Port Reopenings After Vaccine?

[npcl]

1 hour ago, dan4182 said:

 

 

There may never be a vaccine, SARS occurred first years ago and no vaccine to date. There is still not a 100% effective flu vaccine and the flu kills tens of thousands every year.

Take whatever precautions are reasonable for you and get on with life!


Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

There are plenty of SARS vaccine candidates.  The reason why there is not an approved SARS vaccine today is because there is not need.  The outbreak died out before the vaccines could even be tested. No infection no way to test.  No approved vaccine.

 

So it is really not a good example of not being able to create a vaccine.  Several of the current COVID vaccines are based upon the SARS candidates and the technology used then.

 

One could point at Zika (no approved vaccines but candidates are being worked on by National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease), and some other viruses as better examples.  Unfortunately vaccines, like antibiotics, are not exactly profitable businesses for the pharmaceutical industry.  Much of the work on vaccines is done by non-profits, government agencies, academic organizations.   Big pharma will get involved if the demand is large enough, and that demand is in the developed world (US, Europe, etc.).  That is why you see vaccines for shingles, but not nearly as much effort on viruses that largely impact the 3rd world.

Edited June 7, 2020 by npcl

[donaldsc]

32 minutes ago, npcl said:

As I learned working for a government agency, there is political pressure in every thing that is done. However, keep in mind that when it comes to pharmaceuticals and vaccines every thing is a trade of risk vs benefit.  There is no such thing as a total safe drug.  When I worked there we always said that If aspirin was going through the NDA (new drug application) today, it would probably not get approved due to the number of side effects compared to benefits. 

 

What will have to be determine with the vaccine are the exact details on that risk vs benefit.  The number of severely ill, the number of deaths, the economic impact are going to impact the process (political or not) because those kinds of calculations are part of the process. So they might be willing to accept some additional risk because of how enormous the impacts are.

That risk might include things like approval but not recommended for some patients, approval with additional studies required, maybe willingness to accept a few more side effects.

 

The approval process will involve public expert panels.  That review and comment in a public forum their opinions about approval or not.  

 

While I expect the potential benefits mean being willing to accept a little more risk, I do not think that you will see political pressure  impact the process in any major way.  The number of deaths, and effects of the illness are generating their own pressure for speeding the process along.

 

One major reason why I do not think that they will circumvent the process is that for the vaccine to do any good there must be public confidence that it is safe and effective in order for people to take it. Skip steps in the process and you lose that confidence and then the vaccine is useless.

 

Aren't doctors allowed to prescribe off label (do I have the word right) of drugs without approval?  BTW - you are a voice of reason in this discussion.

 

DON

[Daniel A]

Not that the discussion about vaccines isn't interesting and I would like to see it continue, but can we get some opinions about how long it will take for countries to open up to cruise ships after a successful vaccine?

Edited June 8, 2020 by Daniel A

[npcl]

2 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

Aren't doctors allowed to prescribe off label (do I have the word right) of drugs without approval?  BTW - you are a voice of reason in this discussion.

 

DON

A bit of a difference between prescribing off label, and prescribing when the label contraindicates use.

 

A lot more liability for the second.

 

 

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, npcl said:

A bit of a difference between prescribing off label, and prescribing when the label contraindicates use.

 

A lot more liability for the second.

 

 

Had to LOL when I read your post, funny story. Way back in the 1970s when DW was first going to grad school on her way to becoming the world's finest elementary art teacher, she said "what is this", and showed me an article pointing out the word contraindicated, but pronouncing the middle syllable as train. I figured it out, and for a long time when anything strange happened, we would laugh and call it contraindicated pronouncing the middle syllable as train.

[PrincessLuver]

13 hours ago, npcl said:

There are plenty of SARS vaccine candidates.  The reason why there is not an approved SARS vaccine today is because there is not need.  The outbreak died out before the vaccines could even be tested. No infection no way to test.  No approved vaccine.

 

So it is really not a good example of not being able to create a vaccine.  Several of the current COVID vaccines are based upon the SARS candidates and the technology used then.

 

One could point at Zika (no approved vaccines but candidates are being worked on by National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease), and some other viruses as better examples.  Unfortunately vaccines, like antibiotics, are not exactly profitable businesses for the pharmaceutical industry.  Much of the work on vaccines is done by non-profits, government agencies, academic organizations.   Big pharma will get involved if the demand is large enough, and that demand is in the developed world (US, Europe, etc.).  That is why you see vaccines for shingles, but not nearly as much effort on viruses that largely impact the 3rd world.

 

I am not sure I have much faith in these companies being able to produce a COVID-19 vaccine anytime soon.  The US government is having a hard enough time keeping Remdesivir in stock let alone produce millions of miles of a vaccine for people.  I think some of the early news basically was a play for people to run up stock prices of these companies.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/health/remdesivir-donation-runs-out-coronavirus/index.html

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/moderna-stock-price-amid-millions-insider-sales-shares-coronavirus-vaccine-2020-5-1029238487

[dog]

14 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Not that the discussion about vaccines isn't interesting and I would like to see it continue, but can we get some opinions about how long it will take for countries to open up to cruise ships after a successful vaccine?

