Will there be any further Regents cruises in 2020?

[Wendy The Wanderer]

8 hours ago, cruiseluv said:

Sorry Sheila but, was it hot?? Even in 70 degrees temperature I cannot stand that mask if I'm going out for a walk, I start getting dizzy. I wear it (because I have no choice) when I go into grocery store. There're many studies about masks that show they dont really protect you. 

 

Well then physical distancing needs to be maintained, doesn't it?

 

And yes, masks are meant to protect other people, especially in cases where physical distancing can't be maintained.  That shouldn't be true on a beach.

[flossie009]

NCLH obviously not intending any of their fleet to call into Harvest Caye anytime soon:

https://edition.channel5belize.com/archives/203248?

 

[SusieQft]

11 hours ago, cruiseluv said:

There're many studies about masks that show they dont really protect you. 

If you have these studies, could you please post the references?

 

Early on, there was a lot of SPECULATION that masks were not of benefit, but that was before we realized how many Covid-19 infections totally asymptomatic.  IMO our government officials were totally off base to actively discourage masks early on, and now we are all paying the price for it.  As FrequentFloater333 just pointed out, the primary purpose of the mask is to protect OTHERS from YOUR asymptomatic infection that you do not know you have!  Have some concern for others!

 

If you just think about it a bit, it makes sense that a well fitting mask would also offer some protection to the wearer.  Not 100% foolproof, but certainly not useless.

 

Studies are also starting to show that wearing masks DOES offer protection, even at home.  In this case, masking both the person(s) infected but asymptomatic (or pre-symtomatic) and the person(s) not infected.  I don't expect that idea to catch on in the US, but it would be something to consider, especially for large multigenerational households.  I can't reference the original article, but this very interesting article discusses it:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200527/aerosol-scientist-covid19-is-likely-airborne?ecd=wnl_spr_052820&ctr=wnl-spr-052820_nsl-LeadModule_cta&mb=kVBab3XJg4N4w4csNUnBhJAyWFWqf9PL2%2fsoWQZQgB4%3d

 

As for the WHO, they have been wrong many times already, for example by telling us that the virus can't be transmitted from person to person when it was well known in China at the time that it was being transmitted that way.  It seems foolish to forego protective actions because the WHO assures you they are not needed, especially when evidence and other sources suggest the opposite.

 

[Travelcat2]

This is becoming borderline political so I'll take it down a notch.  Since this is a "novel" virus, no one knew (or knows now) exactly what to expect from it.  Many predictions have been wrong and this may continue to be in the future until it is figured out.  

 

I look at Asia in terms of masks.  It has been successful for them for a very long time.  I always wondered why so many people in Asia wear masks .... now I understand.  When this pandemic began and we were told not to wear masks, I didn't believe what was being said.  Logically, having a mask to cover your cough, sneeze or spittle when you speak had to have some positive effect.  Now, most people are wearing masks and they are becoming required in more places every day.  I don't like masks anymore than the next person but will wear one indefinitely if it is going to help stop the virus.  

 

I do have face shields and wonder how effective they are.  Here is an article about them https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/face-shields-a-more-effective-deterrent-to-covid#1

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Travelcat2

[SusieQft]

The face shields are an interesting variation.  I have read somewhere (sorry, don't have the reference offhand) that they are much less effective than face masks because of all the unfiltered air.  Basically, the face shield just redirects the air flow to go down instead of forward.  It will not help at all for fully aerosolized virus particles, but It should do a pretty good job of blocking inbound droplets, and changing the trajectory of outbound droplets.  It seems to me that if, for example, a waiter is wearing a face shield and is standing next to a seated diner, then the waiter's exhalations (air and droplets) might actually be more directly aimed at the diner than without the shield.  More studies of this would definitely be helpful.

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by SusieQft

[FrequentFloater333]

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

This is becoming borderline political so I'll take it down a notch.  Since this is a "novel" virus, no one knew (or knows now) exactly what to expect from it.  Many predictions have been wrong and this may continue to be in the future until it is figured out.  

 

I look at Asia in terms of masks.  It has been successful for them for a very long time.  I always wondered why so many people in Asia wear masks .... now I understand.  When this pandemic began and we were told not to wear masks, I didn't believe what was being said.  Logically, having a mask to cover your cough, sneeze or spittle when you speak had to have some positive effect.  Now, most people are wearing masks and they are becoming required in more places every day.  I don't like masks anymore than the next person but will wear one indefinitely if it is going to help stop the virus.  

 

I do have face shields and wonder how effective they are.  Here is an article about them https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/face-shields-a-more-effective-deterrent-to-covid#1

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Travelcat2.  I wasn't trying to intentionally get political, and to all who may have seen my comments in that light, I sincerely apologize.  There's really no room for politics on this forum.

