What does the future of cruising look like?

[Paulchili]

42 minutes ago, CintiPam said:

SPB did a great job creating the tour of St. Petersburg I requested because I was trying to fit the highlights of my 3-1/2 day visit with my sister

A little OT but if anyone is in SPB on Monday, they should request a visit to Hermitage on Monday. It is closed to the public but open to some tours. We were there with SPB tours practically alone - what a way to visit the Hermitage.

[OnTheJourney]

17 hours ago, Hoopster95 said:

 

 

 

 

Zero... and I mean zero ... sympathy and some harsh comments.

 

 

I have seen lots of mean comments on youtube relative to cruising ever since the CV came about. This sort of thing is definitely, shall we say, giving cruising - in general - a "bad rap".

 

However, while there is never an excuse for incivility, in this case I think the commenters have a valid point in indicating that the Zaandam really should not have set sail knowing the exponentiating situation. They left on 3/7 for a two-week trip. By the 3rd already there were a bit over 1,000 cases in Argentina (which is where they departed from) and by the 7th over 100k globally. I would have though that, following the Diamond Princess issue, most of the cruise lines would have started shutting down. What's happening now is an unfortunate consequence of them not having done so until the 13th in most cases. That there are still more than 12 ships still out there basically stranded is a terrible and unfortunate situation that could have easily been prevented. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by OnTheJourney

[JVNYC]

Forgive me for saying this but those people were dopes to take a cruise at that time. All those comments are right and true! They were fools! And Holland America are even bigger fools!

Edited April 1, 2020 by JVNYC

[OnTheJourney]

JVNYC - that's perhaps being a bit tough on them, but I get where you're coming from. Part of what happened here is that several of the ships still out there were doing lengthy world cruise itineraries, and so started well before there was either any sign of the virus at all and certainly well before anyone expected it would become a pandemic. However, that being said, the same ships likely had ample time - once they knew the situation was developing - to adjust schedules, cut them short, and arrive safely back into port. Some of these others, though, like the Zaandam - still went out in March. While there is big money to be made for cruise lines with each sailing, there is also big money to be lost when these trips don't happen, so these decisions are not made lightly. Money should come second to health, of course, but I won't go farther down that path since it meanders towards the political arena, e.g. controversy over reopening businesses perhaps sooner than would be recommended by the health agencies and so forth. 

 

Our cruise was set to depart on the 19th. We fretted over what to do for a few weeks, even up to around the 9th or 10th (like many, trying to be positive and hoping that maybe everything would still be ok).  The decision was obviously made for us. So, in that regard, I guess it could be said that we were being foolish also and hoping against hope. Unless one IS a cruiser, it's probably hard to fully relate to the mentality associated with it, namely, how much we all look forward to these voyages and hate when something comes along that necessitates a cancellation. Often the planning for cruises takes place a year or two in advance, so it's not an easy pill to swallow to see it go down the tubes (let alone if a loss of money is involved).

 

I might venture to say also that for those who are NOT cruisers, they likely look at the whole thing as is being reflected in many youtube comments  - stuff like, "you couldn't pay me to get on one of those things", "they're all floating petri dishes", and so forth. These people don't fully "get it". This is not to defend the actions of cruise lines for still sailing as the CV situation unfolded, but rather to try to and place in some perspective some of the comments. Let's be honest - cruising has always been considered as sort of a 'luxury', so I'm betting that a good number of the people making the nastiest comments may well be those who, shall we say, do not have the 'means' of even considering trying it. I may well be wrong though. Just my two cents...

Edited April 1, 2020 by OnTheJourney

[JVNYC]

Good points OnTheJourney....but let’s be honest, boarding a ship in March after what happened on the Diamond Princess was plain stupidity. This thing had already unfolded as a pandemic. People should use common sense. Holland America is far from a luxury experience. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by JVNYC

[OnTheJourney]

I won't forward your comment to HAL.  🙂  I was moreso implying that, to many people, cruising, in general, is probably considered somewhat of a luxury vacation - moreso than the ubiquitous week-at-the-beach, shall we say. But, to each his own. I love cruising, but equally love an uncomplicated car trip also - especially one that doesn't involve having to fly. I'm not trying to defend people's decisions. Undoubtedly some pax may have canceled that sailing?  

[pinotlover]

Once a vaccine is developed, should the cruise line demand all passengers to have gotten the vaccine, and show vaccinations records proving such, before boarding.

Simple question.

 

If not, and they choose to be an antiVax cruise line, for monetary purposes, who is then stupid for taking those ships: the cruise line, or the passengers that aren’t antivax? The cruise line will have stated their policy and concerns of overall passenger welfare by its actions. For them it’ll only be about money.

[edgee]

RCCL corp just announced that all cruises are cancelled until September 1. 

 

https://money.yahoo.com/royal-caribbean-extends-operations-suspension-141602627.html

 

Will likely set the tone now for entire industry.😔

[d9704011]

5 minutes ago, edgee said:

RCCL corp just announced that all cruises are cancelled until September 1. 

