virus cases that are unreported at this point.

 

Yeah, agreed. 95% is probably an over estimate. Maybe 80%? Either way, the point is that relatively few cases of either flu or coronavirus cases are actually known. My guess is a somewhat higher percentage of coronavuris cases are reported than flu cases, just because flu is so routine it isn't often reported. But that's just a guess and I'd think both are well below 50% reported.

 

As far as misinformation, I wasn't quoting it as a fact. It was just my estimate. I wasn't expecting anyone would take it as a real, accurate number.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Earthworm Jim