[Travelcat2]

15 minutes ago, FrequentFloater333 said:

Thanks for your thoughts, Travelcat2.  I wasn't trying to intentionally get political, and to all who may have seen my comments in that light, I sincerely apologize.  There's really no room for politics on this forum.

 

I wasn't referring to you in terms of politics.  WHO is a hot political topic right now in the U.S. so I tried to veer the discussion away from them.  I am enjoying your posts - keep them coming!

[wristband]

Interesting discussion - to lighten it up, I fondly remember our Surgeon General interviewed on tv in March. 

 

His firm message at that time:  Do NOT wear a mask.  Q: Why not? 

Answer:  People don't know how to properly put a mask on.

 

TV Anchor (incredulous):  Huh? How do you explain Halloween?!?

 

You can't make this stuff up!

 

 

[Foggyzx9r]

1 hour ago, SusieQft said:

The face shields are an interesting variation.  I have read somewhere (sorry, don't have the reference offhand) that they are much less effective than face masks because of all the unfiltered air.  Basically, the face shield just redirects the air flow to go down instead of forward.  It will not help at all for fully aerosolized virus particles, but It should do a pretty good job of blocking inbound droplets, and changing the trajectory of outbound droplets.  It seems to me that if, for example, a waiter is wearing a face shield and is standing next to a seated diner, then the waiter's exhalations (air and droplets) might actually be more directly aimed at the diner than without the shield.  More studies of this would definitely be helpful.

 

Report on the Infection Control associated with Face Shields

Societal Use of Masks and Face Shields

 

Seems there has been some research but I see them frequently used in orthopaedic elective and trauma theatres. The use of drills in tends to create a considerable amount of airborne contamination through the aerosol effect.

They are of course in a surgical scenario used in combination with surgical masks and so I think you would be right Susie in that it would act as a deflector. How efficient that would be is debatable.

 

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, Foggyzx9r said:

Report on the Infection Control associated with Face Shields

Societal Use of Masks and Face Shields

 

Seems there has been some research but I see them frequently used in orthopaedic elective and trauma theatres. The use of drills in tends to create a considerable amount of airborne contamination through the aerosol effect.

They are of course in a surgical scenario used in combination with surgical masks and so I think you would be right Susie in that it would act as a deflector. How efficient that would be is debatable.

 

 

As silly as it may sound, I tried wearing a mask and shield (as I have seen doctors do during the pandemic) and one good thing is that I can drink with a straw while wearing it..  The shields are indeed comfortable but I understand that it is not as protective as a mask.  I haven’t worn mine since I was leaving to go to the market and my husband asked “you are going to the store looking like that???”  

[SusieQft]

The mask and the shield together will almost certainly protect you better than either one alone, especially if you are near others who are not wearing masks, or if you are in direct contact with someone known to have the virus (as a caretaker or health care worker).  It seems that we have so much trouble getting compliance with just masks that having people wear both seems pretty far fetched.  But people certainly should be allowed to do so if they wish.

 

I have seen reports about restaurant workers using a shield instead of a mask, which concerns me.  On the other hand, if you are dining in a restaurant, you could probably eat with the shield on, depending on the design of the shield.  But it is a lot easier just not to go to the restaurants, and I think that even after they open they will probably have trouble filling even a reduced capacity.  I love to eat in restaurants, but right now my desire to go on a cruise far exceeds my desire to eat at a local restaurant.

 

Maybe Regent should provide passengers with face shields to wear to the restaurants?

 

[mrlevin]

6 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

Maybe Regent should provide passengers with face shields to wear to the restaurants?

 

 

PLEASE NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[SusieQft]

18 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

 

PLEASE NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

I forgot to include the tongue in cheek emoji.  😉

[Travelcat2]

21 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

 

PLEASE NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

Don't worry Marc - I wasn't really suggesting it for onboard the ship (unless someone wants to wear one).  For some people, it is considerably more comfortable and easier to breathe than masks so I was wondering if they could be accepted as an alternative.

[cruiseluv]

14 hours ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

 

Well then physical distancing needs to be maintained, doesn't it?

 

And yes, masks are meant to protect other people, especially in cases where physical distancing can't be maintained.  That shouldn't be true on a beach.

Well, you may want that to be the case, but its not a realistic expectation for the long term, especially now that summer is coming and people want to be out and about . So really, the burden will be on people that are fearful,to either stay home, or put up with the infractions to this "law/ regulation". Just the other day I heard about some study that claimed 6 ft distancing is not remotely adequate, that it should be more like 20-30 ft! LOL!  See how quickly this can get ridiculous?  Have you seen the "protests" we're having these days? See much "social distancing" there? 