I think they will open up before a vaccine. And cruisers will have to accept cancelled ports 

[Fincherson]

I think ports will have to open soon or risk the population going hungry from lack of revenue/supplies/food. 
 

There may never be a vaccine. Virus is far less deadly than first assumed. The cruise lines need to get on with things and let people decide what risks they are willing to take. 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

I am not sure I have much faith in these companies being able to produce a COVID-19 vaccine anytime soon.  The US government is having a hard enough time keeping Remdesivir in stock let alone produce millions of miles of a vaccine for people.  I think some of the early news basically was a play for people to run up stock prices of these companies.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/health/remdesivir-donation-runs-out-coronavirus/index.html

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/moderna-stock-price-amid-millions-insider-sales-shares-coronavirus-vaccine-2020-5-1029238487

As I said earlier the organizations grabbing the headlines are ones that have never taken a vaccine to market. Both seem too interested in touting their own horns so to speak. The ethics of Moderna releasing limited news just before doing a stock offering was certainly questionable.

 

Oxford has linked up with AstraZeneca which has the experience and the manufacturing capability, though I am not sure how well their vaccine will turn out.

 

Merck, has been relatively quiet, has made reasonable estimates, and has both the track record and the manufacturing capability.

 

Remdesivir is a marginal drug at best.  It has limited efficacy. Is an infusion product with its own side effect profile.  It is difficult to manufacture and cannot be easily ramped up.  Get anything else available as a therapeutic and Remdesivir will pretty much vanish.

[Hlitner]

2 minutes ago, Fincherson said:

I think ports will have to open soon or risk the population going hungry from lack of revenue/supplies/food. 
 

There may never be a vaccine. Virus is far less deadly than first assumed. The cruise lines need to get on with things and let people decide what risks they are willing to take. 

Most port regions around the world do not depend on cruise ship passengers to contribute much to the economy.  But I would note that Greece is planning to open up tourism by July 1 (earlier for those in Europe).  But nobody seems to be talking about cruise ships so it is difficult to know the plans in Europe.   The ability of the "cruise lines to get on with things" will depend on their ability to find ports and that is still a big question.  And cruise lines/ships also need to develop some kind of acceptable protocol on how to handle 1 or more COVID-19 cases.  Consider that the current situation is that a single COVID-19 case can put a ship and all its souls into no-man's land for weeks.  There is no indication that any port will accept a ship with a COVID-19 case...and there is no way for a ship to prevent some cases onboard.  Pre cruise testing is not reliable enough to give any degree of certainty of no virus.  And even if everyone were truly virus free at embarkation, once they get off at the first port all bets are off.

 

Hank

[npcl]

1 hour ago, dog said:

I think they will open up before a vaccine. And cruisers will have to accept cancelled ports 

Not totally sure about that.  Some may open, but others are taking a very structured approach (such as St. Lucia) and trying to get their resorts up an running first.  The land based tourism brings in  more in the way of reward vs risk.

[dog]

1 minute ago, npcl said:

Not totally sure about that.  Some may open, but others are taking a very structured approach (such as St. Lucia) and trying to get their resorts up an running first.  The land based tourism brings in  more in the way of reward vs risk.

Right, none of us are sure about any of this, are we?

[HappyInVan]

On 6/5/2020 at 7:18 AM, Daniel A said:

I think there are two main factors that need to be addressed before cruising gets back to 'normal' - availability of a vaccine and open ports to sail to. After a vaccine becomes available to the masses, how long do you think it will take for ports to reopen?

 

Why worry about the unknown and the unknowable?

 

Take a deep breath. Take things one day at a time. The immediate priority is to be safe and cover up. Don't let the bug get you on the final lap.

 

Cruises will resume once there are enough countries where  there has been zero new cases for several weeks. Does not need to wait for a vaccine. 

 

There is good news in Norway, NZ, Slovenia. Even Spain has seen only one new death per day for the last 3 days.

 

Financially, don't commit more money to deposits and payments. There will be casualties among the cruise companies. 

[HappyInVan]

17 minutes ago, Fincherson said:

Virus is far less deadly than first assumed. The cruise lines need to get on with things and let people decide what risks they are willing to take. 

 

Do you have any idea how deadly is covid19?

 

Are you an infectious disease specialist? Personally, I would rather let the experts decide when it would be safe to sail again. In the meantime, I intent to follow the advice of the ID doctors to protect myself and others around me. 😀

 

[voljeep]

13 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

There will be casualties among the cruise companies. 

no, there won't 

[LACruiser88]

55 minutes ago, Fincherson said:

I think ports will have to open soon or risk the population going hungry from lack of revenue/supplies/food. 
 

There may never be a vaccine. Virus is far less deadly than first assumed. The cruise lines need to get on with things and let people decide what risks they are willing to take. 

 

Amen!!!

[memoak]

1 hour ago, Fincherson said:

I think ports will have to open soon or risk the population going hungry from lack of revenue/supplies/food. 
 

There may never be a vaccine. Virus is far less deadly than first assumed. The cruise lines need to get on with things and let people decide what risks they are willing to take. 

I assume that you are willing to be quarantined on an army base or sail around in circles for weeks on end

[voljeep]

things are looking up in the best cruising destinations in the world !! 🥃🦄🤑🃏🍷🍸

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/caribbean-comeback-a-guide-to-when-travelers-can-return-to-the-islands/ar-BB1532QG?li=BBnbklE

[npcl]

3 hours ago, dog said:

Right, none of us are sure about any of this, are we?

We are sure about some ports  that have either started to open to land travelers with major requirements (St Lucia being and example) as well as others such as Grand Caymen that has banned cruise ships for a specific period (the  tourism minister of Grand Caymen as indicated that it will probably be extended)

[npcl]

28 minutes ago, voljeep said:

things are looking up in the best cruising destinations in the world !! 🥃🦄🤑🃏🍷🍸

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/caribbean-comeback-a-guide-to-when-travelers-can-return-to-the-islands/ar-BB1532QG?li=BBnbklE

They are all talking about re-opening.  They are mentioning passengers by air, and land tourism, but I could not find any mention  about plans to open to  cruise ships.

 

Do you see any mention of cruise ships in the article?

[Potstech]

2 hours ago, memoak said:

I assume that you are willing to be quarantined on an army base or sail around in circles for weeks on end

Been there done that.Spent 6 months sailing in the same 5 mile square area.

[voljeep]

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

They are all talking about re-opening.  They are mentioning passengers by air, and land tourism, but I could not find any mention  about plans to open to  cruise ships.

 

Do you see any mention of cruise ships in the article?

baby steps !! … things are looking up !🥃

[PrincessLuver]

5 hours ago, Fincherson said:

I think ports will have to open soon or risk the population going hungry from lack of revenue/supplies/food. 
 

There may never be a vaccine. Virus is far less deadly than first assumed. The cruise lines need to get on with things and let people decide what risks they are willing to take. 

 

Most major port cities in the world do just fine economically without cruise ships.  Also, a number of the countries that have really created low numbers of COVID-19 cases do not want a cruise ship full of Americans who have not done a good or serious job of lowering COVID-19 numbers nationally.  The cruise lines are the ones that will suffer from lack of revenue not most major port cities.  

 

Even Hawaii is talking about creating a travel bubble and allowing Japanese, Korean and possibly Australians and New Zealanders to enter the state without going through a 14 day quarantine but people from the mainland may still have to do the 14 day quarantine if the number of cases of COVID-19 do not drop significantly on the mainland.  I doubt Hawaii will allow cruise ships to be returning for a long time.  Why should they take the risks when they have had almost no cases because of how they approached dealing with COVID-19.

 

COVID-19 is still COVID-19 and the "less deadly" is just wishful thinking.  1,000 people, on average a day,  are still dying in the US from COVID-19 and so we could be up to 200,000 by the end of September 2020 easily.

 

The world already knows what a cruise ship with COVID-19 infected passengers brings to the game if and when they are allowed to dock.   It was not a pretty picture for Princess or others.

Edited June 8, 2020 by PrincessLuver

[npcl]

3 minutes ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Most major port cities in the world do just fine economically without cruise ships.  Also, a number of the countries that have really created low numbers of COVID-19 do not want a cruise ship full of Americans who have not done a good or serious job of lowering COVID-19 numbers nationally.

 

Even Hawaii is talking about creating a travel bubble and allowing Japanese, Korean and possibly Australians and New Zealanders to enter the state without going through a 14 day quarantine but people from the mainland may still have to do the 14 day quarantine if the number of cases of COVID-19 do not drop significantly on the mainland.

 

The cruise lines are the ones that will suffer from lack of revenue not most major port cities.  Also, COVID-19 is still COVID-19 and the "less deadly is just wishful thinking on your part."

In addition when it comes to the Caribbean a lot of the money that is spent in the ports by cruise ship passengers end up going to non-resident owners/companies that have businesses that focus on the cruise business.  Just think about the businesses that you see near the cruise port, that show up port after port, in the Caribbean, in Alaska, etc.

 

I do expect that the ports that open first will be those that were built explicitly for the cruise business.  One like the cruise line private islands, the ports that were built by the cruise lines like RCL's Labadee, and maybe the ports that are fairly isolated like Costa Maya. 

[dog]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

We are sure about some ports  that have either started to open to land travelers with major requirements (St Lucia being and example) as well as others such as Grand Caymen that has banned cruise ships for a specific period (the  tourism minister of Grand Caymen as indicated that it will probably be extended)

I respectfully disagree about being sure.