WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO RESTART CRUISE SHIPS???

[madmacs]

In the UK the government is introducing 14 days quarantines. So for US visitors aiming to cruise it looks as though they would have to spend 14 days in quarantine in a house before going on a cruise, and for UK customers we would have to be in quarantine for 14 days on return from a cruise. I can't see any cruises from Southampton whilst this is running. Suspect Celebrity will follow Princess and cancel the summer season at least from Southampton. Maybe P&O which is largely UK customers will be able to run from August/ September - we will see,

I am booked on Silhouette in October -not hopeful

[charmed101]

 

We will need a machine that will process 1,000 tests in 15 minutes or less.

We will need crews to be quarantined before boarding the ship.

We will need a way to isolate and remove an infected pax quickly for any disease.

We will need island cooperation for hospitalization.
We will need pax to wear masks and social distance when going through the boarding and testing process.  This applies to ships and planes.

We will need airlines to do the same.
We will need less crowded cruise ships.  
We will need crews to monitor and control more closely removing offending pax.
We will need islands to cooperate with cruise lines.  
 

I find the two underlined ideas very funny.  Your suggesting that the islands who are already poor agree to take rich passengers (and when I say rich, I mean to most islanders a family that has two cars, a house and can afford to cruise once a year are rich people) off of cruise ships so that the other "rich" people can continue to enjoy their cruise in peace and health. Their health system is already not capable of caring for their own people but you want seriously sick people from cruise ships to be accommodated by these islands. What a typical response from some.

 

 

[Pinboy]

49 minutes ago, cscurlock said:

1) Rapid testing at the port along with a way to social distance until verification.

2) Determine safe ports where people can't get Covid.

3) Upgrade filtration between the cabins so virus cant easily move from cabin to cabin.

4) If someone gets Covid on the ship and the ship needs to return to port determine the policy for getting people off the ship in a safe manner.  Maybe temp quarantine facilities that can handle 10,000 plus people in case the possibility of multiple ships.  Will people who live in the US be banned from coming back in the country.  This is happening to US crew members as we speak.

5) If an Covid outbreak happens get a local cleaning company to come in an deep clean the ship that has some type of certification. 

5) Find a way to get crew members who get covid off the ship and into quarantine.

6) There is some news regarding some people in Louisiana getting covid again and going back into the hospital after leaving the hospital without covid so this anti body theory might be hocus pocus we will see.  So until a vaccine is developed the people sailing need to understand the risks. If the antibody theory is good then a antibody passport is a good idea. 

7) Determine who is responsible for paying the bills when someone gets covid on the ship.

 

Not to be interpreted as " rather harsh " ---

This whole thread, post, or whatever it's called is " Dreamland " .

To even attempt to implement 25% of what I've read in the past few weeks, basically on this same subject , realistically seems impossible.

I look forward to many more years of cruising , as we all do, however if there are too many restrictions, and it's not " fun ", forget it. Why spend thousands of dollars and be " on edge " and not enjoy the cruise experience as in the past. 

[prim8keeper]

I saw yesterday that Grand Cayman is probably keeping it's borders closed until September 1 and that may be extended. It seems like a direct response to Carnival saying they would start sailings again in August that included stops in Grand Cayman. 

 

Article

[dandee2]

14 hours ago, bEwAbG said:

The fact is there is currently a subset of the population who thinks they cannot be told what to do & that all of this is unnecessary so they're going to do whatever they want.  You've already seen a few reflexively say on several threads "I will not wear a mask" as if asking someone to be considerate of others is such a huge inconvenience. 

 

All of that aside, none of this poking, prodding, swabbing, distancing, etc. sounds anything remotely like any sort of vacation I would ever want to take.  To do what?  Not got to a bar or not sit by the pool?  I can replicate all of that at home but with better TV choices.  Hotels and beaches will open before cruises do, and it would be a zillion times easier for them to implement the same if not better safety protocols.  I'll go back on a ship when the threat of this particular virus has subsided.

Agreed. I just have to look around my neibourhood.

[Happy Cruiser 6143]

3 hours ago, charmed101 said:

 

We will need a machine that will process 1,000 tests in 15 minutes or less.

We will need crews to be quarantined before boarding the ship.

We will need a way to isolate and remove an infected pax quickly for any disease.

We will need island cooperation for hospitalization.
We will need pax to wear masks and social distance when going through the boarding and testing process.  This applies to ships and planes.

We will need airlines to do the same.
We will need less crowded cruise ships.  
We will need crews to monitor and control more closely removing offending pax.
We will need islands to cooperate with cruise lines.  
 

I find the two underlined ideas very funny.  Your suggesting that the islands who are already poor agree to take rich passengers (and when I say rich, I mean to most islanders a family that has two cars, a house and can afford to cruise once a year are rich people) off of cruise ships so that the other "rich" people can continue to enjoy their cruise in peace and health. Their health system is already not capable of caring for their own people but you want seriously sick people from cruise ships to be accommodated by these islands. What a typical response from some.