[FrequentFloater333]

5 hours ago, cruiseluv said:

Well, you may want that to be the case, but its not a realistic expectation for the long term, especially now that summer is coming and people want to be out and about . So really, the burden will be on people that are fearful,to either stay home, or put up with the infractions to this "law/ regulation". Just the other day I heard about some study that claimed 6 ft distancing is not remotely adequate, that it should be more like 20-30 ft! LOL!  See how quickly this can get ridiculous?  Have you seen the "protests" we're having these days? See much "social distancing" there? 

20-30 ft?  Yes, that is ridiculous, particularly given the source (...heard about some study that claimed...).  Widely accepted science seems to have settled on 6 ft. distancing.  And while the Covid-19 threat remains an evolving threat, until that consensus changes, I'm going with the current scientific assessment, rather than allow unsupported rumors to be my guide.

[fizzy]

Why are the summer Alaska cruises still listed as available for booking and not the waitlist run around?

[mrlevin]

1 minute ago, fizzy said:

Why are the summer Alaska cruises still listed as available for booking and not the waitlist run around?

 

So we can all get additional FCC.  They would love for us to book them making final payment at same time; and then not having to provide a product for a year or two.

 

Marc

[fizzy]

16 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

 

So we can all get additional FCC.  They would love for us to book them making final payment at same time; and then not having to provide a product for a year or two.

 

Marc

Thanks. With things changing so quickly, I thought that maybe the later Alaska cruises might be going ahead.....and there are some great deals. I think we will wait.

[mariners]

cruiseluv, if I am interpreting your post correctly, you are stating that people who choose to wear masks, follow social distancing, and other "law/regulation" are fearful and should either put up with those who choose not to follow the "law/regulation" or "stay home".  I believe that people who choose not to follow the "law/regulation" will be one of the main reasons that cruise lines in 2020 and, perhaps, 2021, will have difficulty sailing with enough passengers to be profitable, will be prohibited from sailing to different countries, and will not be allowed to dock in some ports.   

 

I have cancelled my 2020 cruises, but have kept a 2021 cruise and added two more cruises in 2021.  I can absolutely guarantee that if the cruise lines have passengers who believe that the "law/regulation" and guidelines do not apply to them, and the cruise line is not able to successfully enforce laws/regulations/guidelines, I will not be sailing on any ship that belongs to that cruise line.  Yes, I am one of those people who believe that our world is about "us" and not about "me".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gb58]

I have heard (not done research...) that the main reason for wearing a mask in Asian countries (pre-Covid) is to protect against air pollution (smog, fine particles etc.)  not airborne diseases...

[Travelcat2]

55 minutes ago, gb58 said:

I have heard (not done research...) that the main reason for wearing a mask in Asian countries (pre-Covid) is to protect against air pollution (smog, fine particles etc.)  not airborne diseases...

 

Very interesting.   I had not thought of that!

[eliana]

We seem to be going off subject which is asking will there be future Regent cruises in 2020. I fear the answer still seems to be no or unlikely, which is bad news for those of us who have FCCs. But if cruises  started again would any of you fly to them?

 

 

[RachelG]

8 minutes ago, eliana said:

We seem to be going off subject which is asking will there be future Regent cruises in 2020. I fear the answer still seems to be no or unlikely, which is bad news for those of us who have FCCs. But if cruises  started again would any of you fly to them?

 

 

We have an Oceania cruise scheduled in September which has not yet been cancelled, though I suspect it probably will be.  But if the cruise is happening, and my employer has lifted their travel restrictions (currently, I could go but would have to be on quarantine for 14 days after return), we will be going, and yes, flying. Planes are probably cleaner now than ever in recent years.

 

As far as the mask vs. face shield issue, in medical settings they are worn together.  The mask is probably going to offer more protection as far as spreading the disease.  I think the face shield offers little to none as far as spreading, and I really would not want a restaurant waiter who was wearing only the face shield as all of the virus would be directed down at the food and table (even though the virus is not food borne, I still wouldn't want it on the utensils I was handling).

 

And I also am very sure that the masks worn in Asia previously had to do with air pollution, not germs.  I actually asked my adopted daughter from China about that long before Covid-19 was a thing.  Women there also often wear gloves, but not to protect from disease.  It is to prevent sun exposure.

Edited June 1, 2020 by RachelG

[SusieQft]

5 hours ago, FrequentFloater333 said:

Widely accepted science seems to have settled on 6 ft. distancing

I'm not sure how much science is involved in the 6 ft number.  I don't think any other country in the world is using it.  I have seen 2 meters (6' 8") and 1.5 meters (5'), and I think but am not sure I even saw 1 meter once.  Six feet is a number that is easy to remember in the US, and probably a pretty good number, and the risk does not have an abrupt drop to zero at any particular distance, anyway.  The bottom line is that the farther away you are, the less the risk. The experiment to provide a scientifically correct answer is not practical and probably not moral.  Sneezes will propel droplets much farther than 6 ft, which is why you heard the larger number.  In an enclosed space, the virus particles float in the air for an indefinite time and distance without a surrounding droplet.