Could lifting the ''Jones act'' be a help in this mess.

[Charles4515]

 
Definitely a NIMBY response. And once more cruising starts, I would not be surprised if this is the new norm. Finding ports is going to be a problem.

I would call it common sense for these times not a NIMBY response.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Last economic study showed that Bar Harbor received about $105/passenger.  So,  if American Cruises brings 60 pax on a port call, that is $6000, with the risk of bringing covid to a community that has had zero cases to date, and only 18 in the whole county.

They seem to be making a sound business decision.

[ldubs]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

With 4% of world population, we have 25% of covid cases.  That's not a record I'd like to have.  And, Qatar for example, has 0.3% of world population and 0.8% of covid cases.

 

I think whether looking at counts or per capita rates, most are using totals since the pandemic began.  I believe it is more important to compare current per capita results (case rates, death rates, positive rates).  I'm not optimistic we will compare favorably.  

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

In addition to raw numbers, I suggest the biggest concern should be the trends. Most of the European countries have already flattened the curve and daily infections & deaths are trending down. Unfortunately, in the US, numbers are trending upwards.

 

I should have read your note before I replied to Chengkp!  You said it better than I.   Not that Chengkp would disagree at all.  

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

So far it seems to be the infection numbes trending upwards.  This, of course, will in a couple of weeks certainly result in the death rates trending upwards - 

 

I'm not following why an increase in the rate of positives automatically means an increase in the death rate.  Why would the rate of deaths increase as there are more positives?   Unless what you really mean is the count of deaths will increase.  If our death rate is 4% then for every 100 new cases there will be 4 new deaths.  More deaths yes, but not an increase in the death "rate".  

 

Let's remember our medical professionals have learned a lot and treatments are more successful now, which hopefully will result in a lower death rate.    

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

 There is more than one meaning for “rate”.   If the number of people who die in a week goes from 100 to 200, the weekly death rate has doubled.  

[Heidi13]

1 minute ago, ldubs said:

 

I'm not following why an increase in the rate of positives automatically means an increase in the death rate.  Why would the rate of deaths increase as there are more positives?   Unless what you really mean is the count of deaths will increase.  If our death rate is 4% then for every 100 new cases there will be 4 new deaths.  More deaths yes, but not an increase in the death "rate".  

 

Let's remember our medical professionals have learned a lot and treatments are more successful now, which hopefully will result in a lower death rate.    

 

 

 

Another factor to consider with the relationship between +ve cases and deaths, is once hospitals and especially ICU beds are full, the quality of care for all serious cases could be impacted.

 

In UK, the NHS built thousands of temporary trauma beds in convention centres and in British Columbia our Provincial Medical did the same in Vancouver. Fortunately in BC they weren't required.

 

Our news is reporting some of the Southern States already have ICU's at almost capacity, so not sure if your hospitals have the same ability to expand by creating new temporary trauma beds.

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Another factor to consider with the relationship between +ve cases and deaths, is once hospitals and especially ICU beds are full, the quality of care for all serious cases could be impacted.

 

In UK, the NHS built thousands of temporary trauma beds in convention centres and in British Columbia our Provincial Medical did the same in Vancouver. Fortunately in BC they weren't required.

 

Our news is reporting some of the Southern States already have ICU's at almost capacity, so not sure if your hospitals have the same ability to expand by creating new temporary trauma beds.

 

Good point.  Hospital capacity is a huge concern.   Right now my local hospitals are in remarkably good shape in spite of an increase in counts.   Bed usage for coronavirus is up, but still below 5% of capacity.  At the state level the % of ICU bed usage is down, which I hope means advances in treatment.  But, as you say, other places are facing some real problems.   It is hard to imagine additional capacity cannot be created, but I honestly don't know what they are doing.   

 

You know I mentioned to Mrs Ldubs I wanted to move to BC until this was over.  She says BC probably wouldn't have me.  haha

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

 

I would call it common sense for these times not a NIMBY response.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Could you say that for every port in the world? Exactly what should cruise ships do with their protocols to have any port allow them to have passengers disembark?

[Charles4515]

Could you say that for every port in the world? Exactly what should cruise ships do with their protocols to have any port allow them to have passengers disembark?

 

I would not say that about every port. Bar Harbor is on an island and has a population of 5,000. I don’t think they should worry about protocols. Every port should decide based on local circumstances. However I will say that I don’t think cruise ships of any size should be sailing out of US ports this summer. Can’t go on a cruise until 2021 too bad. These are not normal times.

 

As for the PVSA. No one one cares about that except a few die hard cruise enthusiasts. There is no action or even any discussion about it other than on cruise enthusiast forums.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ldubs]

22 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 There is more than one meaning for “rate”.   If the number of people who die in a week goes from 100 to 200, the weekly death rate has doubled.  

