What are the chances of Fall Cruises being suspended?

[AF-1]

clo,  yes I get it.  Have a great day and Easter

[lenquixote66]

4 hours ago, clo said:

Even IF a vaccine is developed within the next five years, there's no guarantee as to how effective it would be. Is it the influenza one that may only be about 60% effective, due to the virus mutating from season? COVID is a lot more deadly than our seasonal flu. And how many people are going to get the vaccination? And what if they need to get it every year? There enough 'what-if's' o fill a page. I read something that seems spot on: "a pandemic is over when everyone is dead or immune."

You are correct in that no vaccine is likely to be 100 % effective.The Shingles is supposedly 90% and the flu even less. However, if it is expected to be even 60% effective everyone will take it.

I am in constant horrific pain due to a medical problem.Last month I had a surgical procedure to reduce pain.My doctor said that if it worked my pain could be reduced by 90% .He also said that it works only 40% of the time.Well it did not work for me but I had no choice ,I had to try.The possible side effects were paralysis and death.

If I can take a vaccine for the Corona virus I will take it.

I am old and sick,I have to try.

[cruisemom42]

At this point, I'm not sure that all this speculation is very useful. I think it's unwise to be excessively positive OR excessively negative.

 

We don't know whether the virus will mutate excessively yet. It seems a bit more likely that it will not....but it's too early to tell.

 

We do know that researchers have already done preliminary work on vaccines for various other coronaviruses, and it is not the difficult target that HIV presents. They can build on this work, it's not as if they are starting from scratch. Also, depending on the type of vaccine developed, not every component may need to be tested, if certain components are already in use.

 

COVID-19 is infectious, but experts have said it is not as infectious as, for example, measles. Given a reasonably effective vaccine PLUS some immunity on the part of survivors (of which there will be many), it seems more similar to the situation with flu -- we are imperfect, but we control it well enough via vaccination, a certain amount of immunity and therapeutic options to avoid massive outbreaks. Some people get flu every year, and a number of people die from it every year.  We have accepted that, apparently, and we go on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

8 hours ago, clo said:

But sensible people should want really good and thorough clinical trials. Those take time.

 

Well, except for the people who die while those good and thorough (read time-consuming) trials are being conducted.

[clo]

1 minute ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Well, except for the people who die while those good and thorough (read time-consuming) trials are being conducted.

What about those who die from 'wrong' vaccines?

[SRF]

14 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

You are correct in that no vaccine is likely to be 100 % effective.The Shingles is supposedly 90% and the flu even less. However, if it is expected to be even 60% effective everyone will take it.

I am in constant horrific pain due to a medical problem.Last month I had a surgical procedure to reduce pain.My doctor said that if it worked my pain could be reduced by 90% .He also said that it works only 40% of the time.Well it did not work for me but I had no choice ,I had to try.The possible side effects were paralysis and death.

If I can take a vaccine for the Corona virus I will take it.

I am old and sick,I have to try.

 

Not everyone has to be immune.

 

There is "herd immunity" in that when enough people are immune, the likelihood of a person who is not immune meeting someone who is actively infectious, approaches 0.

 

So even thought not everyone is immune, the disease stops spreading.  

[Toofarfromthesea]

11 hours ago, clo said:

What about those who die from 'wrong' vaccines?

 

Well that's the thing isn't it.  If that happens we know about those deaths, but we never know about the deaths that occur because off the lengthy testing and trials we insist on.  This sets up a perverse incentive to take an ultra 'belt and suspenders' approach because there are no political consequences for one kind of error and enormous political consequences for another.  So of course they err on the side of caution because self-preservation is what bureaucracies do.  But optimizing political consequences doesn't necessarily align with optimizing health consequences.  And when I talk about political consequences it is not in a partisan sense.  This has grown up over decades under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The FDA has long been criticized (rightly, IMO) for a cumbersome bureaucratic approval process.  Look at the current situation where so many regulations to protect public safety are being waived and red tape cut through in the name of the very same public safety that those restrictions were ostensibly put in place to protect.  

[clo]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anthony-fauci-mitigation-saved-lives_n_5e93159fc5b6ca9a9f01e39e?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=main_fb&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&fbclid=IwAR1pLSFPZhVXvPgrTLq6ZK1WmiTKnd4N2rHiVsnL-IP_bVXSf9b3F7BwpVU&fbclid=IwAR1-tXpVyARJSw01GwjS6Fg1eHYpuiEJXWqfErO10ixyqCvki3C7nTZJFjU

 

The last three paragraphs ask Dr. Fauci if he thinks in person voting can be safely conducted in November. I think that's translatable to cruising.

 

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Well that's the thing isn't it.  If that happens we know about those deaths, but we never know about the deaths that occur because off the lengthy testing and trials we insist on.  This sets up a perverse incentive to take an ultra 'belt and suspenders' approach because there are no political consequences for one kind of error and enormous political consequences for another.  So of course they err on the side of caution because self-preservation is what bureaucracies do.  But optimizing political consequences doesn't necessarily align with optimizing health consequences.  And when I talk about political consequences it is not in a partisan sense.  This has grown up over decades under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The FDA has long been criticized (rightly, IMO) for a cumbersome bureaucratic approval process.  Look at the current situation where so many regulations to protect public safety are being waived and red tape cut through in the name of the very same public safety that those restrictions were ostensibly put in place to protect.  

 

You're entitled to your viewpoint, but to look at it from the other side -- I can just imagine a large pharmaceutical company rushing a vaccine through the approval process (with FDA agreement), and then, once tested in the field in a very large population, it turns out that there is some subset of people who have a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine and die.

 

The "greedy" drug companies and the "reckless" FDA will be pilloried by everyone.

 

Edited to add:  Ideally, our government should be flexible enough to adjust recommendations and procedures in situations of grave public risk. In practice we are not so good at doing it and tend to lag behind the curve of actual events. There are ways to assess lives saved/lost as a result of treatment or preventive options -- models exist and major health agencies use them.

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by cruisemom42

[Hlitner]

11 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Well that's the thing isn't it.  If that happens we know about those deaths, but we never know about the deaths that occur because off the lengthy testing and trials we insist on.  This sets up a perverse incentive to take an ultra 'belt and suspenders' approach because there are no political consequences for one kind of error and enormous political consequences for another.  So of course they err on the side of caution because self-preservation is what bureaucracies do.  But optimizing political consequences doesn't necessarily align with optimizing health consequences.  And when I talk about political consequences it is not in a partisan sense.  This has grown up over decades under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The FDA has long been criticized (rightly, IMO) for a cumbersome bureaucratic approval process.  Look at the current situation where so many regulations to protect public safety are being waived and red tape cut through in the name of the very same public safety that those restrictions were ostensibly put in place to protect.  

When I was working with some government AIDS programs there were numerous discussions with the FDA about the issue of delays vs rushing things to market.  Eventually the FDA adopted some new regulations which allowed for some drugs to be approved prior to completing all of the normal testing.  But this was primarily done based on the premise that if a disease was nearly 100% fatal, and the patient was made aware of the risk of using the drug it was a reasonable risk.  

 

But with vaccines it is a different story.  It is possible that a COVID-19 vaccine would be given to over a billion souls,  And the history of vaccines has shown us that it is not uncommon to have some major side effects to any vaccine...some of which do not show-up for months or years.   While it might be reasonable to shortcut testing for a promising drug that will be used in limited circumstances, it would be hard to justify that with a vaccine for a virus with a mortality rate that will likely turn out to be less than 3%,  And hearing all these folks talking about quickly finding a vaccine for COVID-19 is interesting.  Consider that Corona Viruses have been around for a long time (many common colds are corona viruses) and nobody has yet to develop an effective vaccine for any of these bugs of which there are 7.  Lets all pray that this time will be the charm and we will quickly get something that is effective.  But I would not take any bets that we will see an effective vaccine in 1 year or even 2 years!  The fastest vaccine to ever get developed  (I think it was for Mumps) and brought to  market took about 3 years and that used a method that was pretty well known.  Consider that just doing the basic pregnancy testing takes a lot of time and that is only one small cohort out of many that need to be tested.

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, Hlitner said:

When I was working with some government AIDS programs there were numerous discussions with the FDA about the issue of delays vs rushing things to market.  Eventually the FDA adopted some new regulations which allowed for some drugs to be approved prior to completing all of the normal testing.  But this was primarily done based on the premise that if a disease was nearly 100% fatal, and the patient was made aware of the risk of using the drug it was a reasonable risk.  

 

But with vaccines it is a different story.  It is possible that a COVID-19 vaccine would be given to over a billion souls,  And the history of vaccines has shown us that it is not uncommon to have some major side effects to any vaccine...some of which do not show-up for months or years.   While it might be reasonable to shortcut testing for a promising drug that will be used in limited circumstances, it would be hard to justify that with a vaccine for a virus with a mortality rate that will likely turn out to be less than 3%,  And hearing all these folks talking about quickly finding a vaccine for COVID-19 is interesting.  Consider that Corona Viruses have been around for a long time (many common colds are corona viruses) and nobody has yet to develop an effective vaccine for any of these bugs of which there are 7.  Lets all pray that this time will be the charm and we will quickly get something that is effective.  But I would not take any bets that we will see an effective vaccine in 1 year or even 2 years!  The fastest vaccine to ever get developed  (I think it was for Mumps) and brought to  market took about 3 years and that used a method that was pretty well known.  Consider that just doing the basic pregnancy testing takes a lot of time and that is only one small cohort out of many that need to be tested.

 

Hank

I do not think anyone would consider Dr. Fauci as someone who looks at things optimistically. He had said 12-18 months.

[clo]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I do not think anyone would consider Dr. Fauci as someone who looks at things optimistically. He had said 12-18 months.

And then what? Maybe another year or more to get widespread vaccination? So maybe fall of 2022? That sounds sufficiently optimistic to me.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I do not think anyone would consider Dr. Fauci as someone who looks at things optimistically. He had said 12-18 months.

 12 - 18 months is pretty damn optimistic when talking about developing - and getting wide acceptance of - an effective vaccine against a brand new viral infection.

 

The real world does not operate in accordance with the hopes and wishes of wannabe cruisers.

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I do not think anyone would consider Dr. Fauci as someone who looks at things optimistically. He had said 12-18 months.

That is not exactly what he said.  He said, "at least" 12 to 18 months.  And then he went on to talk about the necessity of extensive testing.  Also consider that many in our society do not trust new or even old vaccines.  

[chipmaster]

On 4/11/2020 at 9:27 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Well, except for the people who die while those good and thorough (read time-consuming) trials are being conducted.

 

That is why we are in lockdown in most places, and even some places that are lifting will need to also re-lock down as cases and deaths will again spiral.  But agree as another poster suggested between vaccine ( we'll have multiple cocktails of t% his and months and years of testing, real world ones )   and exposure and recovery ( we have yet to confirm exposure / recovery is 100% in preventing re-infection, the doctors / nurses on the front line will provide some evidence of this in the next 3 months, which ones will risk going no PPE to test??? )   and the culling of the weakest will enable by 2022 for cruising to come back.

[Hlitner]

22 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

 

That is why we are in lockdown in most places, and even some places that are lifting will need to also re-lock down as cases and deaths will again spiral.  But agree as another poster suggested between vaccine ( we'll have multiple cocktails of t% his and months and years of testing, real world ones )   and exposure and recovery ( we have yet to confirm exposure / recovery is 100% in preventing re-infection, the doctors / nurses on the front line will provide some evidence of this in the next 3 months, which ones will risk going no PPE to test??? )   and the culling of the weakest will enable by 2022 for cruising to come back.

Assuming your prediction is close to reality, we must consider that CCL is burning through about $1 Billion a month of cash.  Those loses can probably be somewhat reduced in the future by putting most of their 100+ ships into warm or cold layup shutdown.  But there is a limit to how much any company can lose and still survive.   Also keep in mind that about 80% of cruise bookings are handled by third party cruise/travel agencies.  Most of these would likely not survive until 2022 without some new source of cash flow.

 

My thinking is that I do not want a lot of future cruise credit that may never get used!  This will keep us from making any final payments (we have 4 long future cruises booked with small deposits) since we no longer can trust the cruise lines with our cash.  And the thought of paying out thousands of dollars for future business class airfares is even more worrisome.  

 

Hank

[clo]

I'll just tack this on here as a lot of cruising also involves intl. flights. An interesting point is the idea that countries may require visas that currently don't and that  a vaccination certificate could be part of the visa process. I think that's actually a pretty good idea.

https://viewfromthewing.com/expect-a-lot-less-international-travel-for-a-long-time/?utm_source=BoardingArea&utm_medium=facebook

[chipmaster]

8 minutes ago, clo said:

I'll just tack this on here as a lot of cruising also involves intl. flights. An interesting point is the idea that countries may require visas that currently don't and that  a vaccination certificate could be part of the visa process. I think that's actually a pretty good idea.

https://viewfromthewing.com/expect-a-lot-less-international-travel-for-a-long-time/?utm_source=BoardingArea&utm_medium=facebook

 

Rumor or reported that Apple/Google are working for things on iOS and Android OS that will flag risk for the cellphone user.  This sounds similar to the much more draconian tracking in China, pretty much you are scored for health ( or anything else the government choose as desirable or undesirable ) and ability to travel or do anything else is based on your score.

 

I'm not a big privacy paranoid guy so having my health and physical scores being used to score my ability to travel or not for the greater good of the world is okay with me.  The slippery slope might be my political or religious views, but even there the greater good my warrant that cost, LOL

[clo]

4 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

Rumor or reported that Apple/Google are working for things on iOS and Android OS that will flag risk for the cellphone user. 

I'm just waiting for certain people to got bat-**** crazy over that one 🙂  I figure it's been a long time since most of us have had any privacy and I don't care. And I also believe that anything that's done to rein this in is probably good.

[jocap]

Oxford University has been asking for healthy people aged between 18- 50 years to volunteer for testing; it seems they're hoping to begin the first tests in two weeks.

They will be one of many laboratories across the world  frantically  working at this.

[clo]

1 hour ago, jocap said:

Oxford University has been asking for healthy people aged between 18- 50 years to volunteer for testing; it seems they're hoping to begin the first tests in two weeks.

They will be one of many laboratories across the world  frantically  working at this.

Here's a link from Merck.  Two to six years and ya gotta know that they're underestimating:

 

https://www.merck.com/clinical-trials/about-clinical-trials.html

 

NYState Dept of Health says 10 to 15 years.

 

https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/vaccine_safety/science.htm

Edited April 13, 2020 by clo

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, clo said:

I'm just waiting for certain people to got bat-**** crazy over that one 🙂  I figure it's been a long time since most of us have had any privacy and I don't care. And I also believe that anything that's done to rein this in is probably good.

It is time for us to get over the “. PRIVACY”.  B.S. which has recently become so popular. Nut jobs like the Virginia Tech shooter who  was “protected” from having his proclivities mentioned;  tuition-paying parents not entitled to their student childrens’ report cards unless the children sign off;  fussing about security cameras on city streets — if you can have police patrolling , why not make their observing of PUBLIC SPACES more efficient?

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, clo said:

I'm just waiting for certain people to got bat-**** crazy over that one 🙂  I figure it's been a long time since most of us have had any privacy and I don't care. And I also believe that anything that's done to rein this in is probably good.

 

People think they have privacy, but the reality in this connected world there is likely very little that those in power or those with $ and some skill can't find about anyone.   Just google your name, phone number or something and you will be shocked at what is out there. Look at any your Amazon or FB or other personal login feeds and see how they target you, there is no privacy.

 

I'm with you that for the greater good of humanity their always is/will be some personal sacrifice/loss.  There is no two ways, unfettered personal individuality / freedom has huge impact on the larger community.

 

Take a cruise, to enjoy that with thousands others requires those that choose to give up some privacy.  From check-in passport check, like blood/temperature and health are now going to be necessary.    Can we let people act, dress, eat and do as they please or must they make some sacrifice of what they might / want to do that would make their enjoyment larger at the cost of the larger community on the ship, of course.  I see that as a grey area of privacy /privilege, got to give some or a lot up for the better of humanity so we can go cruise, LOL

[lenquixote66]

20 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

 

People think they have privacy, but the reality in this connected world there is likely very little that those in power or those with $ and some skill can't find about anyone.   Just google your name, phone number or something and you will be shocked at what is out there. Look at any your Amazon or FB or other personal login feeds and see how they target you, there is no privacy.

 

I'm with you that for the greater good of humanity their always is/will be some personal sacrifice/loss.  There is no two ways, unfettered personal individuality / freedom has huge impact on the larger community.

 

Take a cruise, to enjoy that with thousands others requires those that choose to give up some privacy.  From check-in passport check, like blood/temperature and health are now going to be necessary.    Can we let people act, dress, eat and do as they please or must they make some sacrifice of what they might / want to do that would make their enjoyment larger at the cost of the larger community on the ship, of course.  I see that as a grey area of privacy /privilege, got to give some or a lot up for the better of humanity so we can go cruise, LOL

I am not on FB.I do not pay bills on line nor do I do internet banking.I never post anything with my real name or my address. However,there are at least 20 sites on line where I can enter my name and read everything about myself.There is zero privacy on line.

[clo]

1 hour ago, lenquixote66 said:

I am not on FB.I do not pay bills on line nor do I do internet banking.I never post anything with my real name or my address. However,there are at least 20 sites on line where I can enter my name and read everything about myself.There is zero privacy on line.

And I've never done anything that the secret service or CIA or IRS! would be interested in. Or Bob 🙂