 

 

 

The islands don't have to absorb the ill passengers into their health systems.  They simply need to permit them to be disembarked and then airlifted to their own country.  Medical evacuation flights are private.

[npcl]

5 minutes ago, Happy Cruiser 6143 said:

 

The islands don't have to absorb the ill passengers into their health systems.  They simply need to permit them to be disembarked and then airlifted to their own country.  Medical evacuation flights are private.

Not if its COVID-19 related.  Many of the air evacuation companies, such as medJet have indicated that they cannot carry COVID-19 patients because countries will not allow people testing positive in.  Even when patients were evacuated from Japan with the Diamond, no one that was ill was allowed to leave (with the exception of some that were asymptomatic, but tested positive on one of the american flights).

[Saab4444]

As most cases occur without or with little symptoms and suitable medicine will help as well in the near future there should be no general need for airlifting and intense care in local hospitals. Cases just need to be identified and isolated quickly. 

[npcl]

Why would a Caribbean Island allow cruise ships in?  After all if they were willing to open their boarders at all they would get far more benefit from the land based tourists, that come in stay in the resorts, stay for several days, can be more easily tracked, etc.

For the risk of each person coming in the value to the island is much greater for land based over cruise based.

 

While in aggregate cruise ships might leave a fair amount of money on the islands, it is far far smaller on a per person basis than with land based tourism.  After all cruise ships are only there for a few hours, do not book hotel rooms, spend a lot of their money on cruise ships sold excursions (less money going to the local companies), do a lot of shopping at the "port villages" where a lot of the stores are owned by off island companies (diamond international for example) and absentee owners.

 

If and when you see tourism start up in the Caribbean I expect land tourism to open before cruise ships are allowed in.  The timing of that tourism will depend upon the status of the countries they are coming from.

[bEwAbG]

8 hours ago, yorky said:

I personally won’t wear a mask while on a cruise ship, by that I mean I won’t cruise if that’s the rule, I believe that’s what others were meaning when stating they would not wear a mask when cruising. Will everyone obey the rules ? of course they won’t we all know that but you can’t put everything on hold forever because not everyone will obey rules. Let’s all be honest here because we all know it’s true, if there is no virus for years or indeed not all all Cruising won’t just go away. Yes it’s going to have to adapt and change and yes everyone on board should follow those rules but  It’s going to return and at that point everyone has a choice whether to cruise or not, calling people deniers, selfish, stupid, a subset, cheerleaders might make some people feel superior but it means nothing. When cruising returns people will return and we all need to deal with it because name calling won’t stop people cruising.

 

Not everyone who says they won't wear a mask is talking about it from a comfort perspective.  It's quickly becoming a political statement in the U.S.  We have protesters who purposely won't adhere to temporary rules put in place, daring anyone to say something to them about it.  It's a false choice that one has to "live their life" with zero consideration for the rest of the world around them.  You only need one asymptomatic person who won't comply to create a problem that could lead to an outbreak.  Much different than someone who hogs a pool chair. 

[bEwAbG]

Another consideration for the islands is if one becomes a hotspot, then the cruise companies will simply stop going there, much like they do after major hurricanes.  Why take the risk if you don't have a partner who will help you clean up the mess?  Have any of the cruise companies said they're going to invest in infrastructure that isn't cruise-related?  Maybe build & staff some world-class health facilities that would be open to the general population?  This could be a mutually beneficial thing.  

[Johnamac123]

6 hours ago, oceangoer2 said:

Sounds like an early virus....were you checked for antibodies?  would be a good thing to know.  Apparently the CV was up and running early in December.

I'm not 100% sure on that. There was no specific CV test on my lab bills that I could see.  I am planning to get an antibody test ASA it is made available to those without current symptoms. I did have many of the CV symptoms except fever at the time of my admission...

[yorky]

20 minutes ago, bEwAbG said:

 

Not everyone who says they won't wear a mask is talking about it from a comfort perspective.  It's quickly becoming a political statement in the U.S.  We have protesters who purposely won't adhere to temporary rules put in place, daring anyone to say something to them about it.  It's a false choice that one has to "live their life" with zero consideration for the rest of the world around them.  You only need one asymptomatic person who won't comply to create a problem that could lead to an outbreak.  Much different than someone who hogs a pool chair. 

It might be a false choice, but I’m afraid it is still a choice. And we  can’t force everyone else to adhere to our beliefs, life is simply not like that.

[npcl]

19 minutes ago, bEwAbG said:

 

Not everyone who says they won't wear a mask is talking about it from a comfort perspective.  It's quickly becoming a political statement in the U.S.  We have protesters who purposely won't adhere to temporary rules put in place, daring anyone to say something to them about it.  It's a false choice that one has to "live their life" with zero consideration for the rest of the world around them.  You only need one asymptomatic person who won't comply to create a problem that could lead to an outbreak.  Much different than someone who hogs a pool chair. 

Kind of like the new outbreak in Korea.  One guy going to 4-5 dance clubs in one night, without a mask, then tested positive a couple of days later, infected 43 others at those clubs, who in turn infected at least 11 more.

[npcl]

1 minute ago, yorky said:

It might be a false choice, but I’m afraid it is still a choice. And we  can’t force everyone else to adhere to our beliefs, life is simply not like that.

Actually in a pandemic or for that matter epidemic the laws quite clearly exist for the health departments to do what is necessary.  So actually they can force people.  As in Hawaii for example where people not following the rules, including tourists coming in, are getting arrested.  In the case of tourists put on planes back out of the state.

 

It is more a matter of some states being wishywashy and be inconsistent with their enforcement.

[npcl]

21 minutes ago, bEwAbG said:

Another consideration for the islands is if one becomes a hotspot, then the cruise companies will simply stop going there, much like they do after major hurricanes.  Why take the risk if you don't have a partner who will help you clean up the mess?  Have any of the cruise companies said they're going to invest in infrastructure that isn't cruise-related?  Maybe build & staff some world-class health facilities that would be open to the general population?  This could be a mutually beneficial thing.  

Would be very much out of character for the cruise lines, who have always taken the view of get the problem off the ship and on shore than it is not their worry.

 

Island not cooperating, threaten to pull the island off the schedule.  We will see how it works with the islands holding a bit more of the decision making ability.  Now would be a good time for them to set terms for future business, in a way that would favor the islands a bit more.

[OceanCruise]

I think there are multiple issues if rapid testing is required. First of all, there are many false positives. Secondly, someone could be negative today and positive tomorrow. Thirdly, it becomes a slippery slope when you start collecting people's DNA. Who then has access to one's private medical information? Where exactly would you draw the line for screening for communicable diseases? X-rays to see if people have tuberculosis? After all, that is more communicable and deadly. What about stool samples for norovirus? Rapid tests for strep? Blood tests for hepatitis? Yes, of course those are obviously extreme examples but you get the idea when you start to give up your civil liberties for the greater good and I don't want to catch those diseases from someone else. Studies also show that bandanas and many homemade cloth masks are ineffective at filtering Covid particles, so why are those even considered acceptible? Even if you use medical masks, they must be used properly which probably 99% of the people (besides health workers) don't do. They are supposed to be used only once, not be touched at all while on the face, and hands should be washed before and after use. What do people do with their masks when eating? Put them on the table and thus spread germs? Go swimming then reuse the mask you have been breathing or coughing into then touch the chair, elevator buttons and handrails? If you look at the actual CDC statistics, mortality rate from Covid is no greater than seasonal flu in prior years. In fact, deaths from influenza is at an all time low. Is it possible hospitals are misclassifying Covid deaths because that diagnosis is reimbursed at a much higher rate than influenza or pneumonia? According to CDC, total deaths from all causes in the US are only 98% of expected deaths based on prior years so there is no actual surge in deaths (As of May 8). 

[npcl]

12 minutes ago, OceanCruise said:

I think there are multiple issues if rapid testing is required. First of all, there are many false positives. Secondly, someone could be negative today and positive tomorrow. Thirdly, it becomes a slippery slope when you start collecting people's DNA. Who then has access to one's private medical information? Where exactly would you draw the line for screening for communicable diseases? X-rays to see if people have tuberculosis? After all, that is more communicable and deadly. What about stool samples for norovirus? Rapid tests for strep? Blood tests for hepatitis? Yes, of course those are obviously extreme examples but you get the idea when you start to give up your civil liberties for the greater good and I don't want to catch those diseases from someone else. Studies also show that bandanas and many homemade cloth masks are ineffective at filtering Covid particles, so why are those even considered acceptible? Even if you use medical masks, they must be used properly which probably 99% of the people (besides health workers) don't do. They are supposed to be used only once, not be touched at all while on the face, and hands should be washed before and after use. What do people do with their masks when eating? Put them on the table and thus spread germs? Go swimming then reuse the mask you have been breathing or coughing into then touch the chair, elevator buttons and handrails? If you look at the actual CDC statistics, mortality rate from Covid is no greater than seasonal flu in prior years. In fact, deaths from influenza is at an all time low. Is it possible hospitals are misclassifying Covid deaths because that diagnosis is reimbursed at a much higher rate than influenza or pneumonia? According to CDC, total deaths from all causes in the US are only 98% of expected deaths based on prior years so there is no actual surge in deaths (As of May 8). 

The masks are not intended to provide filtering of the air for the recipient.  What they are very effective at is to reduce the velocity of virus infected droplets from an infected individual.  Capturing some, but mostly taking droplets that might travel a fairly considerable distance, and shortening the distance considerably.  Thus reducing the chance of infecting others.

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/04/cough-coronavirus-masks-kaye-pkg-vpx.cnn

 

The infected person does not really have to worry about handling their mask because they are already infected. If those asymptomatic (as well as anyone with any symptoms are all, are wearing masks  then the odds of viruses actually making it to the mask of others is quite low.

 

Your understanding of the intent of mask use in the general public, which is to protect others, by reducing spread, not by providing a virus proof barrier for the yourself, seems to be on par with you understanding the the medical statistics.  

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by npcl

[yorky]

19 minutes ago, npcl said:

Actually in a pandemic or for that matter epidemic the laws quite clearly exist for the health departments to do what is necessary.  So actually they can force people.  As in Hawaii for example where people not following the rules, including tourists coming in, are getting arrested.  In the case of tourists put on planes back out of the state.

 

It is more a matter of some states being wishywashy and be inconsistent with their enforcement.

I was talking more about “ It's a false choice that one has to "live their life" with zero consideration for the rest of the world around them.“ I do have sympathy with your view as much as I tend not to worry about it the same way I don’t worry about the behaviour of others on a cruise ship, I can’t change people.

[npcl]

1 minute ago, yorky said:

I was talking more about “ It's a false choice that one has to "live their life" with zero consideration for the rest of the world around them.“ I do have sympathy with your view as much as I tend not to worry about it the same way I don’t worry about the behaviour of others on a cruise ship, I can’t change people.

So I assume that your view would be to not wear a mask to protect others around you.  Wearing a mask is actually far more consideration for the world around you and the safety of others.

 

Just as following the rules to reduce the level of infection is also in the best interest of others.

[yorky]

9 minutes ago, npcl said:

So I assume that your view would be to not wear a mask to protect others around you.  Wearing a mask is actually far more consideration for the world around you and the safety of others.

 

Just as following the rules to reduce the level of infection is also in the best interest of others.

I would not wear a mask on a cruise ship simply because I don’t think it’s doable, half of our time is spent eating and drinking on ship, it’s simply not going to be effective. My view is if everyone had to wear a mask there should not be a cruise on the first place. I would wear a mask going shopping without a problem.

[npcl]

4 minutes ago, yorky said:

I would not wear a mask on a cruise ship simply because I don’t think it’s doable, half of our time is spent eating and drinking on ship, it’s simply not going to be effective. My view is if everyone had to wear a mask there should not be a cruise on the first place. I would wear a mask going shopping without a problem.

Never said on a cruise. Don't really care what people do on cruise ships.  They will be there because they either don't feel there is a risk, or don't feel that they need protection.

 

 

Talking about now, in public, going in public areas, especially indoor public areas such as grocery stores. Where the people working come in contact with many many others.  As such should be protected by their customers wearing masks.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by npcl

[yorky]

Just now, npcl said:

Never said on a cruise. Don't really care what people do on cruise ships.  They will be there because they either don't feel there is a risk, or don't feel that they need protection.

 

Talking about now, in public, going in public areas, especially indoor public areas such as grocery stores. Where the people working come in contact with many many others.  As such should be protected by their customers wearing masks.

 

 

 

 

I agree.

[ECCruise]

44 minutes ago, OceanCruise said:

f you look at the actual CDC statistics, mortality rate from Covid is no greater than seasonal flu in prior years. 

Could you provide a citation for that data?  I am finding nothing even remotely close to what you are claiming, not from the CDC, not from the University of Washington study, not from anywhere. 

Most data indicates a mortality rate between 10 and 15 times higher than seasonal influenza.  Would love it if your data was right, though.

[OceanCruise]

27 minutes ago, npcl said:

The masks are not intended to provide filtering of the air for the recipient.  What they are very effective at is to reduce the velocity of virus infected droplets from an infected individual.  Capturing some, but mostly taking droplets that might travel a fairly considerable distance, and shortening the distance considerably.  Thus reducing the chance of infecting others.

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/04/cough-coronavirus-masks-kaye-pkg-vpx.cnn

 

The infected person does not really have to worry about handling their mask because they are already infected. If those asymptomatic (as well as anyone with any symptoms are all, are wearing masks  then the odds of viruses actually making it to the mask of others is quite low.

 

Your understanding of the intent of mask use in the general public, which is to protect others, by reducing spread, not by providing a virus proof barrier for the yourself, seems to be on par with you understanding the the medical statistics.  

 

 

Here are some studies about limitations of masks based on the actual science. 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

 

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness-surgical-cotton-masks-blocking-sars-cov-2-controlled-comparison?fbclid=lwAR0IZUfKjBqw-4sh

 

Here are the official CDC statistics from today. You can see the downward trend since mid April

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm