What it will take for cruising to resume

[npcl]

On 4/14/2020 at 2:29 PM, BND said:

What vaccines and what "dangerous" side effects are you referring to?  This vaccine will be no quicker than others have been.  It still has to pass certain requirements in order to be released for public use.  What do you know about the corona vaccine that is being developed and tested?   It's not a drug.  But, it is your choice.  My post was more about the fact that this could become a requirement.

I will start this post by saying that I am a supporter of vaccines, and that they  have done far far more good than bad. (20+ years with FDA and the pharmaceutical industry)

 

That said one recent example of a vaccine getting rushed  was Sanofi's vaccine for dengue fever. While it did have large clinical trials the mechanism of action had some unexpected results (first infection vs second infection issues).

 

Much more so than therapeutics developed for treatment, where some risk trade offs with side effects are often acceptable, since vaccines are given to healthy individuals the risk profile must be much much lower.  As a result even drugs that appear effective in stage 2 trials will still have to go through some very large phase 3 trials, which will take time.  Especially for an illness like COVID-19 where much is still unknown, including immunity duration after infection, how people react when infected  multiple times, etc.

Edited April 18, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

27 minutes ago, boscobeans said:

 

This is based on one of the many types or ranges of UV light

I have used UV for sanitation and still so. BUT so far it has been limited to surfaces and inanimate items. 

 

THIS IS USING A DIFFERFENT AREA OF THE UV SPECTRUM...

 

For what it is worth here is the clip that was broadcast this morning. I post it for information only and in no way wish to do anything but that.

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6150507307001#sp=show-clips

 

There are companies that use UV-C light for sterilizing in hospitals, however, these are only used in rooms without anyone present.  There are devices for sterilizing your phone that use UV-C but again it is in a closed box without human exposure. You also have water purification systems that use UV-C.

 

My understanding is that UV-A and UV-B are not effective at sterilizing, and that UV-C is hazardous for human exposure.  THe very feature that makes it effective at sterilizing is also the very reason ones skin or eyes should not be exposed to UV-C.

 

So I would expect either the system in the clip to be ineffective, or be too dangerous to use as intended.

[PhillyFan33579]

29 minutes ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

We would love to sail on an Oasis Class ship with 1/2 or 1/3 full. We would gladly pay more for this. 

This is just my opinion and an oversimplification, but this is how I see cruise lines being able to return to operations sooner than later. Cruise with ships reduced by a significant number of passengers and charge more for the cruise like you mentioned. This would allow them to implement social distancing to some degree and could be part of an overall plan by a cruise line to comply with CDC guidance. 

[npcl]

The primary focus of the CDC's plan, that most seem to be skipping over is this:

 

Show in your plan how you are 1. going to prevent an out break  2. Manage an outbreak WITHOUT shore resources.

 

The CDC requirements are that the cruise ships are going to have to show that they can treat passengers, separate the sick from the healthy, run quarantine, and only once there is clear information will those passengers that are not sick be allowed to disembark and gotten home without using public transportation (charters and private cars) as was required for the Coral Princess recently. That is what most of the requirements are aimed at.

 

That cruise lines will not cause cost to land based local or state governments, and will not impact land based medical resources.

That pretty much means if you are on a ship with an outbreak you will remain on the ship (or on multiple ships if the plan includes the cruise lines setting up a hospital ship, quarantine ship, etc.) until the outbreak is resolved.

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by npcl

[adidas5676]

25 minutes ago, npcl said:

I will start this post by saying that I am a supporter of vaccines, and that they  have done far far more good than bad. (20+ years with FDA and the pharmaceutical industry)

 

That said one recent example of a vaccine getting rushed  was Sanofi's vaccine for dengue fever. While it did have large clinical trials the mechanism of action had some unexpected results (first infection vs second infection issues).

 

Much more so than therapeutics developed for treatment, where some risk trade offs with side effects are often acceptable, since vaccines are given to healthy individuals the risk profile must be much much lower.  As a result even drugs that appear effective in stage 2 trials will still have to go through some very large phase 3 trials, which will take time.  Especially for an illness like COVID-19 where much is still unknown, including immunity duration after infection, how people react when infected  multiple times, etc.

Thank you for contributing some in the field knowledge to all of these discussions.  It's very helpful to hear from someone with first-hand experience.

[boscobeans]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

There are companies that use UV-C light for sterilizing in hospitals, however, these are only used in rooms without anyone present.  There are devices for sterilizing your phone that use UV-C but again it is in a closed box without human exposure. You also have water purification systems that use UV-C.

 

My understanding is that UV-A and UV-B are not effective at sterilizing, and that UV-C is hazardous for human exposure.  THe very feature that makes it effective at sterilizing is also the very reason ones skin or eyes should not be exposed to UV-C.

 

So I would expect the system in the clip to be ineffective, or be too dangerous to use as intended.

 

 

We are currently using a UV wand that has 4 different sources (or emitters) that produce UV in a range of from 240nm to 280nm. According to published statistics, that range is about 100 % effective against bacterial and  viral problems.  They claim to sterilize our N-95 and surgical masks with a simple 10 second sweep at a distance of 1 inch. We have to use our masks over because of supply shortages and this is a daily chore each time a mask is removed for a break, something to eat or after each shift. 

It is also good for items like phones, computers and other electronics that do not like getting wet down with disinfectant sprays.

 

If the unit is turned more than 15 degrees from straight down it shuts off to prevent looking into the lights. 

 

If someone has found a UV range that is harmless to humans but destroys certain DNA bonds in a virus or a bacteria, who am I to say it doesn't work, as I hope it does and there is documented proof that there is such a light...

 

Columbia University has filed international patent applications for a method for generating a narrow wavelength of UV radiation that can selectively affect and/or kill bacteria. The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interests. There are claims that UV light in the 207nm range are selective for things like MRSA and have little if NO effect o human tissue. I am sure future research will find an anti-viral range as well..

 

After all,  there are NEW things discovered every day, and this will be well tested as will anything else claiming to make medical claims.

 

 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, boscobeans said:

 

 

We are currently using a UV wand that has 4 different sources (or emitters) that produce UV in a range of from 240nm to 280nm. According to published statistics, that range is about 100 % effective against bacterial and  viral problems.  They claim to sterilize our N-95 and surgical masks with a simple 10 second sweep at a distance of 1 inch. We have to use our masks over because of supply shortages and this is a daily chore each time a mask is removed for a break, something to eat or after each shift. 

It is also good for items like phones, computers and other electronics that do not like getting wet down with disinfectant sprays.

 

If the unit is turned more than 15 degrees from straight down it shuts off to prevent looking into the lights. 

 

If someone has found a UV range that is harmless to humans but destroys certain DNA bonds in a virus or a bacteria, who am I to say it doesn't work, as I hope it does and there is documented proof that there is such a light...

 

Columbia University has filed international patent applications for a method for generating a narrow wavelength of UV radiation that can selectively affect and/or kill bacteria. The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interests. There are claims that UV light in the 207nm range are selective for things like MRSA and have little if NO effect o human tissue. I am sure future research will find an anti-viral range as well..

 

After all,  there are NEW things discovered every day, and this will be well tested as will anything else claiming to make medical claims.

 

 

Yep, the eyes are most easily damaged from UV light, especially UV-C  100-280.

 

Certainly as I posted above UV-C devices are known to be effective for sterilization.  There have even been studies on using UV-C for wound sterilization.  The issue is that it can also cause damage to both skin and eyes, especially at the intensity needed for sterilization. Thus the use for masks. but I would suspect not on your hands or other body parts.

 

I would expect you will have similar warnings on the wands you use concerning human exposure.

 

The issue with the device above is that it is a walk through  device, with the people demonstrating not wearing any kind of eye protection.  Will be interesting to see if that gets FDA approval.

 

Advances are wonderful, some work better than others.  I have seen drive in devices used for sterilizing buses.  I believe that China is using those now.  Walk through not so much.

[bobmacliberty]

Unless a vaccine will be available in the next few months (extremely unlikely), the world, including cruising, will not wait for a vaccine.  It then becomes a matter of how to reduce risk to an acceptable level.  The key question will be what is acceptable risk.  Testing of passengers before boarding will not be perfect, but it WILL filter out passengers who are positive or who are potentially positive.  Could someone be negative when tested and then become positive the next day?  Sounds like the answer is yes.  Still, testing helps.  Combine that with many other actions to reduce risk of infection and deal with infection when it happens, and we will reach that acceptable level of risk.

 

I believe that the CDC orders are a mix of real concerns and political issues.  I'd guess that the CLIA will continue to negotiate until an acceptable compromise is found, and cruising can resume.  Although most cruise lines are incorporated outside the US and don't pay US taxes, there is a real impact on the US economy with cruising halted. Politicians need to look tough on the cruise lines because they don't pay taxes, but places like South Florida and Galveston will also put pressure on the system to resume cruising for their local economy.  Yes...this virus does not contain itself to local areas, but that's all part of the acceptable risk equation.

 

Risk mitigation (NOT risk elimination) is built into many things that we take for granted in our daily lives.  This coronavirus is still very new, but we will eventually settle into a new normal that mitigates risk.  That will include new roles for governments, new technologies, and changes to daily life/personal freedoms.

 

Stepping off my soap box.

Edited April 19, 2020 by bobmacliberty

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

15 hours ago, npcl said:

The primary focus of the CDC's plan, that most seem to be skipping over is this:

 

Show in your plan how you are 1. going to prevent an out break  2. Manage an outbreak WITHOUT shore resources.

 

The CDC requirements are that the cruise ships are going to have to show that they can treat passengers, separate the sick from the healthy, run quarantine, and only once there is clear information will those passengers that are not sick be allowed to disembark and gotten home without using public transportation (charters and private cars) as was required for the Coral Princess recently. That is what most of the requirements are aimed at.

 

That cruise lines will not cause cost to land based local or state governments, and will not impact land based medical resources.

That pretty much means if you are on a ship with an outbreak you will remain on the ship (or on multiple ships if the plan includes the cruise lines setting up a hospital ship, quarantine ship, etc.) until the outbreak is resolved.

 

Nice summary. 
 

The bottom line is that cruising isn't a necessity, so no government is going to subsidize it. Airlines, cargo ships, trains and buses all provide some essential value to society; cruising simply does not. So the taxpayers aren't going to save the cruise lines - and shouldn't.
 

That leaves CCL, NCL and Royal to come up with their own solutions. (And there'll be nobody to bill for the cost except us as passengers. Again, that's as it should be). The CDC has made clear those solutions are going to have to be major. Forget about getting by with anything as simple & cheap as just more Purell stations, embarkation temperature checks and maybe a dozen assistant waiters working behind the buffet stations.

 We're talking fundamental changes to the way cruising is done - certainly into 2021, probably into 2022. 

[npcl]

3 hours ago, bobmacliberty said:

Unless a vaccine will be available in the next few months (extremely unlikely), the world, including cruising, will not wait for a vaccine.  It then becomes a matter of how to reduce risk to an acceptable level.  The key question will be what is acceptable risk.  Testing of passengers before boarding will not be perfect, but it WILL filter out passengers who are positive or who are potentially positive.  Could someone be negative when tested and then become positive the next day?  Sounds like the answer is yes.  Still, testing helps.  Combine that with many other actions to reduce risk of infection and deal with infection when it happens, and we will reach that acceptable level of risk.

 

I believe that the CDC orders are a mix of real concerns and political issues.  I'd guess that the CLIA will continue to negotiate until an acceptable compromise is found, and cruising can resume.  Although most cruise lines are incorporated outside the US and don't pay US taxes, there is a real impact on the US economy with cruising halted. Politicians need to look tough on the cruise lines because they don't pay taxes, but places like South Florida and Galveston will also put pressure on the system to resume cruising for their local economy.  Yes...this virus does not contain itself to local areas, but that's all part of the acceptable risk equation.

 

Risk mitigation (NOT risk elimination) is built into many things that we take for granted in our daily lives.  This coronavirus is still very new, but we will eventually settle into a new normal that mitigates risk.  That will include new roles for governments, new technologies, and changes to daily life/personal freedoms.

 

Stepping off my soap box.

I think you are giving CLIA more power to negotiate than they have.  The CDC holds all the cards in any negotiation.

 

They have made it very clear what the CLIA plan needs to address.  In summary that the cruise lines can take care of any shipboard outbreak, including treatment, quarantine, and getting passengers home without using public transportation, without any local, state, federal government or shore side medical services.  That any passengers from such a ship would be gotten home at cruise line expense using charter flights, and private ground transport (as was required for the Coral Princess).

 

The cruise lines do have some lee way in how they meet those requirements, but it is pretty clear that those requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the CDC.

 

How many passengers will be willing to cruise out of US ports, with the understanding that if there is an outbreak they will not be coming back to a US port for care.  Only for transfer home via charters for those not ill.  Just as the ill remained on the Coral

[20165]

This thread was an interesting read and i saw a lot of references to testing being done before you get on the ship.  To be clear, the only type of feasible testing will be temperature check and if you look sick at the pier.  No definitive testing can be done, or at least not that would get you on a ship in a couple of hours.  The best point of care testing currently available is the abbott ID  Now testing that will give you a negative result in about 13 minutes or 110 test per day per instrument.  so you would need 36 instruments to board a lets say, 4000 passenger ship in a a 24 hour period.   

Obviously, this isnt feasible, but just wanted to differentiate between a screen and a test because they were used interchangeably on this post.

 

[ONECRUISER]

On 4/18/2020 at 3:06 PM, Milwaukee Eight said:

We would love to sail on an Oasis Class ship with 1/2 or 1/3 full. We would gladly pay more for this. 

Right after 9/11-Anthrax scare was on Explorer that Fall, at time newest/largest ship. Pretty empty, no kids/families many SOLO like me and LOTS empty Cabins. Was 25%+ under passenger Capacity, in a Cat B for $799 total with no Single Supplement... Many prices on Fall2020-Spring2021 still falling, not all but I'm still finding reductions in Bookings and new Cruises to book. Just booked 2 new Flights last nite, airline is only filling every other row. Also was to Fly out last Thurs back to Michigan, thought wait little longer and changed it until May30. Airline no change fee and new flight cheaper then existing booking so gave me Credit toward another Flight. Prices have dropped so much that basically got 2 Flights for price of one. Heck of a deal for a Discount Airline

Edited April 27, 2020 by ONECRUISER

[Milwaukee Eight]

1 hour ago, ONECRUISER said:

Right after 9/11-Anthrax scare was on Explorer that Fall, at time newest/largest ship. Pretty empty, no kids/families many SOLO like me and LOTS empty Cabins. Was 25%+ under passenger Capacity, in a Cat B for $799 total with no Single Supplement... Many prices on Fall2020-Spring2021 still falling, not all but I'm still finding reductions in Bookings and new Cruises to book. Just booked 2 new Flights last nite, airline is only filling every other row. Also was to Fly out last Thurs back to Michigan, thought wait little longer and changed it until May30. Airline no change fee and new flight cheaper then existing booking so gave me Credit toward another Flight. Prices have dropped so much that basically got 2 Flights for price of one. Heck of a deal for a Discount Airline

I rarely see Suite prices drop like that. 

[eel]

7 hours ago, 20165 said:

This thread was an interesting read and i saw a lot of references to testing being done before you get on the ship.  To be clear, the only type of feasible testing will be temperature check and if you look sick at the pier.  No definitive testing can be done, or at least not that would get you on a ship in a couple of hours.  The best point of care testing currently available is the abbott ID  Now testing that will give you a negative result in about 13 minutes or 110 test per day per instrument.  so you would need 36 instruments to board a lets say, 4000 passenger ship in a a 24 hour period.   

Obviously, this isnt feasible, but just wanted to differentiate between a screen and a test because they were used interchangeably on this post.

 

 

No way that they could test everyone at the pier!  They probably need an Abbott test setup for anyone that may be borderline on the screening.  

 

[20165]

25 minutes ago, eel said:

 

No way that they could test everyone at the pier!  They probably need an Abbott test setup for anyone that may be borderline on the screening.  

 

Actually, thats a great idea. Are you a fellow Laboratorian? 

However, i think that will be down the road,  I think all of the Abbotts are headed to physician offices right now, not the cruise piers.  

[zekekelso]

3 minutes ago, 20165 said:

Actually, thats a great idea. Are you a fellow Laboratorian? 

 

Move had black laboratorian, and yellow laboratorians. Wicked smart, but never knew one to post on cruisecritic. 

[B-52]

I've read here and there about testing before you board, Dr's release, the 70+ discussion, etc., along with the CDC report. Has RCI actually put out any type of protocols enable to cruise. Or is this all speculation at this point.
CDC says 100 days....RCI says mid June...will RCI come out with something before mid-june?

 

Personally, I think RCI has n o intention of resuming cruises mid June,

  It's all a bluff to lead us on one month at a time and will do so right into the fall, and/or go bankrupt.
Buts that just me talking.

[20165]

10 hours ago, B-52 said:

I've read here and there about testing before you board, Dr's release, the 70+ discussion, etc., along with the CDC report. Has RCI actually put out any type of protocols enable to cruise. Or is this all speculation at this point.
CDC says 100 days....RCI says mid June...will RCI come out with something before mid-june?

 

Personally, I think RCI has n o intention of resuming cruises mid June,

  It's all a bluff to lead us on one month at a time and will do so right into the fall, and/or go bankrupt.
Buts that just me talking.

Mostly speculation from people that love to cruise and want to get back to it, but sadly, i think these cruise lines are going to have a tough time over the next year trying to figure out how to do it safely.  

[eel]

Apparently there is effort underway to train dogs to detect the presence of COVID-19 in humans. Dogs have been very adept at detecting malaria in humans so there is a good chance this may work.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-52057543

 

If it is succesful and fairly accurate, I could see dogs being part of pre-screening at the dock.  If the dog flags someone as infected, they would have take one of those fast turnaround tests to confirm that they are either positive or negative.

[mek]

1 hour ago, eel said:

Apparently there is effort underway to train dogs to detect the presence of COVID-19 in humans. Dogs have been very adept at detecting malaria in humans so there is a good chance this may work.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-52057543

 

If it is succesful and fairly accurate, I could see dogs being part of pre-screening at the dock.  If the dog flags someone as infected, they would have take one of those fast turnaround tests to confirm that they are either positive or negative.

That's just fine but what happens to all of the passengers the infected person has been in contact with prior to boarding? To think they will keep people at least 6' apart during the pre-boarding process is crazy.

[zekekelso]

These school kids in China are geniuses 🙂 Here's the solution:

[John&LaLa]

10 hours ago, eel said:

Apparently there is effort underway to train dogs to detect the presence of COVID-19 in humans. Dogs have been very adept at detecting malaria in humans so there is a good chance this may work.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-52057543

 

If it is succesful and fairly accurate, I could see dogs being part of pre-screening at the dock.  If the dog flags someone as infected, they would have take one of those fast turnaround tests to confirm that they are either positive or negative.

 

They might need them on the ship as well

You can never be to careful

Sounds like a job for Bella.

[eel]

8 hours ago, mek said:

That's just fine but what happens to all of the passengers the infected person has been in contact with prior to boarding? To think they will keep people at least 6' apart during the pre-boarding process is crazy.

 

If they can't enforce some degree of social distancing, then they can't safely reopen until there is a widely vaccine or herd immunity.  No solution will be 100% safe.  That is just reality.

[mek]

8 hours ago, eel said:

 

If they can't enforce some degree of social distancing, then they can't safely reopen until there is a widely vaccine or herd immunity.  No solution will be 100% safe.  That is just reality.

Well, that's my point - social distancing on a ship isn't a realistic expectation,

[hazence]

https://www.kron4.com/health/coronavirus/cdc-extends-social-distancing-guidelines-to-pets-after-some-test-positive-for-coronavirus/
 

Sorry. Bella is adorable. But CDC now extended social distancing to dogs. Some pug in NC tested positive.