Are vaccines the light at the end of the tunnel?

[kearney]

I pass the following along for your consideration. https://cruiseradio.net/new-cdc-cruise-guidance-masks-distancing-explained/. So apparently... if ships sale with the 98% of crew and 95% of passengers vaccinated... not only will everyone be required to wear masks.... but you will have to wear them while eating... removing only to put food in your mouth.

 

Someone challenged my earlier comment that the CDC had move the goal posts from flattening the curve to help health care capacity to zero covid.  They wondered where I got that... well they are correct I could not find it in writing...but when you see what the CDC has required for children's day camps and if the above link is correct...their actual policies appear to be aimed a zero covid goal and not reducing it to keep it under some control.  I hope the sailings out of Bahamas, Bermuda, st Maarten etc are not following this insanity.

 

I hope this link is incorrect...but the CEO of NCL just noted the mask while eating requirement noted.

Edited May 7, 2021 by kearney

[terrydtx]

18 minutes ago, kearney said:

I pass the following along for your consideration. https://cruiseradio.net/new-cdc-cruise-guidance-masks-distancing-explained/. So apparently... if ships sale with the 98% of crew and 95% of passengers vaccinated... not only will everyone be required to wear masks.... but you will have to wear them while eating... removing only to put food in your mouth.

 

Someone challenged my earlier comment that the CDC had move the goal posts from flattening the curve to help health care capacity to zero covid.  They wondered where I got that... well they are correct I could not find it in writing...but when you see what the CDC has required for children's day camps and if the above link is correct...their actual policies appear to be aimed a zero covid goal and not reducing it to keep it under some control.  I hope the sailings out of Bahamas, Bermuda, st Maarten etc are not following this insanity.

 

I hope this link is incorrect...but the CEO of NCL just noted the mask while eating requirement noted.

Thankfully the CDC has no authority on cruises that do not depart or return to US ports. Hopefully cruises in non US locations like Europe will use more common sense. Why would any one want to take a cruise under some of these rebdiculous CDC requirements?  This could be the end to US based cruising. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by terrydtx

[kearney]

I am hoping this information is either incorrect or applies to test cruises were people are not vaccinated... at least I am assuming that these cruises include non vaccinated... but the comments about distancing on the pool deck of a moving ship... seem insane....

[larry_s_taco]

With the US losing $32 billion, and 254,000 American jobs from the lack of cruising, I believe (hope) that it will be the politicians that blink. 

 

Cruising faces 254,000 American jobs, $32 billion lost from pandemic (usatoday.com)

 

They really need to work on getting this type of information out to the public (especially in Florida) on a very frequent basis. 

[ChucktownSteve]

The vaccine apparently is NOT the light at the end of the tunnel.  It's the CDC's train rolling right over you.

 

How can he CDC not realize those flimsy, disposable masks we're forced to wear aren't effective at protecting anyone?  They're just for show or to give mask shammers a purpose in life.

[HSTeacher1]

17 minutes ago, ChucktownSteve said:

The vaccine apparently is NOT the light at the end of the tunnel.  It's the CDC's train rolling right over you.

 

How can he CDC not realize those flimsy, disposable masks we're forced to wear aren't effective at protecting anyone?  They're just for show or to give mask shammers a purpose in life.

This is getting beyond absurd.  I went and got the vaccine, purely so we could (potentially) travel internationally later this year.  

 

But, why should people that aren’t traveling get it?  Especially the young and healthy.  They have a very very low (perceived) risk, and they are being told they must still do all of the same things with the mask wearing, etc.  so why bother?  

 

I will only wear a mask in places I absolutely have to.  I travel a lot for work, so I wear one on commercial flights.  Fortunately I fly private a lot, and no mask!!!

 

I live in a state that has no mask mandate.  If a store asks me to put on a mask I will, or I will politely leave (hasn’t happened yet), but other than that no.  I’m done with this farce.  Yes  Covid is real, and yes people have died, but we have turned this into a political thing to control peoples lives, and I’m done with it.  

 

The really good news (for me at least) is that I see and hear more and more people that just aren’t playing the game anymore.

 

And, please don’t respond about how I don’t care about other people.  Please show my a single study that shows ANY significant risk of transmission after full vaccination.  And while you are at it show me a really world, peer reviewed study that addresses that actual (not laboratory) benefits of mask wearing.

 

-Dan

[LGW59]

10 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Actually you do not know us and our credentials and we cannot post this information.  So yes that is a fair point.  So all we can do is answer questions that are asked here to us and contribute accumulated knowledge and that will be the basis of the evaluation of our credentials.  If you find this lacking then that is OK with me.  We are not in the social media world with websites and videos and sales pitches.  We are contributing to the limited social media world that we enjoy called Cruise Critic on a thread.  As avid cruisers with medical, scientific and vaccine backgrounds.  Nobody is here for any reason other than that.  So if you want to continue to take your shots go right ahead.  Others actually state that they find this thread helpful. 

Good for them, as they are more than entitled to do so, as am I.  I do not have to agree with everything posted here and am allowed to state my opinions.  As are you, on the many posts that you have also done so in which you may have disagreed.  I too enjoy the limited social media world that CC is, but it is still just that, social media.  Just because I do not agree with a particular post, it is not a personal affront, it is MY opinion.  You can block me or not read anything I post, just know that your opinion is NOT more or less valued than mine.  

[mayleeman]

2 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

[directed to @TeeRick]

.... just know that your opinion is NOT more or less valued than mine.

 

It is by at least one of us. I find informed opinions to be more valuable than snide asides or sneering by people who discount the value of science. You certainly are entitled to your own opinions, just not your own facts.

[LGW59]

1 minute ago, mayleeman said:

 

It is by at least one of us. I find informed opinions to be more valuable than snide asides or sneering by people who discount the value of science. You certainly are entitled to your own opinions, just not your own facts.

I have followed science diligently for the past 14 months, have lived in my own self imposed COVID bubble and am glad that I did so.  My point is social media scientists, while well meaning, though often condescending, are not the science that I have followed.  My firm represents Moderna and the amazing progress they have made with vaccine, that is the science that I have followed.  As for your "directed to"  comment, just proves my point, don't attribute something you so not know to me.  Thanks

[nocl]

8 hours ago, ChutChut said:

Agree with everything you posted. Just a little addition -  I respect everyone's individual decision regarding their vaccination status not only for Covid but for the flu, etc. That's a private medical decision and I have no business imposing my views (pro-vaccine) on them.  My daughter has attended school with many unvaccinated children (personal/religious, etc. objections). As long as my daughter has her vaccinations, we live a normal, happy life.  I realize I may be sitting next to someone on a plane who is HIV positive, has mono, tuberculosis, etc. That's a risk of living on a planet with billions of people. I've done what I feel is medically prudent for myself and my family. Every family is entitled to that without recrimination.   

big difference between normal day to day risk where 1 HIV is not contagious with non intimate contact, and the incidence of the other is both very low and very treatable.

 

 Quite a bit difference than with a pandemic where the odds of contacting an infected individual is relatively high.

 

How would you feel if your daughter was one of those that either could not be vaccinated due to medical conditions or for whom the vaccine was ineffective? 

 

[nocl]

4 hours ago, kearney said:

I pass the following along for your consideration. https://cruiseradio.net/new-cdc-cruise-guidance-masks-distancing-explained/. So apparently... if ships sale with the 98% of crew and 95% of passengers vaccinated... not only will everyone be required to wear masks.... but you will have to wear them while eating... removing only to put food in your mouth.

 

Someone challenged my earlier comment that the CDC had move the goal posts from flattening the curve to help health care capacity to zero covid.  They wondered where I got that... well they are correct I could not find it in writing...but when you see what the CDC has required for children's day camps and if the above link is correct...their actual policies appear to be aimed a zero covid goal and not reducing it to keep it under some control.  I hope the sailings out of Bahamas, Bermuda, st Maarten etc are not following this insanity.

 

I hope this link is incorrect...but the CEO of NCL just noted the mask while eating requirement noted.

There are two issues that are being intermingled here.

 

1. the guidelines are written for the worst case, that vaccines are not required by the cruise line. As such they include all of the protections similar to those in the EU.

 

2. The CDC has already said that if the cruise lines attest to the 95% passenger and 98% crew vaccination rates that they  can skip the test cruises entirely.

 

We do not know what they will allow to be dropped from the requirements of the cruises with paying passengers because the cruise lines have not yet submitted a full plan that included the vaccine attestation as well as what they propose in addition to the vaccination requirement.

 

Since vaccination is an option for the cruise line, the guides have to be written as if that option is not chosen.

 

The items that can be relaxed will depend upon the cruise lines complete plan and if they include the vaccination requirement.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, HSTeacher1 said:

This is getting beyond absurd.  I went and got the vaccine, purely so we could (potentially) travel internationally later this year.  

 

But, why should people that aren’t traveling get it?  Especially the young and healthy.  They have a very very low (perceived) risk, and they are being told they must still do all of the same things with the mask wearing, etc.  so why bother?  

 

I will only wear a mask in places I absolutely have to.  I travel a lot for work, so I wear one on commercial flights.  Fortunately I fly private a lot, and no mask!!!

 

I live in a state that has no mask mandate.  If a store asks me to put on a mask I will, or I will politely leave (hasn’t happened yet), but other than that no.  I’m done with this farce.  Yes  Covid is real, and yes people have died, but we have turned this into a political thing to control peoples lives, and I’m done with it.  

 

The really good news (for me at least) is that I see and hear more and more people that just aren’t playing the game anymore.

 

And, please don’t respond about how I don’t care about other people.  Please show my a single study that shows ANY significant risk of transmission after full vaccination.  And while you are at it show me a really world, peer reviewed study that addresses that actual (not laboratory) benefits of mask wearing.

 

-Dan

I will give you a documented case where 1 unvaccinated worker infected 18 vaccinated individuals in a nursing home resulting in at least 1 death.

 

The real world studies have indicated substantial reduction of risk in a vaccinated population (the level depending upon the variant) but does not totally eliminate risk. Transmission reduced by approximately 94% with the Pfizer vaccine with the B.117 variant for example. But did not eliminate transmission according to data from Isreal.

[terrydtx]

2 hours ago, HSTeacher1 said:

This is getting beyond absurd.  I went and got the vaccine, purely so we could (potentially) travel internationally later this year.  

 

But, why should people that aren’t traveling get it?  Especially the young and healthy.  They have a very very low (perceived) risk, and they are being told they must still do all of the same things with the mask wearing, etc.  so why bother?  

 

I will only wear a mask in places I absolutely have to.  I travel a lot for work, so I wear one on commercial flights.  Fortunately I fly private a lot, and no mask!!!

 

I live in a state that has no mask mandate.  If a store asks me to put on a mask I will, or I will politely leave (hasn’t happened yet), but other than that no.  I’m done with this farce.  Yes  Covid is real, and yes people have died, but we have turned this into a political thing to control peoples lives, and I’m done with it.  

 

The really good news (for me at least) is that I see and hear more and more people that just aren’t playing the game anymore.

 

And, please don’t respond about how I don’t care about other people.  Please show my a single study that shows ANY significant risk of transmission after full vaccination.  And while you are at it show me a really world, peer reviewed study that addresses that actual (not laboratory) benefits of mask wearing.

 

-Dan

Dan, thank you I live in Texas too and I will no longer play the masking game.  My wife and I are fully vaccinated and have seen no real proof that we should still wear silly cloth masks. 

[nocl]

2 hours ago, HSTeacher1 said:

This is getting beyond absurd.  I went and got the vaccine, purely so we could (potentially) travel internationally later this year.  

 

But, why should people that aren’t traveling get it?  Especially the young and healthy.  They have a very very low (perceived) risk, and they are being told they must still do all of the same things with the mask wearing, etc.  so why bother?  

 

I will only wear a mask in places I absolutely have to.  I travel a lot for work, so I wear one on commercial flights.  Fortunately I fly private a lot, and no mask!!!

 

I live in a state that has no mask mandate.  If a store asks me to put on a mask I will, or I will politely leave (hasn’t happened yet), but other than that no.  I’m done with this farce.  Yes  Covid is real, and yes people have died, but we have turned this into a political thing to control peoples lives, and I’m done with it.  

 

The really good news (for me at least) is that I see and hear more and more people that just aren’t playing the game anymore.

 

And, please don’t respond about how I don’t care about other people.  Please show my a single study that shows ANY significant risk of transmission after full vaccination.  And while you are at it show me a really world, peer reviewed study that addresses that actual (not laboratory) benefits of mask wearing.

 

-Dan

The risk to those under 65 was low with the original strain. The risk to that demographics is higher with other strains such as B.117. This is apparent in data from areas where that strain is prevalent.

 

Other strains such as the dual major mutation indian strain is even worse for younger demographics.

 

Most people tend  to think of mortality has the risk and ignore the long term health impacts that it have been found in even some asymptomatic cases. We will see impacts in the future for many people that only had mild cases in terms of future health issues.

[larry_s_taco]

12 hours ago, LGW59 said:

Good for them, as they are more than entitled to do so, as am I.  I do not have to agree with everything posted here and am allowed to state my opinions.  As are you, on the many posts that you have also done so in which you may have disagreed.  I too enjoy the limited social media world that CC is, but it is still just that, social media.  Just because I do not agree with a particular post, it is not a personal affront, it is MY opinion.  You can block me or not read anything I post, just know that your opinion is NOT more or less valued than mine.  

Good idea. Consider your self blocked.

[kearney]

11 hours ago, nocl said:

There are two issues that are being intermingled here.

 

1. the guidelines are written for the worst case, that vaccines are not required by the cruise line. As such they include all of the protections similar to those in the EU.

 

2. The CDC has already said that if the cruise lines attest to the 95% passenger and 98% crew vaccination rates that they  can skip the test cruises entirely.

 

We do not know what they will allow to be dropped from the requirements of the cruises with paying passengers because the cruise lines have not yet submitted a full plan that included the vaccine attestation as well as what they propose in addition to the vaccination requirement.

 

Since vaccination is an option for the cruise line, the guides have to be written as if that option is not chosen.

 

The items that can be relaxed will depend upon the cruise lines complete plan and if they include the vaccination requirement.

Boy, I hope you are correct about this being intended for cruises with mixed... vaccinated and non-vaccinated people... but the CEO from NCL seems to feel it applies to his 100% vaccinated ship. Someone at CDC needs to clarify... or NCL will be moving their fleet out out of the US.... per comments from the CEO.

 

What contributes to the confusion is the statement indicating vaccinated persons. If you are correct... they should have added verbiage something to the effect:

 

That vaccinated persons, when in public areas at terminals, and ports of call where it is unknown whether others are vaccinated, should wear masks. If the ship is 95-100% vaccinated the rules on social distancing and masking do not apply..... instead follow CDC guidelines for fully vaccinated people..... 

 

Something like that would clarify things...but my fear is that they intend everyone to act as if everyone else is not vaccinated regardless and so far they have not said otherwise.  I can see why vaccination rates have dropped..

Edited May 8, 2021 by kearney
added photo and comments

[Jeremiah1212]

Sinopharm receives emergency authorization from WHO

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/world/who-covid-sinopharm-vaccine.html

 

Michael Bayley posted about this, assuming he views it as a boost to getting crew vaccinated at home and giving crew that may have already received the vaccine the green light to be considered vaccinated. 

 

They will also begin crewing from India. 4 PCR tests, vaccine and two quarantines required to get them onboard. 

 

We are re starting crewing from India on May 21st. There will be enhanced protocols to ensure safety. PCR test, 14 day quarantine, PCR test, Charter flight, PCR test, Vaccine, Quarantine and PCR test. Hopefully these enhanced protocols will only be in place for a short time as we all become vaccinated. Other countries where the pandemic is surging will have same protocols. FYI. Crew contracts will be lengthened during this period by 2 months. All details will be presented to each crewmember before the journey begins. Onwards and upwards team !

Edited May 8, 2021 by Jeremiah1212

[Jeremiah1212]

12 minutes ago, kearney said:

Boy, I hope you are correct about this being intended for cruises with mixed... vaccinated and non-vaccinated people... but the CEO from NCL seems to feel it applies to his 100% vaccinated ship. Someone at CDC needs to clarify... or NCL will be moving their fleet out out of the US.... per comments from the CEO.

 

What contributes to the confusion is the statement indicating vaccinated persons. If you are correct... they should have added verbiage something to the effect:

 

That vaccinated persons, when in public areas at terminals, and ports of call where it is unknown whether others are vaccinated, should wear masks. If the ship is 95-100% vaccinated the rules on social distancing and masking do not apply..... instead follow CDC guidelines for fully vaccinated people..... 

 

Something like that would clarify things...but my fear is that they intend everyone to act as if everyone else is not vaccinated regardless and so far they have not said otherwise.  I can see why vaccination rates have dropped..

 

Unless cruise lines formally commit to being 100% vaccinated - at first - none of this will be relaxed. The mask mandate itself is outside of the CDC anyway. NCL has said they are willing to go that route, but it's not clear if they have actually submitted to the CDC or if Del Rio is doing more fist pounding and demanding the entire CSO is dropped. That is never going to happen. Celebrity, Royal, etc. have definitely not committed to a fully 100% vaccinated cruise. They all hedge the question every time, with Carnival being the only one that somewhat openly opposes a vaccine requirement. 

 

However using the official CDC guidance for fully vaccinated people does not give unrestricted cruising the all clear. There are several points, but these in particular are still there:

• Avoid indoor large-sized in-person gatherings
• Participate in outdoor activities and recreation without a mask, except in certain crowded settings and venues
• Protect yourself when gathering indoors with unvaccinated people (including children) from more than one other household

[nocl]

1 hour ago, kearney said:

Boy, I hope you are correct about this being intended for cruises with mixed... vaccinated and non-vaccinated people... but the CEO from NCL seems to feel it applies to his 100% vaccinated ship. Someone at CDC needs to clarify... or NCL will be moving their fleet out out of the US.... per comments from the CEO.

 

What contributes to the confusion is the statement indicating vaccinated persons. If you are correct... they should have added verbiage something to the effect:

 

That vaccinated persons, when in public areas at terminals, and ports of call where it is unknown whether others are vaccinated, should wear masks. If the ship is 95-100% vaccinated the rules on social distancing and masking do not apply..... instead follow CDC guidelines for fully vaccinated people..... 

 

Something like that would clarify things...but my fear is that they intend everyone to act as if everyone else is not vaccinated regardless and so far they have not said otherwise.  I can see why vaccination rates have dropped..

The cruise lines are trying to get requirements as low as possible. Consequently it is not surprising that they will describe the requirements as being as onerous as they can.

 

It is a negotiating and PR tectic.

 

Again the rules are written for the cruise line not having a requirement for vaccinations. It is normal for regulations to be written for the strictest case, then allowing restrictions to be mitigated or waived under certain conditions.  One cannot write them hoping for the best case because it would be difficult if not impossible to tighten them if a ship did not require vaccination. Unless vaccination was a requirement for all cruises. 

 

CDC put the vaccination recommendation out there and put forth the carrot with the ability to bypass test cruises. But there are a number of reasons they cannot require it. So now we need to see the cruise lines actually submit an actual plan, not just a letter, with vaccination requirements and see how much the CDC will relax the requirements.

Edited May 8, 2021 by nocl

[harkinmr]

16 hours ago, kearney said:

I pass the following along for your consideration. https://cruiseradio.net/new-cdc-cruise-guidance-masks-distancing-explained/. So apparently... if ships sale with the 98% of crew and 95% of passengers vaccinated... not only will everyone be required to wear masks.... but you will have to wear them while eating... removing only to put food in your mouth.

 

Someone challenged my earlier comment that the CDC had move the goal posts from flattening the curve to help health care capacity to zero covid.  They wondered where I got that... well they are correct I could not find it in writing...but when you see what the CDC has required for children's day camps and if the above link is correct...their actual policies appear to be aimed a zero covid goal and not reducing it to keep it under some control.  I hope the sailings out of Bahamas, Bermuda, st Maarten etc are not following this insanity.

 

I hope this link is incorrect...but the CEO of NCL just noted the mask while eating requirement noted.

Below is the text of the CSO operations manual.  It is being misconstrued by the cruise media to mean something that it is not.  There is NO requirement that folks keep a mask on while eating.  Although somewhat in-artfully written, I believe that the language is intended to prevent using meal service or drinking to extend the period of time for not wearing a mask.  Masks off for the period of dinner service or cocktails.  This is not different from the masking protocols being used for current cruising.

 

At this time, all persons, including port personnel, crew, and passengers (including those that are fully vaccinated) are advised that CDC’s Mask Order remains in effect and requires the wearing of masks on conveyances entering, traveling within or leaving the United States, and in U.S. transportation hubs (see Maritime-specific Frequently Asked Questions).

• While the Order permits temporarily removing a mask for brief periods of time while eating or drinking, removal of the mask for extended meal service or beverage consumption would constitute a violation of this Order.

[kearney]

4 minutes ago, nocl said:

The cruise lines are trying to get requirements as low as possible. Consequently it is not surprising that they will describe the requirements as being as onerous as they can.

 

It is a negotiating and PR tectic.

I suspect you are correct. Personally I think that the cruise industry should start with 100% vaccinated.. just to demonstrate that they can do it... while successful in other parts of the world.. I suspect that like the FDA ... the CDC wants to see data from more local cruises. If they started with 100% I don't see why the guidance for fully vaccinated wouldn't apply. I would also require testing before sailing... to help weed out those who might try to cheat on this requirement... then as more people get vaccinated and more data on children getting or passing it on.. is available.. start loosening up the requirement. I don't mind pulling up a mask as I approach others on a ship... but the idea of paying thousands to wear one virtually all the time...is not appealing... I have more freedom at home...with no additional expense

[kearney]

8 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Below is the text of the CSO operations manual.  It is being misconstrued by the cruise media to mean something that it is not.  There is NO requirement that folks keep a mask on while eating.  Although somewhat in-artfully written, I believe that the language is intended to prevent using meal service or drinking to extend the period of time for not wearing a mask.  Masks off for the period of dinner service or cocktails.  This is not different from the masking protocols being used for current cruising.

 

At this time, all persons, including port personnel, crew, and passengers (including those that are fully vaccinated) are advised that CDC’s Mask Order remains in effect and requires the wearing of masks on conveyances entering, traveling within or leaving the United States, and in U.S. transportation hubs (see Maritime-specific Frequently Asked Questions).

• While the Order permits temporarily removing a mask for brief periods of time while eating or drinking, removal of the mask for extended meal service or beverage consumption would constitute a violation of this Order.

I see your point...one of the challenges though...is how the guidelines are actually applied. If say the cruise lines interpret it the same the CEO of NCL does...then I can envision a situation where the waitstaff has been instructed to tell you to put the mask on in between bites...

[harkinmr]

16 hours ago, terrydtx said:

Thankfully the CDC has no authority on cruises that do not depart or return to US ports. Hopefully cruises in non US locations like Europe will use more common sense. Why would any one want to take a cruise under some of these rebdiculous CDC requirements?  This could be the end to US based cruising. 

Current cruises out of Asia and Europe have mask and social distancing protocols, as well as restricted excursions ashore.  Planned cruises out of the UK and Israel have them as well, even with a vaccinated passenger cohort.  I am willing to bet that planned cruises out of Greece and North America ports will have masking and social distancing protocols and some restricted shore excursions as well.  It is the environment now whether one agrees with it or not.  It's not going to end US cruising.

[mayleeman]

It seems to me the cruise lines want to present a few proposals for cruising that do seem reasonable, and they (and all the "CDC is power mad" cheerleaders here) want the CDC to relax their policies based on an assumption the cruises will be fully successful. Their job, as they see it, is to make cruising happen.

 

The CDC, however, wants the proposals to anticipate lots of contingencies, many of which seem remote or unreasonable, and they want more data before opening the gates because their job is to prevent transmittable diseases from entering the US..

 

Sort of like a standoff between scientists and economists. The CDC will never see a failure rate of even less than 1% as a success.

Edited May 8, 2021 by mayleeman

[K.T.B.]

I'm going to focus in on what Harkinmr posted here on the CDC rule (emphasis mine):

 

While the Order permits temporarily removing a mask for brief periods of time while eating or drinking, removal of the mask for extended meal service or beverage consumption would constitute a violation of this Order.

 

What's considered "brief" and "extended"?  How I read this is that we need to keep the mask on all the time, unless we're putting food in our mouths.  And what happens if we take a bit, swallow, talk?  Will we have the "CDC police" at the table immediately issuing us citations of some sort?

 

IMO, how the CDC has written that has absolutely no real world implantation.  NO human being can do what the CDC is ordering us to do.  Try eating soup, that'll be loads of fun!  What about ribs, or a burger, or any handheld food?  

 

The absolute only way to eat in the dining room is to remove your mask for the entirety of the meal, only wearing it while walking to and from your table.  Removing it and putting it back on constantly just isn't practical or logical.  Whomever conceived of these rules had their head up their butt and didn't think it through properly.

 

What I want to know is this:  Will the CDC place numerous members of the Center on every single ship to make sure proper protocols are followed?  if not, how will they know?  Because, let's face it, on a ship full of 3,000+ people, passengers and crew, they're going to need a LOT of people and no way will the cruise lines allow anyone on board who is not either a crew member or passenger.