 

https://money.yahoo.com/royal-caribbean-extends-operations-suspension-141602627.html

 

Will likely set the tone now for entire industry.😔

Already been debunked.  Inaccurate yahoo news reporting.

[edgee]

1 minute ago, d9704011 said:

Already been debunked.  Inaccurate yahoo news reporting.

Very happy to have been wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[deadzone1003]

I would cut the Zaandam a little slack.  They were in South America at the end of February.  They would be in the same catergory as all those World Cruise ships.  They thought they were safe.  Mayor Bill de Blasio thought it was safe in New York City for everyone to go about their business before he started changing his mind on March 5th.  Now, most passengers flying to the Zaandam probably left on the 5th or earlier.  Buenos Aires is very far from the Far East.  You are hearding about the Grand Princess and the problems they are having, but it is the West Coast, so far away.  You are one of the passenger who would be boarding the Zaandam.  You thought you were safe because the virus was so far away.  When you get to Buenos Aires, you may start hearing it might not be so safe.  You could choose not to board and then have to fly home at your own cost which probably would be exorbitant at the last minute.  This is your choice at that time.  Remember, hindsight is always 20-20.  At this time everybody thought they were still safe, though they may have some doubts.  I wonder how many people had canceled before having to leave their homes or refused to board the ship and flew home.  Holland America could have canceled the cruise, but they thought they were safe if they could check their passengers a little more carefully, but very few people were aware of the asymptomatic part of the Wuhan Virus.  It was a slight gamble and they lost.  Same goes with the passengers - they thought it was a small gamble and they lost.  One should ask yourself, without 20-20 hindsight, what kind of decision would you have made on March 7th or earlier?  Something tells me the vast majority of you would have taken that small gamble.

[Paulchili]

8 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

One should ask yourself, without 20-20 hindsight, what kind of decision would you have made on March 7th or earlier?  Something tells me the vast majority of you would have taken that small gamble.

We had a cruise starting on 3/8 and cancelled on 2/27 - and it was in Australia where it was "safe" then.

[deadzone1003]

17 minutes ago, Paulchili said:

We had a cruise starting on 3/8 and cancelled on 2/27 - and it was in Australia where it was "safe" then.

Paul, you're smart and lucky and you are probably well off considering the amount of travel you have done.  Myself, I would have taken that small gamble because it would have been a tidy sum that I would see myself losing, but then my wife would have freaked out and refused to board the ship.  We would have a big fight and I would probably have given in.  Just human nature.  I would be able to afford that exorbitant flight back home, but how many others would be able to?  

[Zesty Italian]

1 hour ago, deadzone1003 said:

Paul, you're smart and lucky and you are probably well off considering the amount of travel you have done.  Myself, I would have taken that small gamble because it would have been a tidy sum that I would see myself losing, but then my wife would have freaked out and refused to board the ship.  We would have a big fight and I would probably have given in.  Just human nature.  I would be able to afford that exorbitant flight back home, but how many others would be able to?  

Not well off, but wouldn't take gamble.  We weren't going on our Mar. 31 cruise more than a month before O cancelled it.

[Paulchili]

2 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

Paul, you're smart and lucky and you are probably well off considering the amount of travel you have done. 

Possibly smart and sometimes lucky but not well off - just spending my money on what we like. 

That said, I have always said and believed - better lucky than good 😀

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Paulchili

[deadzone1003]

1 hour ago, Zesty Italian said:

Not well off, but wouldn't take gamble.  We weren't going on our Mar. 31 cruise more than a month before O cancelled it.

Your are smart and lucky too.  There were others on the Zaandam who canceled just before the sailing.  I have a little sympathy about how the other passengers behaved.  We were on the Oceania Nautica, sailing from Cape Town to Singapore, on Feb. 3rd.  We had to fly through Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific on Jan. 30th.  We didn't know much about the virus at that time except for what we could find on the news and Internet.  We knew that it started in Wuhan in November.  How?, my wife told me that Chinese social media (WeChat) said people were talking about a SARS-like virus going around Wuhan in November.  We knew there were a few cases in Hong Kong, but we were only going to be in transit in Hong Kong.  So, we got our surgical masks and N95 masks and flew off to Hong Kong.  It was what you call a good gamble as not going was going to be a cost of 25K.  Naturally, during our cruise I kept track of the virus because we had to be flying through Hong Kong to San Francisco plus there will be port stops in Thailand, Malyasia, and, finally, Singapore.   Our ship decided to divert to Dubai during our stop in the Maldives though it won't be changing the itinerary until after our stops in Sri Lanka.  When we were in Dubai, cases of the virus started to pop up in the city, don't know if they were from Chinese tourists or the Iranians.  Luckily, we flew out before it started getting worst in the Middle East.  Unfortunately, our plane was full of mainland Chinese who were stuck abroad because the mainland airlines in China had shut down, they were going home in a circular fashion as Cathay Pacific was their only means home at that time.  Hong Kong airport was simply empty.  Most of the passengers were in transit from other foreign countries, so it was alot safer that it appears.  When we return from overseas, we self-quarantine ourselves for 2 weeks only to be quarantined even longer by the city of San Francisco.  I kept up with the flow of information about the disease, especially about any new avenues for treatment.  Vaccines are months away and cures are maybe further down the line.  If I may sound a little crazy to some of you, it is because I'm a little bit of an optimist and, in my mind, if this premise holds true, than this logical deduction will hold true.  Many of the premises which I perceived as showing promise and confirmed by others, I perceived as being true with a small possibility of being false.  It is what I call a small gamble, but when you have no other options, what do you really have to lose?

Edited April 1, 2020 by deadzone1003

[cruisingaussies]

On 4/1/2020 at 6:19 AM, clo said:

For me he's reason enough to not take it:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine-plaquenil.html

I’m with you there!

I saw this on the French news last week. I’m amazed that there are no references (that I’ve seen) to one of the side effects of Plaquenil, which is blindness. 

I took Plaquenil for about three months, prescribed by a rheumatologist for arthritis. I noticed that my eyesight was deteriorating, saw an ophthalmologist who told me to stop taking it immediately. As he predicted, my eyesight returned to normal about a month later. I’d noted at the time that the bad ingredient of Plaquenil is hydroxychloroquine. 

I wouldn’t be risking my health by taking this drug.

[deadzone1003]

40 minutes ago, cruisingaussies said:

I’m with you there!

I saw this on the French news last week. I’m amazed that there are no references (that I’ve seen) to one of the side effects of Plaquenil, which is blindness. 

I took Plaquenil for about three months, prescribed by a rheumatologist for arthritis. I noticed that my eyesight was deteriorating, saw an ophthalmologist who told me to stop taking it immediately. As he predicted, my eyesight returned to normal about a month later. I’d noted at the time that the bad ingredient of Plaquenil is hydroxychloroquine. 

I wouldn’t be risking my health by taking this drug.

Except that you will be taking it for 5 days and you may be risking your life if you don't take it.  Almost all drugs have long term effects.  In this case you should be looking at short term effects and drug interactions.  Some people will be allergic to this drug.  Best to talk to your doctor about your situation.

[clo]

53 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

Except that you will be taking it for 5 days and you may be risking your life if you don't take it.  Almost all drugs have long term effects.  In this case you should be looking at short term effects and drug interactions.  Some people will be allergic to this drug.  Best to talk to your doctor about your situation.

I'm gonna keep 'listening' to Dr. Fauci, who btw is now getting death threats.

[cruisingaussies]

17 minutes ago, clo said:

I'm gonna keep 'listening' to Dr. Fauci, who btw is now getting death threats.

Certainly better than the good Monsieur le Docteur Raoult. 

[clo]

4 minutes ago, cruisingaussies said:

Certainly better than the good Monsieur le Docteur Raoult. 

For sure. I guess it's part of some people's nature to believe what they want to believe regardless of the validity of the source. I get it but....

[deadzone1003]

1 hour ago, cruisingaussies said:

Certainly better than the good Monsieur le Docteur Raoult. 

https://www.silive.com/coronavirus/2020/03/two-australian-scientists-believe-they-have-found-the-cure-for-coronavirus.html

 

How about these two countrymen from Brisbane?  Myself, I don't believe it is a cure, but it is a treatment so that you would not die from the virus.  I tend to believe doctors who are actually treating the coronavirus patients or scientists working on the virus, not some journalist.  Since there are no vaccines, no cures, no approved treatments for this virus other than hydroxycholoroquine, if you have the virus and you start having shortness of breath and you are in one of the groups that are at risk, what choices do you have other than hydroxychloroquine?  It is not like you would be the first one to use it or second or the hundredth, you would be probably be in the thousandths, and maybe in the tens of thousands if the disease ever get to you.  Hydroxychloroquine has been around since 1955.  Azithromycin has been around since 1988.  The are both FDA-approved drugs for their respective use.

Edited April 2, 2020 by deadzone1003

[clo]

7 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

I tend to believe doctors who are actually treating the coronavirus patients or scientists working on the virus, not some journalist. 

Totally. Dr. Fauci says any opinions are anecdotal and small numbers.  Here's his background:

 

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director

 

And it may change but not based on that French charlatan.

[susiesan]

8 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Once a vaccine is developed, should the cruise line demand all passengers to have gotten the vaccine, and show vaccinations records proving such, before boarding.

Simple question.

 

If not, and they choose to be an antiVax cruise line, for monetary purposes, who is then stupid for taking those ships: the cruise line, or the passengers that aren’t antivax? The cruise line will have stated their policy and concerns of overall passenger welfare by its actions. For them it’ll only be about money.

Do you really think there are enough anti vaxxers to support a cruise line? Not likely.

[deadzone1003]

18 minutes ago, clo said:

Totally. Dr. Fauci says any opinions are anecdotal and small numbers.  Here's his background:

 

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director

 

And it may change but not based on that French charlatan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult

 

Does his history shows that he is a charlatan?  You may disagreed with him, but to call him a charlatan needs alot more evidence from you.