Ten steps the cruise industry needs to take to recover

[Roz]

7 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

No, but it does mean that people who took them agreed to an inferior product.

 

Kind of snobby, wouldn't you say?  I've never thought of an inside cabin as an inferior product.

[calliopecruiser]

5 minutes ago, Roz said:

I've never thought of an inside cabin as an inferior product.

I do, but I don't think that makes me a snob.   There's nothing about snobby about making a distinction between good and bad, better and worse.  If you don't make those distinctions, I think that's worse -- a sign of having no sense of judgment or priorities.

[clo]

17 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

As Dr. Fauci said " the degree of efficiency of transmissibility of this is really unprecedented in anything that I’ve seen. It’s an extraordinarily efficient virus in transmitting from one person to another,” Fauci said. “These kinds of viruses don’t just disappear.”"

And he has seen A LOT.

[clo]

8 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

I do, but I don't think that makes me a snob.   There's nothing about snobby about making a distinction between good and bad, better and worse.  If you don't make those distinctions, I think that's worse -- a sign of having no sense of judgment or priorities.

I really don't understand calling an inside cabin "inferior." It has no window and it likely is smaller. It costs less. But why is it inferior?

[cruisemom42]

On 5/25/2020 at 5:01 PM, Jasawyer said:

Today a doctor on a news channel stated that Companies that are attempting to produce a vaccine are concerned because the virus is going away too quickly. I took a photo of the TV but can't attach it for some reason. I will just give the direct quote, "Scientists warn virus may be disappearing too fast for vaccine studies to produce meaningful results"....

 

yeah....I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over that happening:

 

[calliopecruiser]

1 minute ago, clo said:

I really don't understand calling an inside cabin "inferior." It has no window and it likely is smaller. It costs less. But why is it inferior?

Smaller size and no natural light.  In my mind, that's definitely inferior.  It has nothing to do with the cost, nor value. 

[Jasawyer]

23 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

Smaller size and no natural light.  In my mind, that's definitely inferior.  It has nothing to do with the cost, nor value. 

When we first started sailing we got interior cabins just to get a feel of cruising. After those first two cruises, we were upgraded to a balcony once and swore to never go back to an interior. We made the jump to the suite and swore off balconies but we have been forced to take balcony rooms on our next two trips because the suites were already packed. I don't thinks it's necessarily snobby, it's just a different perspective. When we first started cruising we were much younger and used the room as merely a place to sleep but as we have aged, we use the room as more of a haven from the hordes of people should we need it. We also get the spa package and hit it up daily. The spa is usually a nice respite as well. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Jasawyer
grammar

[getting older slowly]

The Interior cabin bit, some people must sleep in a dark room, also some people just use there room to sleep...

 

It is interesting that people are of holiday and and in a hotel every room has a window, where as on a cruise they have cabin with no windows......  or is it a way to get more paying people of the ship to maximize profit....

 

They do have the same amenities as a window cabin.... but would not be caught dead in one..

 

the concept of not using interior cabins was to reduce the overall number of passengers... and logic would seam to removed to cabin with the lowest profit margin........ that is all

 

Don    

[lenquixote66]

51 minutes ago, Jasawyer said:

When we first started sailing we got interior cabins just to get a feel of cruising. After those first two cruises, we were upgraded to a balcony once and swore to never go back to an interior. We made the jump to the suite and swore off balconies but we have been forced to take balcony rooms on our next two trips because the suites were already packed. I don't thinks it's necessarily snobby, it's just a different perspective. When we first started cruising we were much younger and used the room as merely a place to sleep but as we have aged, we use the room as more of a haven from the hordes of people should we need it. We also get the spa package and hit it up daily. The spa is usually a nice respite as well. 

Our first cruise was a porthole.The ship did not have a balcony.The second cruise was an. OV.We have been in a Inside once and I said never again.I do not care for a balcony.

I have no desire to ever book a suite.For me it is an OV only.

On my last cruise , 5 months ago.There was a guy and his wife across from us in an Inside cabin.He was a retired Pro Basketball player who could afford any kind of cabin on the ship.He said that he and his wife prefer Inside cabins.He did not say why.

[ed01106]

 

16 minutes ago, lenquixote66 said:

He was a retired Pro Basketball player who could afford any kind of cabin on the ship.He said that he and his wife prefer Inside cabins.He did not say why.

Not speaking for him but me.  Even if money was no object, I would still prefer inside cabin.  Nothing beats taking a nap at 2pm and having the room pitch dark.  One thing I dislike about travel is hotels never have curtains that are as good as what I have at home. (other than inside cabin)

[Jasawyer]

22 minutes ago, lenquixote66 said:

Our first cruise was a porthole.The ship did not have a balcony.The second cruise was an. OV.We have been in a Inside once and I said never again.I do not care for a balcony.

I have no desire to ever book a suite.For me it is an OV only.

On my last cruise , 5 months ago.There was a guy and his wife across from us in an Inside cabin.He was a retired Pro Basketball player who could afford any kind of cabin on the ship.He said that he and his wife prefer Inside cabins.He did not say why.

There are distinct advantages to an interior cabin, one is that they stay cooler and two you can sleep like a champ because there is zero light to wake you.

[lenquixote66]

24 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

 

Not speaking for him but me.  Even if money was no object, I would still prefer inside cabin.  Nothing beats taking a nap at 2pm and having the room pitch dark.  One thing I dislike about travel is hotels never have curtains that are as good as what I have at home. (other than inside cabin)

That may have been his feeling also .

[lenquixote66]

24 minutes ago, Jasawyer said:

There are distinct advantages to an interior cabin, one is that they stay cooler and two you can sleep like a champ because there is zero light to wake you.

I sleep very well even in a room with sunlight shining in.

[pris993]

4 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

 

IMHO this phase of the pandemic response has things exactly backward.  As we open up the economy, we can no longer impose the responsibility of protecting the high risk groups on the shoulders of the young and healthy.  It's now time for the elderly and those with comorbidities to assume responsibility for their own safety from COVID.   Yes, some of the young and healthy have also died from COVID-19, but this is the exception - for school age children it is a very rare exception.  Children need to return to school. If you follow the science there is no justification for keeping schools closed any longer.  Young and middle age healthy adults need to get on with their lives and get back to work...... and yes, back to socializing.  Again, the science tells us that for this demographic COVID-19 is akin to the flu - and we don't take these drastic measures for flu season - even though tens of thousands die.  Will more of the young and healthy contract COVID-19?  Yep, but only a very small percentage will get seriously ill and of those only a tiny percentage will die.

 

So that leaves us older folk, and those with comorbidities, to fend for ourselves -  as is appropriate and doable.  This means that while others are encouraged to wear cloth masks to protect others, we must wear masks designed to protect the wearer (i.e. ourselves).  We need to wear N95 or equivalent masks when we leave the house just like those worn by hospital workers (who despite working in a coronavirus rich environment every day have an infection rate equal to, or often lower than, the public).  

 

It also means that while the young and healthy start to return to normal, we can't.  The risk for them relaxing social distancing rules is so much lower than it is for us.  They can resume flying, we can't.  They can start to return to restaurants, we can't.  And  yes, in a couple of months they can resume cruising, we can't.  In truth, we too can start to do these things - and some of us will, but in doing so we must accept the risk along with the responsibility to protect ourselves.  This is no longer a burden we can impose on the young.

 

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with your 2 cents.   I am 73 and my dh is 88. 

[swaddy]

're no more sex. 

A daily paper in the UK today reported that Holland banned all sex workers 8 weeks ago but they are now petitioning to be able to resume work. They suggest being restricted to two named positions that do not require face to face interaction. As well as condoms, face masks were to be worn.  Other hygiene precautions to be instigated. So now you know. 

[ontheweb]

7 minutes ago, swaddy said:

're no more sex. 

A daily paper in the UK today reported that Holland banned all sex workers 8 weeks ago but they are now petitioning to be able to resume work. They suggest being restricted to two named positions that do not require face to face interaction. As well as condoms, face masks were to be worn.  Other hygiene precautions to be instigated. So now you know. 

Definitely a case of "big brother is watching you". 

 

I would think they would argue that they were "essential workers".

[clo]

1 hour ago, ed01106 said:

 

Not speaking for him but me.  Even if money was no object, I would still prefer inside cabin.  Nothing beats taking a nap at 2pm and having the room pitch dark.  One thing I dislike about travel is hotels never have curtains that are as good as what I have at home. (other than inside cabin)

We did an Alaska cruise in June some years ago. Boy, was I grateful for that inside cabin. When we went to bed the only light was a sliver under the door.

 

8 minutes ago, pris993 said:

 Yes, some of the young and healthy have also died from COVID-19, but this is the exception

38% between 20 and 54.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too

[cruisemom42]

4 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

Yes, some of the young and healthy have also died from COVID-19, but this is the exception - for school age children it is a very rare exception. 

 

21 minutes ago, clo said:

 

38% between 20 and 54.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too

 

The article quoted actually doesn't refer to the mortality rate but to hospitalizations. To wit:  "the CDC report shows that as of March 16, 2020, 508 people were hospitalized for COVID-19 in the U.S. Of these, 38% were between 20 and 54 years old. Half of those ending up in intensive care were younger than 65." 

 

I took a look at the most recent reported numbers of deaths from COVID-19 by age group, published by the CDC as of May 20 (two months' more data than the article cited above):

 

1-14 yrs:     12 deaths

15-24 yrs:   76 deaths

25-34 yrs:   463 deaths

35-44 yrs:   1186 deaths

45-54 yrs:   3338 deaths

55-64 yrs:   8312 deaths

65-74 yrs:   14,447 deaths

75-84 yrs:   18,621 deaths

85+ yrs:      22,543 deaths

 

Total deaths:   68,998

 

According to my math, the 25-54 year age group only accounts for 7.23% of mortalities overall from COVID-19.  Granted, it's not the exact same range as the 20-54 cited above, but the deaths in the 20-24 year range is low,

 

 

4 hours ago, mnocket said:

Will more of the young and healthy contract COVID-19?  Yep, but only a very small percentage will get seriously ill and of those only a tiny percentage will die

 

 

Again, not so fast. I would certainly define "seriously ill" as needing hospitalization and intensive care -- which according to the citation above, half of those younger than age 65 who were admitted to hospital needed.

 

It's not just about death -- serious illness also takes a toll -- on people's health, savings, healthcare utilization, etc.

 

 

  

[calliopecruiser]

46 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

It's not just about death -- serious illness also takes a toll -- on people's health, savings, healthcare utilization, etc.

I think a lot of people are wowed by the death tolls, and forget that serious illness also leaves sufferers with problems that will last for years, if not decades. 

[CruiserBruce]

11 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

I think a lot of people are wowed by the death tolls, and forget that serious illness also leaves sufferers with problems that will last for years, if not decades. 

Agree. Just look at some of the interviews with people who were in hospital for long times, or intubated for long times. They are weak, need to be assisted with walking, look absolutely whipped. But, hey...that's for old folks...not me...party on...it's my right to party!! I have my rights!!!

[calliopecruiser]

6 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

They are weak, need to be assisted with walking, look absolutely whipped.

And they'll have huge bills, and may not be able to return to work, etc, etc.....

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, swaddy said:

're no more sex. 

A daily paper in the UK today reported that Holland banned all sex workers 8 weeks ago but they are now petitioning to be able to resume work. They suggest being restricted to two named positions that do not require face to face interaction. As well as condoms, face masks were to be worn.  Other hygiene precautions to be instigated. So now you know. 

 

In Japan a COVID19 cluster in Tokyo was traced back to the red light district😳. 

[Jasawyer]

22 hours ago, swaddy said:

're no more sex. 

A daily paper in the UK today reported that Holland banned all sex workers 8 weeks ago but they are now petitioning to be able to resume work. They suggest being restricted to two named positions that do not require face to face interaction. As well as condoms, face masks were to be worn.  Other hygiene precautions to be instigated. So now you know. 

Well, if they can get their freak on we can get our cruise on. 

[ldubs]

On 5/26/2020 at 5:16 PM, swaddy said:

're no more sex. 

A daily paper in the UK today reported that Holland banned all sex workers 8 weeks ago but they are now petitioning to be able to resume work. They suggest being restricted to two named positions that do not require face to face interaction. As well as condoms, face masks were to be worn.  Other hygiene precautions to be instigated. So now you know. 

 

Just read an article about a strip club re-opening in Wyoming (I think) -- the entertainers are required to wear masks.  Not making this up.   

[jeremyosborne81]

On 5/26/2020 at 8:29 PM, calliopecruiser said:

And they'll have huge bills, and may not be able to return to work, etc, etc.....

The bills wouldn't be an issue if we had an actual modern healthcare system in this country.