SS Future Re-Open Plan: Timing, Testing Needs??!!

[TLCOhio]

2 hours ago, Randyk47 said:

SeaDream Yacht Club is a privately owned and held company.  The only connection SeaDream has to Seabourn is that the founder and owner of SeaDream was the founder of Seabourn Cruise Line.  Seabourn is owned by Carnival Cruise Lines not Norwegian.

 

Very good added info and background above from Randy.  Keep it coming!   SeaDream has not won much  "love" from the big three cruise companies who are seeking/hoping to re-start and restore customer confidence.   

 

From the Barron's sister publication of the Wall Street Journal yesterday afternoon, they had this headline: “It’s Been a Tough Year for Cruise Stocks. Recent Headlines Aren’t Helping. ” with these highlights: “Cruise stocks initially sold off Thursday morning after a report surfaced that a private cruise operator had to abort a voyage due to a Covid-19 case.   By early afternoon, Royal Caribbean Group and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings had reversed some of their losses. Shares of Carnival were still down more than 5% on the day’s trading.  Since the cruise companies shut down their operations in mid-March due to the pandemic, their stocks have traded similarly, though not always in lockstep. Morningstar analyst Jamie Katz said that “'n recent weeks, the significant number of capital raises have played out as a drag on share performance' for Carnival. On Tuesday, the company announced another public offering of its common stock. That follows a similar offering in September, Katz said. The latest concern for the cruise operators: A vessel operated by SeaDream Yacht Club, a private company, was recently headed back to Barbados after a passenger tested positive for Covid-19, according to USA Today.”

 

Full story at:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/cruise-stocks-dented-by-report-of-covid-case-on-private-cruise-operator-trip-51605207963?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D57316660684606197201466836159604872212|MCORGID%3DCB68E4BA55144CAA0A4C98A5%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1605292576

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Athens & Greece: Many visuals, details from two visits in a city with great history, culture and architecture.  Now at 36,790 views.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1101008

[Randyk47]

I am reminded that Silversea had an issue with their first Saudi Arabia cruise and there was initially some negative press and probably more than a few “oh no” moments when that happened.  As far as I know Silversea overcame that and conducted a number of cruises with no other major issues.   Hopefully SeaDream will be able to learn from this cruise, adjust their procedures, and salvage their schedule.  It’s not that I care about SeaDream per se but I’ve got to think governments, islands, public health agencies and officials, and more than a few cruisers are watching carefully.  I think there is something to the notion if a small cruise line can’t solve these problems then how are bigger lines with significantly larger ships going to manage.

[Stumblefoot]

The latest from Barbados shows the SeaDream ship is now up to 7 positive cases; a family of 5 traveling together, as well as a husband and wife couple.

Passengers who have continually tested negative for Covid-19 will be allowed to disembark the vessel on Sat., Nov 14 and travel to the airport in order to board flights back to their home countries.  Of the 53 passengers on the ship, 37 are American.  The remaining 16 passengers hail from Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K.

[TLCOhio]

20 hours ago, Stumblefoot said:

The latest from Barbados shows the SeaDream ship is now up to 7 positive cases; a family of 5 traveling together, as well as a husband and wife couple.
Passengers who have continually tested negative for Covid-19 will be allowed to disembark the vessel on Sat., Nov 14 and travel to the airport in order to board flights back to their home countries.  Of the 53 passengers on the ship, 37 are American.  The remaining 16 passengers hail from Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K.

 

Great update and comments above from Stumblefoot and Randy.  This story continues to get wide coverage and significant attention.  Probably more to come??!!

 

With a new administration coming in January, my guess is that the CDC will be more aggressive in tightening down rules and standards that will make it harder and slower to resume "normal" cruise sailings.   Below are two recent news coverage examples with some of the key highlights.  My guess is that certain top cruise executives with the three major cruise lines are wondering if SeaDream having media folks along for this sailing and reporting back has worked out as well as hoped.  Guesses and reactions??  

 

From the New York Post late this morning, they had this headline: “Seven test positive for COVID-19 on first Caribbean cruise since March” with these highlights: “Seven people have now tested positive for the coronavirus aboard the first cruise ship to venture into the Caribbean since the beginning of the pandemic in March.  The SeaDream 1 ended its cruise early after multiple passengers tested positive for COVID-19 on Thursday, according to USA Today. The outbreak occurred despite strict precautions taken before the cruise. Passengers were required to have two negative COVID-19 tests before boarding the ship and had their temperatures checked daily, according to the cruise line’s officials, who also said the ship was sanitized daily. 'Now 7 cases onboard as the other half of a couple who tested positive yesterday has also tested positive,' tweeted a couple who are on the ship, and chronicle cruises on YouTube. 'Everyone else has tested negative. Apparently all negative passengers will all be free to leave the ship and travel and fly home tomorrow [Saturday].' ”

 

Seven out of 53 passengers is a high ratio of infection.  Think if the ship had 1000, 2000 or 3000 passengers??!!

 

From the Miami Herald late on Nov. 12, they had this headline: “Passengers test positive aboard first Caribbean cruise restart during COVID-19 pandemic” with these highlights: “A familiar COVID-19 scene is playing out off Barbados, where cruise passengers are confined to their rooms after fellow passengers tested positive for the virus.  Despite two negative PCR COVID-19 tests for each passenger prior to boarding, according to Gene Sloan, a cruise writer who is on board, the captain of the SeaDream 1 announced Wednesday that a passenger had tested positive on a less-reliable rapid test, four days into its seven-night voyage from Barbados. Since then, a total of seven passengers have tested positive, according to Sloan. The ship is currently anchored off Bridgetown as the staff conducts more tests. All 53 passengers are confined to their rooms. The ship has a double capacity of 112 passengers. All 66 crew members have tested negative. Rapid tests are less effective than PCR tests and can produce false positives.  This week, the Pan American Health Organization, which serves as the Americas office for the World Health Organization, reiterated its position on testing: It does not endorse either the use of rapid antigen or PCR tests for travel.”

 

Full stories at:

https://nypost.com/2020/11/14/7-test-positive-for-covid-on-first-caribbean-cruise-since-march/

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article247151131.html

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Lisbon, NWSpain, Bordeaux/Brittany: Live/blog, June 2017 from Portugal to France along scenic Atlantic Coast o the Silver Spirit.  Now at 31,242 views.  Many interesting pictures, details for history, food, culture, etc.:

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2511358

 

 

From the NY Post, here is their picture of this ship docked in Barbados.:

(Open your screen/viewer wider to see this visual larger/better!)

[kimanjo]

On 11/10/2020 at 6:22 PM, docruth said:

 

Randy,

 

I’m with you in the patience department. I wouldn’t be in a big rush, and there still may be nothing to rush towards right now. I want to cruise as bad as anyone, but development and rollout of these vaccines, especially for several billion people, will not happen overnight. Doesn’t bode well for a rapid restart.

 

Even mid-2021 is super aggressive. I worked on getting several new child survival vaccines to populations in need, over the course of my career in global health. Took a very long time, and continues to this day. Development, safety evaluation, and logistics takes years, whether you use warp speed, light speed, or any other rapid deployment scheme.

 

As an aside, looks like they’ve halted trials on the Sinopac vaccine, developed in China, due to a serious side-effect. Second time a major pharma has had this kind of serious issue with a candidate vaccine for Covid-19.

 

We’re in complete agreement about the priorities listed above, with respect to who gets innoculated first. To the list above (doctors, nurses, EMTs, firefighters, police, etc.), I’d add military, national guard, essential workers and leadership.

 

So, whining “I want to go to Miami”, may make a lot of noise, but it won’t raise anyone’s vaccine  priority. In the end, it’ll just be a long slog back to normalcy. To tell you the truth, I’m really not sure what normalcy might look like in a post Covid-19, probably nobody does.

 

@Randyk47Keep up the great comments. @TLCOhio thanks for keeping the thread on track, your efforts are greatly appreciated.

 

Doc Ruth

 

We're not the only ones wondering what will get us back to "normal" and what that normal will look like in travel.

 

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/covid-vaccine-travel/index.html

[TLCOhio]

On 11/14/2020 at 4:43 PM, kimanjo said:

We're not the only ones wondering what will get us back to "normal" and what that normal will look like in travel.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/covid-vaccine-travel/index.html

 

Appreciate your posting of this update and analysis from CNN.  Yes, things are getting more promising from the good news with both vaccines and medical treatments  This "situation" is not solved and far from over.  But, we can see more "LIGHT" at the end of the tunnel.  

 

From the New York Times this morning, they had this headline: “Early Data Show Moderna’s Coronavirus Vaccine Is 94.5% Effective" with this sub-head: "Moderna is the second company to report preliminary results from a large trial testing a vaccine. But there are still months to go before it will be widely available to the public.”

 

Here are some of their story highlights: “The drugmaker Moderna announced on Monday that its coronavirus vaccine was 94.5 percent effective, based on an early look at the results from its large, continuing study.  Researchers said the results were  better than they had dared to imagine. But the vaccine will not be widely available for months, probably not until spring.  Moderna is the second company to report preliminary data on an apparently successful vaccine. The need is urgent. U.S. cases are soaring, setting new records every day. . Some states and cities are reinstating lockdowns, restricting gatherings and closing schools once again.  Pfizer and Moderna were the first to announce early data on large studies, but 10 other companies are also conducting big Phase 3 trials in a global race to produce a vaccine, including efforts in Australia, Britain, China, India and Russia.  Moderna also reported on Monday that its vaccine has a longer shelf life under refrigeration and at room temperature than previously reported, which should make it easier to store and use. The financial markets were lifted in early trading on Monday.  Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the institute, said in an interview:  'I had been saying I would be satisfied with a 75 percent effective vaccine. Aspirationally, you would like to see 90, 95 percent, but I wasn’t expecting it. I thought we’d be good, but 94.5 percent is very impressive.' ”

 

Below shows how this announcement has boosted the value of the Silversea parent company.  

 

Full story at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/health/Covid-moderna-vaccine.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Panama Canal? Early 2017, Fort Lauderdale to San Francisco adventure through Panama Canal.  Our first stops in Colombia, Central America and Mexico, plus added time in the great Golden Gate City. Now at 30,226 views.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2465580

 

From the Wall Street Journal mid-day, here is their chart for the Royal Caribbean stock during the past week.  Clearly viewpoints jumped up, UP this morning based on the added positive news about vaccine positive progress.:

(Open your screen/viewer wider to see this visual larger/better!)

[TLCOhio]

From that above New York Times story posted, here are some added details that could be of important significance for this potential vaccine's distribution and use: "An additional concern is that both vaccines must be stored and transported at low temperatures — minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit for Moderna, and minus 94 Fahrenheit for Pfizer — which could complicate their distribution, particularly to low-income areas in hot climates. Although both vaccines are made of mRNA, their temperature requirements differ because they use different, proprietary formulations of fat to encase and protect the mRNA, Ray Jordan, a Moderna spokesman, said.   Other coronavirus vaccines being developed will need only refrigeration. If handled improperly, vaccines can become inactive.   But on Monday, Moderna said researchers had found that its vaccine had a longer shelf life in the refrigerator than previously thought: 30 days, not seven. And it will last 12 hours at room temperature, the company said."  These "little details" do make a difference as to how much of this all of these medical protections will work out in early 2021.  

 

From the Wall Street Journal this past weekend, they had this headline: “Airport Safety Tips in the Age of Covid" with this sub-headline involving their various suggestions: "As the holiday season approaches, health experts offer advice on how to best protect yourself from the coronavirus if you plan to travel by plane.”

 

Here are some highlighted suggestions from this story as all of us in the future seek to navigate, SAFELY, through airport terminals and doing the boarding: “ 'The airport is the real wild card,' says William Morice, chairman of the Mayo Clinic’s department of laboratory medicine and pathology.”

 

Here are some of their tips and specific suggestions: "Ready to Fly 1. Take care when moving around the airport. If you can, pick a less hectic time to fly or leave extra time to walk between terminals.  2. Be alert at TSA checkpoints. You may be asked to lower your mask for an identification check, but otherwise, keep your face covered. 3. Be careful with high-touch surfaces.  Grab some fresh wipes before you enter the checkpoint and use them to protect your hands when touching anything. Preboarding  4. Bring sanitizer. 
5. Try to limit connections. 6. Avoid the pre-flight party. 7. Use the restroom before boarding.  Takeoff  8. Gate departure. If possible, try to board early—some airlines will sell you this privilege. Pack light; a smaller bag will be easier to stow.  9. Bring a well-curated carry-on. Some fliers are packing goggles or clear face shields as an added precaution, but no airline, in the U.S. at least, requires them."

 

Full story at:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airport-safety-tips-in-the-age-of-covid-11605306670?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos1

 

From late 2018, see “Holy Lands, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Dubai, Greece, etc.”, with many visuals, details and ideas for the historic and scenic Middle East. Now at 19,108 views.  Connect at:

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2607054-livenautica-greece-holy-lands-egypt-dubai-terrypix’s/

[docruth]

48 minutes ago, TLCOhio said:

Here are some of their tips and specific suggestions: "Ready to Fly 

 

Full story at:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airport-safety-tips-in-the-age-of-covid-11605306670?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos1

Terry,

 

It pains me to say this, but this is almost the same checklist list of what I do for just for shopping. With just about 2,000 cases in my zip code already, I’m not sure there’s much of an alternative. Face shield, mask, gloves, sanitizer, route minimization, home arrival decontamination plan, and ready to shop!

 

I’m reminded of the line from the WOPR computer in the movie Wargames with Matthew Broderick.

 

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

 

Maybe that’s the case here, at least it will be until we get some real, hard data to use for planning.

 

Cheers,

 

Doc Ruth

Edited November 16, 2020 by docruth

[kimanjo]

3 hours ago, docruth said:

Terry,

 

It pains me to say this, but this is almost the same checklist list of what I do for just for shopping. With just about 2,000 cases in my zip code already, I’m not sure there’s much of an alternative. Face shield, mask, gloves, sanitizer, route minimization, home arrival decontamination plan, and ready to shop!

 

I’m reminded of the line from the WOPR computer in the movie Wargames with Matthew Broderick.

 

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

 

Maybe that’s the case here, at least it will be until we get some real, hard data to use for planning.

 

Cheers,

 

Doc Ruth

 

I just flew, 50 minute flight, 45 minute layover in Atlanta, and another 50 minute flight to final destination.  I  was appalled at resturant/bar I walked by from my A gate to my C gate.  Shoulder to shoulder, every table filled, not a mask in sight there. And, just walking thru the airport, the "trick" to not wearing a mask, appears to be carry around a coffee cup. 

 

I put my mask on when I parked my car at my departure airport, and didn't remove till I got my rental car at my destination. Not a single thing to eat or drink. Sat in my seat, and just listened to music and no contact with anybody.  That's the only way I felt safe(ish).  

 

Would I do it again?  Nope.   Too little mask compliance at my home airport and at ATL.

[Randyk47]

2 minutes ago, kimanjo said:

 

I just flew, 50 minute flight, 45 minute layover in Atlanta, and another 50 minute flight to final destination.  I  was appalled at resturant/bar I walked by from my A gate to my C gate.  Shoulder to shoulder, every table filled, not a mask in sight there. And, just walking thru the airport, the "trick" to not wearing a mask, appears to be carry around a coffee cup. 

 

I put my mask on when I parked my car at my departure airport, and didn't remove till I got my rental car at my destination. Not a single thing to eat or drink. Sat in my seat, and just listened to music and no contact with anybody.  That's the only way I felt safe(ish).  

 

Would I do it again?  Nope.   Too little mask compliance at my home airport and at ATL.

Our best friends really want us to come over to their place after Christmas for a week or so staying through New Years.   Two issues for us is we’d have to fly in and out of Atlanta.  The second issue is they have a fairly large family in the Atlanta area.   They’ve been gathering off and on at our friends’ lake house all summer and some 18 or so adults and children will be there for Thanksgiving.  Come Christmas and our friends will travel to three different households in two days.   Between your experience in the Atlanta airport and our friends quite frankly not distancing themselves I just can’t see us going over there or inviting them to visit us.   Sad but not worth the risk.  We were with them on the Silver Wind this past January and haven’t seen them since.  This is the longest we haven’t travel to one another’s house or met somewhere in seven years.   

[Lois R]

18 minutes ago, Randyk47 said:

Our best friends really want us to come over to their place after Christmas for a week or so staying through New Years.   Two issues for us is we’d have to fly in and out of Atlanta.  The second issue is they have a fairly large family in the Atlanta area.   They’ve been gathering off and on at our friends’ lake house all summer and some 18 or so adults and children will be there for Thanksgiving.  Come Christmas and our friends will travel to three different households in two days.   Between your experience in the Atlanta airport and our friends quite frankly not distancing themselves I just can’t see us going over there or inviting them to visit us.   Sad but not worth the risk.  We were with them on the Silver Wind this past January and haven’t seen them since.  This is the longest we haven’t travel to one another’s house or met somewhere in seven years.   

Hi Randy, I have 3 friends who live in Miami and we want to go to the Inauguration (driving up).

I really want to go but as these counts continue to go up, up, and up I am getting to be thinking

of not going............

[Randyk47]

15 minutes ago, Lois R said:

Hi Randy, I have 3 friends who live in Miami and we want to go to the Inauguration (driving up).

I really want to go but as these counts continue to go up, up, and up I am getting to be thinking

of not going............

That’s another factor in our decision to stay home and not have visitors.  While the news of late on the vaccines is encouraging they won’t be available in sufficient quantity in the    next few months to stop or slow the apparent ongoing resurgence of the virus for several months.   Dr Fauci says April or maybe as late as July of next year before we turn this around.   We have dodged the bullet so to speak so far and just aren’t going to risk it.   

[clo]

1 hour ago, Randyk47 said:

That’s another factor in our decision to stay home and not have visitors.

I wish the entire country was as wise as you. Out West we're getting restrictions like no more than six people from two households for indoor dining. And WA State has added that those from outside your household must quarantine for 14 days or 'only' 7 days with a negative test. 

[Randyk47]

56 minutes ago, clo said:

I wish the entire country was as wise as you. Out West we're getting restrictions like no more than six people from two households for indoor dining. And WA State has added that those from outside your household must quarantine for 14 days or 'only' 7 days with a negative test. 

Thank you but then again we’re not exactly hiding out in our house.  My wife does go to her office once a week and then works from home the other days.   Of course she is a senior leader with a private office in the executive suite that isn’t accessible without an encoded badge.  Not like folks are just wandering in and out.   Her agency is almost 100% telework and has been since late March.  She did lose one of her staff and his spouse to Covid but he caught it outside of the office and was never in the building after he became ill.  That was back in April so her other 124 personnel have done well.   I still go to the grocery, liquor, and hardware store and have since the beginning but I have always worn a mask and exam gloves even when the local authority backed off a bit.   Right now I don’t know of a store that doesn’t require at least masks and it is enforced.    

Edited November 17, 2020 by Randyk47

[QueSeraSera]

Does anyone know how they generate these "effective" numbers?  Does 94% effective mean that for 6% the vaccine will offer no protection?  If there are 1000 pax on a ship where all have received the vaccine, are 60 folks vulnerable to infection?  TIA to those who know.

 

[clo]

47 minutes ago, Randyk47 said:

Thank you but then again we’re not exactly hiding out in our house.

I understand but you mentioned limiting travel. We do necessary shopping and the occasional socially distanced, masked pre and post breakfast or lunch out at very specific spots where we know their procedures are adhered to. Even with our RV which keeps our footprint and bubble quite small we won't be crossing any state lines any time soon. And we haven't had anyone in our home the entire time. Or dined out with anyone. I question cruise line staff being willing to enforce rules.

[jpalbny]

@QueSeraSera It means that those members of the group who got the vaccine were much less likely (94% less likely, to be exact, in aggregate) to get infected than a group of people who didn't. It's an aggregate number which applies to the population but that's hard to extrapolate to an individual. Individuals either get sick or they don't. Populations have a percentage who are affected and that can vary.

 

To illustrate: if they vaccinate 1000 people and compare against 1000 people who got placebo - and 100 of the placebo get COVID but only 6 of the vaccinated people get COVID - that's 94% reduction in the rate of infection. Little comfort to the unlucky 6%, who got the disease with 100% incidence for them, but lots of others didn't.

 

Note that this doesn't tell you whether those unlucky 6% were just unlucky because despite responding to the vaccine, antibodies don't protect with 100% effectiveness, or maybe they didn't respond to the vaccine at all and are totally vulnerable, or they just happened to get a huge innoculum of the virus which overwhelmed their antibodies. It doesn't account for how sick they got, and you can never know whether the vaccine offered some protection (i.e., they still got sick with COVID, but they would have been much sicker had then not been vaccinated).

 

More unknown than known, on an INDIVIDUAL basis. But overall that is less important than you might think.

 

From a pandemic point of view, this is fantastic news. If a vaccine is 90-95% protective, then the disease will stop spreading very quickly, because... A 95% reduction in R0 for COVID would stop the pandemic almost immediately - in a matter of weeks. Yes, that's hypothetical and I realize you can't vaccinate the world overnight. But even a 50% reduction would make a major difference. Once the infected people run out of people to transmit the virus to, it will disappear.

 

 

[Stumblefoot]

JP, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true the results have not been peer reviewed yet, but only released via press release?  And, the rate of efficacy is based on only a single week of data?

[brimary]

9 hours ago, jpalbny said:

@QueSeraSera It means that those members of the group who got the vaccine were much less likely (94% less likely, to be exact, in aggregate) to get infected than a group of people who didn't. It's an aggregate number which applies to the population but that's hard to extrapolate to an individual. Individuals either get sick or they don't. Populations have a percentage who are affected and that can vary.

 

To illustrate: if they vaccinate 1000 people and compare against 1000 people who got placebo - and 100 of the placebo get COVID but only 6 of the vaccinated people get COVID - that's 94% reduction in the rate of infection. Little comfort to the unlucky 6%, who got the disease with 100% incidence for them, but lots of others didn't.

 

Note that this doesn't tell you whether those unlucky 6% were just unlucky because despite responding to the vaccine, antibodies don't protect with 100% effectiveness, or maybe they didn't respond to the vaccine at all and are totally vulnerable, or they just happened to get a huge innoculum of the virus which overwhelmed their antibodies. It doesn't account for how sick they got, and you can never know whether the vaccine offered some protection (i.e., they still got sick with COVID, but they would have been much sicker had then not been vaccinated).

 

More unknown than known, on an INDIVIDUAL basis. But overall that is less important than you might think.

 

From a pandemic point of view, this is fantastic news. If a vaccine is 90-95% protective, then the disease will stop spreading very quickly, because... A 95% reduction in R0 for COVID would stop the pandemic almost immediately - in a matter of weeks. Yes, that's hypothetical and I realize you can't vaccinate the world overnight. But even a 50% reduction would make a major difference. Once the infected people run out of people to transmit the virus to, it will disappear.

 

 

Thanks for the professional common sense views of a top Medical Practitioner much appreciated after reading all the journalistic rubbish in the English newspapers.Stay safe and thanks to you and your colleagues throughout the World for the excellent care you are providing at this difficult time for us all.

[jpalbny]

6 hours ago, Stumblefoot said:

JP, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true the results have not been peer reviewed yet, but only released via press release?  And, the rate of efficacy is based on only a single week of data?

 

Yes, it has not been peer-reviewed. That doesn't bother me in the least. It is an interim analysis which is ideally carried out by an independent review board (it was) and occurs after a sufficient number of outcomes occur (true here) so that there is a reasonable chance of enough "power" to detect whether or not it works. The purpose of interim analysis is to look for efficacy early on, so that you don't wait too long to bring a life-saving product to market. This is how large clinical trials are run.

 

It was not based on a week of data, as far as I know. It was based on cases "from 7 days after the second vaccine" which I interpret as them only counting cases which occured 7 or more days after the second dose. This would be because the vaccine is reported to become effective 7 days after the second dose. If you included all COVID cases in both arms of the trial from the time of enrollment, some in the vaccine group might have become sick prior to the vaccine becoming effective, which would have falsely understated its effectiveness. This analysis is highly suggestive (despite small numbers) that the vaccine is very effective by day 28.

 

This is completely standard practice for a large clinical trial. The stakes are quite high and it does feel rushed, but isn't it amazing that we have this kind of gene-sequencing technology to come up with a novel mRNA vaccine technique in just a few months? This is pretty exciting stuff.

[kimanjo]

2 hours ago, chrism23 said:

A Very Strange game indeed.  In almost every article I have read on risk assessment airplanes have come out neat the top of least riskiest behavior.  That is due to airflow.  Nearly all planes are equipped with HEPA filters that are completely filtering the air ever four minutes or so. Most articles seem to have air travel as about 4 times riskier than eating indoors in a restaurant.  The problem is not on the airplane itself but getting to it, the long walks to the terminal, the long lines checking in line, the crowds of people period.  And all the absolutely idiotic people not wearing masks.   All of those factors constitute extremely risky behavior.  Let alone sitting in a three seat row with the middle seat occupied by someone sneezing and coughing.  I would be totally in favor of absolute make requirements in airports, wear one or be escorted off the premises.  So I will not be flying anytime soon, unless I can hook up with a really rich friend who takes private air out of semi-private airports like Teterboro in New Jersey where all the big NYC money do their traveling to and from.     

 

That is why I was telling my experience of the airports.  There are also those on the plane, eating one cheeze-it every 5 minutes, also, to keep the mask off, but me keeping my mask on the entire time with not eating or drinking, and the airflow and HEPA filters, it for me was the least risky part of my journey. 

The airports were a mess.  If people are insisting on traveling over Thanksgiving/Christmas and the mask non-compliance carries on, it's not going to get any better. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by kimanjo

[TLCOhio]

20 hours ago, docruth said:

Terry,  It pains me to say this, but this is almost the same checklist list of what I do for just for shopping. With just about 2,000 cases in my zip code already, I’m not sure there’s much of an alternative. Face shield, mask, gloves, sanitizer, route minimization, home arrival decontamination plan, and ready to shop!    Doc Ruth

 

Agree as to the challenges to "BE CAREFUL" in doing shopping, travel, etc., as outlined above by Doc Ruth.  Many other great comments and follow-ups have been posted.  Excellent sharing!!  

 

From MSN News and CNN in the past hour, they had this headline: “Seadream cancels remaining 2020 Caribbean cruises following Covid outbreak” with these highlights: “SeaDream Yacht Club is canceling the rest of its 2020 cruises in the wake of a Covid-19 outbreak on board one of its ships last week.  "Multiple negative PCR tests were required before the guests boarded, but this was not sufficient to prevent Covid-19 onboard," the company said in a statement released Tuesday.  A total of 7 guests and two crew members aboard SeaDream 1 tested positive for Covid-19, the statement said.  The ship embarked from Barbados on November 7 on a sailing that was meant to show that regular testing aboard the ship and other safety protocols could allow cruise voyages to take place safely during the pandemic.  SeaDream 1 was the first cruise vessel to resume sailing in the Caribbean after the pandemic shut down operations in March.  'The company will now spend time to evaluate and see if it is possible to operate and have a high degree of certainty of not getting Covid,' the statement reads.”

 

Clearly this "test sailing" was a PR and medical "black eye" for this cruise line and the industry overall.  Am I missing something or incorrect?

 

Full story at:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/seadream-cancels-remaining-2020-caribbean-cruises-following-covid-outbreak/ar-BB1b5W1a

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Completed last summer Calgary, Jasper/Banff National Parks, Western Canada Rocky Mountaineer rail adventure, Vancouver, sailing up to Alaska, post-cruise excursion to Denali, etc.  Many visuals and details from our first in these scenic areas!  Live/blog at: 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2682584-live-terryohio-silver-muse-alaska-canadarockies-pix’s/

[TLCOhio]

Here is an interesting story on cruising in general and about Silversea specifically. 

 

From MSN News and reporting from Bloomberg News this morning, they had this headline: “Billions in New Cruise Ships Are Ready to Sail With Nowhere to Go” with these highlights: “Normally when a new ship wraps construction at a shipyard, it’s cause for a party, with executives in sharp suits and free-flowing champagne. But when the sparkling 596-passenger ultraluxury ship Silver Moon joined Royal Caribbean Group’s elite Silversea Cruises brand in late October—the culmination of a $380 million, 20-month project—there was little pomp and circumstance. No media were on hand at the Italian shipyard to ooh and ahh over exquisite design features like bespoke Lalique panels in the French restaurant or handcrafted Savoir beds in the top suites.  This time, even Royal Caribbean’s top brass bowed out on the celebration, teleconferencing in from Miami. And the ship’s handover, in Ancona, Italy, came with a cringe. After all, Silver Moon has nowhere to go. 'It’s very painful in many ways,' says Jason Liberty, Royal Caribbean Group’s executive vice president and CFO. 'All this energy, whether it’s design, creating unique activities and venues, obviously you’re investing money as well, and you take delivery of the ship and you can’t do what you do best, delivering the best vacations in the world.'  Liberty isn’t alone in his frustration. At least 10 ships—ranging in cost from $75 million to near $1 billion—have wrapped construction amid the pandemic, representing an industry investment of more than $3.84 billion.”

 

With a sub-head of "All Dressed Up, With Nowhere to Go", here is more of their reporting in this news story: "At this point last year, 2020 had been predicted in the cruise world as the beginning of a boom decade for ship building. According to trade publication Cruise Industry News, the year started with 117 cruise ships on order by 2027, a new record in the history of cruising. After all, the industry’s fast-growing popularity—32 million projected cruisers in 2020, up from 30 million in 2019–made new tonnage feel like a foolproof bet. Now it just feels like a sunk cost, adding to billions of dollars in quarterly losses that some companies were already experiencing.  Entirely new brands, such as the adults-only Virgin Voyages and the luxe Ritz-Carlton Yacht Collection, may be among the hardest hit. They’ve invested in multiple ships with no previous revenues to defray costs, only to have their first planned year of operation wiped out entirely."

 

Full story at:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/billions-in-new-cruise-ships-are-ready-to-sail-with-nowhere-to-go/ar-BB1b4O7u

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Barcelona/Med: June 2011, with stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Great visuals with key highlights, tips, etc. Live/blog now at 252,414 views.

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

[clo]

14 hours ago, jpalbny said:

 

From a pandemic point of view, this is fantastic news.

I'm trying to remember the source where I heard this last night but the companies have only made announcements, they haven't provided any data yet.

[Randyk47]

46 minutes ago, TLCOhio said:

Clearly this "test sailing" was a PR and medical "black eye" for this cruise line and the industry overall.  Am I missing something or incorrect?

 

You are neither missing something or incorrect.  In fact, you might be understating the impact with the “black eye” comment.   I realize some, maybe even many, people want to get back to cruising in the worst way but this “test sailing” is a clear indication to me this is not the right time.   Yes the future with the potential of a safe and available vaccine or vaccines is brighter but we’re not there and probably won’t be until late spring or early summer next year.  In the meantime we’re experiencing increased infection rates, higher hospitalizations, an inability to test and clearly eliminate infected people from a cruise, etc.  Kind of reminds me of trying to pitch a tent in the middle of a hurricane because it's going to be better tomorrow.   🥴