 

You said an increase in positives will of course mean a higher death rate, which most would think of as a percent of cases.   If you were truly referring to deaths per week, then yes.     

[navybankerteacher]

Just now, ldubs said:

 

You said an increase in positives will of course mean a higher death rate, which most would think of as a percent of cases.   If you were truly referring to deaths per week, then yes.     

Actually, to use your concept of death rate, an increase in positives should NOT mean a higher death rate.  If the death rate is, say, 2% of cases, it should remain 2% of cases - whether there was 100 cases per week or 2,000 cases per week.   The deaths per week would go up but the rate (percentage)  of those infected who die should remain the same.

 

[ldubs]

Just now, navybankerteacher said:

Actually, to use your concept of death rate, an increase in positives should NOT mean a higher death rate.  If the death rate is, say, 2% of cases, it should remain 2% of cases - whether there was 100 cases per week or 2,000 cases per week.   The deaths per week would go up but the rate (percentage)  of those infected who die should remain the same.

 

 

Yes, what you are saying is exactly what had me stymied by your comment.  Anyway, I now understand your comment.  And the real important point which I know is what you mean, is we don't want any new deaths.   

   

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

You know I mentioned to Mrs Ldubs I wanted to move to BC until this was over.  She says BC probably wouldn't have me.  haha

 

Mrs Ldubs is very perceptive. We would also like to head South, but until the virus is under control, we are happy this side of the border. Unfortunately, at present, our friends & neighbours to the South are not being welcomed at the border. 

 

Hopefully, the virus gets under control and we can get back to some type of normal. Will be a chilly winter for us, if the border is still closed, as we enjoy the sunshine in Indio.

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

As for the PVSA. No one one cares about that except a few die hard cruise enthusiasts.

 

 

Although I'm not a US mariner, I suspect many employed in the US Merchant Marine and even ship repair/building yards care greatly about the PVSA & Jones Act. Might not concern many pax, but different story for those employed in the industry.

[Charles4515]

Could you say that for every port in the world? Exactly what should cruise ships do with their protocols to have any port allow them to have passengers disembark?

 

Along the same lines of a US ports where there is anti cruise ship sentiment, Key West has three referendums on their ballot to limit cruise ships. I have no idea if they have a chance to pass but they are on the ballot.

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/23213-key-west-could-ban-big-cruise-ships.html

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ontheweb]

33 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Along the same lines of a US ports where there is anti cruise ship sentiment, Key West has three referendums on their ballot to limit cruise ships. I have no idea if they have a chance to pass but they are on the ballot.

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/23213-key-west-could-ban-big-cruise-ships.html

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That is interesting, thanks for the link. With all the talk of cruise lines eliminating ships especially the older, smaller ships, what would happen if ports banned any but basically the smallest ships. 

[chengkp75]

57 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

That is interesting, thanks for the link. With all the talk of cruise lines eliminating ships especially the older, smaller ships, what would happen if ports banned any but basically the smallest ships. 

Then the ports would not get any ships.

[navybankerteacher]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Then the ports would not get any ships.

That has not happened at ports like Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket or St. BarthsBarth’s.

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

That has not happened at ports like Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket or St. BarthsBarth’s.

That's because, up until now, there were smaller ships.  The poster's question was, if there aren't any small ships, what would ports do if they ban large ships.

[Charles4515]

That is interesting, thanks for the link. With all the talk of cruise lines eliminating ships especially the older, smaller ships, what would happen if ports banned any but basically the smallest ships. 

There are some new smaller ships being built. Viking, Virgin and Oceania.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

There are some new smaller ships being built. Viking, Virgin and Oceania.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

But that eliminates the 3 biggest in the market, ships owned by Carnival Corporation, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian.

[Charles4515]

But that eliminates the 3 biggest in the market, ships owned by Carnival Corporation, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian.

 

All three have brands with small ships. Azamara, Oceania, Silversea, Seaborn, and Regent.

 

I don’t have any idea if the three referendums have a chance to pass. I read in one article about this that there is opposition from some local businesses.

 

It should not be taken as a slam dunk that if the PVSA was changed that ships would have many US ports available even if the CDC lifts the no sail order.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ontheweb]

6 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

All three have brands with small ships. Azamara, Oceania, Silversea, Seaborn, and Regent.

 

I don’t have any idea if the three referendums have a chance to pass. I read in one article about this that there is opposition from some local businesses.

 

It should not be taken as a slam dunk that if the PVSA was changed that ships would have many US ports available even if the CDC lifts the no sail order.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Bar Harbour, Maine has already said no to American Cruise line. That is definitely a small ship even before the reduced passenger load for social distancing purposes.

[Charles4515]

Bar Harbour, Maine has already said no to American Cruise line. That is definitely a small ship even before the reduced passenger load for social distancing purposes.

Bar Harbour though is saying no because of Covid. Key West would be saying no if the referendum passes because they only want small ships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro