When Will We Feel Safe to Cruise Again

[nocl]

7 hours ago, caribill said:

 

But in trials for vaccines developed in the past, do you think participants were told to not go to their normal workplace, not to use public transportation, don't go to a movie, sporting event, play or concert? After all, that would have been some of the ways to avoid the diseases that those vaccines were for.

depends upon the illness and the situation. Clearly with HIV the participants were instructed how to avoid it so pretty much the same situation. On studies I was involved in participants in both arms were instructed to minimize their risk.

 

I would expect that they are also being instructed to wear masks and to practice social distancing. No matter how good they practice protective measures enough will catch the illness to evaluate efficacy.

 

Not sure why you keep bringing this same matter up because it makes no difference to the trial results. Which is based upon the ratio between study arms.  As soon as the number of participants gets sick that trial will stop, except for tracking the participants for side effects and duration info. The goal after all is to test the drug with the least possible risk to the participants. As long as the number of illnesses needed is reached it makes absolutely no difference what is open and what is closed.

 

To do otherwise would be a violation of ethics.

Edited October 13, 2020 by nocl

[nocl]

On 10/11/2020 at 11:29 PM, caribill said:

 

The Moderna study is designed for 3 or 4 years (I forget which) of Phase 3 testing. So 3-4 months of testing is only looking at preliminary results.

 

As I understand it, Moderna has not been successful in recruiting all of the Phase 3 participants they need over all the demographics involved.

 

Also, Phase 3 testing has not started with pregnant women or young children.

 

So at best when one or more vaccines are approved after 3-4 months of testing we will know that there are no serious safety issues for some demographics within 3-4 months of getting the dose(s).

 

To me, one thing that hampers getting results that soon is that people in the Phase 3 tests are likely not going through life as they used to before the Pandemic. How can we tell how effective a vaccine is if the participants are working from home, not attending movies, concerts or other crowded indoor events and also avoiding being in crowded restaurants or bars in addition to wearing masks when in public and maintaining social distancing when necessary?

The Moderna trial is for 24 months.

 

That does not mean that they will collect efficacy data for that period. They will collect data until the minimum number of sick patients is reached. As soon as number is reached that portion of the trial will end and if criteria is met then those patients that are in the placebo arm will be offered the vaccine. The 24 months is the maximum time interval and is also the length of time that safety data will be collected.

[ksheehan16]

On 10/12/2020 at 6:35 AM, ksheehan16 said:

It is amazing to me how afraid people are of something that is about as deadly (really less deadly for most age groups) as the annual flu.

 

7 hours ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

Your own statements are living proof of that.

 

I get it, maybe most people on these boards are elderly and may have health problems and are more at risk and unwilling to take a chance. I believe you should have the freedom to decide what action is appropriate for you based on your circumstance. 

 

I am 68, retired, in good health. I never stopped seeing my grandchildren.  My family and friends have not stopped shaking hands or hugging.  Personally, I have probably benefitted financially from the lockdown but from the beginning I was very concerned about the financial destruction, loss of jobs and  businesses that have taken place. Not to mention non-covid health problems including mental problems that have been exacerbated greatly.  

 

Instead of calling me crazy, tell me what is wrong with the statement. Then we will have something to discuss.

 

 

 

[caribill]

You may find this article in the New York Times interesting

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/health/covid-vaccines.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20201013

[memoak]

47 minutes ago, ksheehan16 said:

 

 

I get it, maybe most people on these boards are elderly and may have health problems and are more at risk and unwilling to take a chance. I believe you should have the freedom to decide what action is appropriate for you based on your circumstance. 

 

I am 68, retired, in good health. I never stopped seeing my grandchildren.  My family and friends have not stopped shaking hands or hugging.  Personally, I have probably benefitted financially from the lockdown but from the beginning I was very concerned about the financial destruction, loss of jobs and  businesses that have taken place. Not to mention non-covid health problems including mental problems that have been exacerbated greatly.  

 

Instead of calling me crazy, tell me what is wrong with the statement. Then we will have something to discuss.

 

 

 

What is wrong with your statement is that I have a neighbor who acted like that and got very sick from the virus. His lungs will probably never be the same

[caribill]

2 hours ago, nocl said:

The Moderna trial is for 24 months.

 

 

 

Thanks for the accurate length.

 

Read more about the Moderna trials at https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-3-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins

 

By the end of September, less than 20,000 or the 30,000 people expected to be in the phase three trials had been recruited. 

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/3-reasons-pfizer-and-biontech-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-data-before-moderna-2020-10-11

[drowelf]

On 10/12/2020 at 1:58 AM, mcrcruiser said:

There is a one shot vaccine from Johnson  n Johnson that is in stage 3 trials with 60000 + tested   .Yjrm there are some others who are in their trials as well . We are confident that one or more of these vaccines will be safe for wide distribution

And now the J&J Trial is on hold, as they investigate an adverse reaction. 

[sfaaa]

3 hours ago, ksheehan16 said:

  Personally, I have probably benefitted financially from the lockdown but from the beginning I was very concerned about the financial destruction, loss of jobs and  businesses that have taken place. Not to mention non-covid health problems including mental problems that have been exacerbated greatly.  

 

Instead of calling me crazy, tell me what is wrong with the statement. Then we will have something to discuss.

 

 

 

I somewhat agree. Killing the economy is as harmful and dangerous as COVID-19 This has to be a balancing act until a vaccine is found.

[nocl]

45 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

I somewhat agree. Killing the economy is as harmful and dangerous as COVID-19 This has to be a balancing act until a vaccine is found.

Of course one must keep in mind that even in areas that are not shut down, a fairly high percentage of the population is choosing to distance, avoid crowds, not eat in restaurants, etc. So much of the damage would have occurred shutdown or not.

 

Airlines are only at about 30% of previous traffic.  Which is an interesting number because a recent survey result indicates that only around 30% of the population feels safe traveling.

 

It probably would have been smarter to have had a smaller shutdown, and put a universal mask requirement in place from the start.  In that case the shutdown would only have needed to apply to areas where masks could not be used effectively such as inside dining and bars.

 

Some areas were effective with their shutdowns, but in those areas the shutdowns were stricter and more uniform, coupled with strong social distancing and mask requirements. In the US many of the shutdowns were implemented poorly, inconsistently, with limited enforcement, and lifted while virus case counts were still too high.  So in other words fairly useless except for some limited slowdown in some areas.  In many areas the shutdowns were put in place and lifted before the virus really reached their area.  

[HappyInVan]

4 hours ago, ksheehan16 said:

I am 68, retired, in good health. I never stopped seeing my grandchildren.  My family and friends have not stopped shaking hands or hugging. 

 

 

Congratulations. The virus has not infiltrated your social circle yet. Does your circle have elderly people with vulnerabilities? Or young people with acute obesity?

 

FYI, I'm sure that I had the disease in April/May. Standard symptoms; ill, confusion, coughing, lost of co-ordination, lost of smell and taste. Fortunately, the worst passed in a few days.

 

Then, two toes on my right foot turned black. Gangrene??

 

Then, three fingers on my right hand swell to look like sausages. Initially, I thought it was an infection from a cut. But, it disappeared quickly. By the time, I saw a GP, she said that she couldn't see a thing.

 

Here's the important part. I use to be exceptionally fit. Today, my senior body is a wreck. But, I'm only 5 lbs above my training weight.

 

So, I don't think that a typical senior person should get the disease. Probably would not end well.

 

 

[nocl]

3 hours ago, caribill said:

You may find this article in the New York Times interesting

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/health/covid-vaccines.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20201013

IN the US drugs are usually not tested head to head against an existing drug.  The area of exception is for illnesses like cancer where new drugs are tested against what is considered to be the standard of care (It would be unethical for a cancer patient to be given placebo, thus the use of the current treatment standard.)

 

They certainly could have delayed everything and put all of the vaccines into a standard protocol.  In which cases we would probably still be looking  for vaccine approval in 2022, due to the complexities involved.  Having spent 10 years on committees trying to harmonize drug submission and approval guidelines, the complexities involved in getting an international protocol approved involving multiple regulatory authorities and multiple drug companies would have been considerable. both the 

 

The author is also over stating benefits of doing such a protocol as well as the problems without one. If the goal as he states is to determine which is best then the question becomes how do you ramp up the manufacture of that one vaccine that is best? Another issue is a protocol to determine which is best would be considerably more complex and time consuming.

 

As far as the problems he is saying that it will be chaotic because no one will know which vaccine is best.  To put it simply you really don't need to. If multiple vaccines do make it through the phase III trial that is a good problem to have , because it will mean more doses will be available sooner.  It will be more of a question of which one a person will be able to get in their area than a matter of selecting the perfect vaccine.

 

As far as follow-on, potentially better vaccines, it is unlikely that head to head testing will be required.  If it is the standard will still be comparing the new to the known efficacy of the approved vaccine. In those cases if the you do two arms with one receiving the approved product and the other the new vaccine the criteria for approval is not necessarily are better efficacy rate. Usually it is an as good as rate as long as the safety profiles are as good. One strategy a new vaccine could use is to go after demographic groups that have not been tested in the original trials.

 

The only major impact on future vaccine development is that with an available vaccine, you will have fewer people that will be willing to volunteer for a trial if they have access to a commercial product already.  That will make it more difficult to run trials, unless you do them in areas that do not have access to the available commercial product, or design the trial for a demographic for which the commercial product has not been approved. So trials on new vaccines, one other have been approved will take longer and be more difficult to recruit.  They also will most likely be occurring in a period with lower counts on new infections due to the impact of the commercially available vaccines. Which will also impact the timing.

[nocl]

17 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Congratulations. The virus has not infiltrated your social circle yet. Does your circle have elderly people with vulnerabilities? Or young people with acute obesity?

 

FYI, I'm sure that I had the disease in April/May. Standard symptoms; ill, confusion, coughing, lost of co-ordination, lost of smell and taste. Fortunately, the worst passed in a few days.

 

Then, two toes on my right foot turned black. Gangrene??

 

Then, three fingers on my right hand swell to look like sausages. Initially, I thought it was an infection from a cut. But, it disappeared quickly. By the time, I saw a GP, she said that she couldn't see a thing.

 

Here's the important part. I use to be exceptionally fit. Today, my senior body is a wreck. But, I'm only 5 lbs above my training weight.

 

So, I don't think that a typical senior person should get the disease. Probably would not end well.

 

 

One should keep in mind that in the US only about 10% of the population has had the virus (current tested cases counts X 5).

 

That means for most of the people in the country the virus has not reached their particular circle of friends, contacts, associates, vendors, etc. So for most it would seem that they are just fine in doing what they are doing because they have not, nor any of their contacts gotten infected.

 

At current new infection rates less than 1% of the US population, at most would be, infectious at any one time, and most of those would be in clusters.  So the odds of a person randomly encountering a contagious person would be pretty low. 

 

However, if the outbreak continues long enough it will eventually get to most groups at sometime of another and at that time preventive practices will matter.

Edited October 13, 2020 by nocl

[caribill]

2 hours ago, sfaaa said:

I somewhat agree. Killing the economy is as harmful and dangerous as COVID-19 This has to be a balancing act until a vaccine is found.

 

1 hour ago, nocl said:

Of course one must keep in mind that even in areas that are not shut down, a fairly high percentage of the population is choosing to distance, avoid crowds, not eat in restaurants, etc. So much of the damage would have occurred shutdown or not.

 

 

 

Just as many are posting they will not cruise until a vaccine is available, movie theaters, which in a large part of the country are not shut down but are open with capacity limits, report that they cannot even sell all of the available seats. AMC chain says they may run out of money by the end of the year even though many of their theaters are open. Contributing to the lack of attendance is a lack of new movies people want to see.

 

Like the movie theater industry, the cruise industry may end up with the same scenario.  Some cruises with limited capacity and limited ports. Not a money making combination.

[nocl]

12 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

 

Just as many are posting they will not cruise until a vaccine is available, movie theaters, which in a large part of the country are not shut down but are open with capacity limits, report that they cannot even sell all of the available seats. AMC chain says they may run out of money by the end of the year even though many of their theaters are open. Contributing to the lack of attendance is a lack of new movies people want to see.

 

Like the movie theater industry, the cruise industry may end up with the same scenario.  Some cruises with limited capacity and limited ports. Not a money making combination.

In addition the studios are not releasing new major movies so there is nothing to draw an audience.

 

Even if the cruise lines get started at capacity limits each ship is around break even  so if a cruise lines get  half of its ships running all it is doing is reducing its burn rate. So with CCL that means reducing its burn rate from 550 million per month to 275 million per month.  At that rate they would need to be back in full operation by the end of 2021 or run out of money.  Especially with their new debt load.

[Ombud]

5 hours ago, memoak said:

What is wrong with your statement is that I have a neighbor who acted like that and got very sick from the virus. His lungs will probably never be the same

Age range?? Lung capacity? Overall physical fitness?

 

2 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

... FYI, I'm sure that I had the disease in April/May. ... Here's the important part. I use to be exceptionally fit. Today, my senior body is a wreck. But, I'm only 5 lbs above my training weight.

First I'm glad you're feeling better. Many less-than-fit people (some with previously unknown risk factors,) are turning into long haulers. 

 

Since you identify yourself as a senior, may I ask your age range?? 40s? 50s? 60s? 70s? 

[HappyInVan]

7 minutes ago, Ombud said:

First I'm glad you're feeling better. Many less-than-fit people (some with previously unknown risk factors,) are turning into long haulers. 

 

Since you identify yourself as a senior, may I ask your age range?? 40s? 50s? 60s? 70s? 

 

 

Thanks. Late 60s.

 

FYI, I subscribe to travel medical insurance with a coverage of up to $5m. Annual plan for trips up to 17 days duration. My renewal in May - "Premium (includes applicable taxes): $135.00".

 

https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/insurance/travel-medical-insurance/

 

 

[caribill]

4 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

Thanks. Late 60s.

 

FYI, I subscribe to travel medical insurance with a coverage of up to $5m. Annual plan for trips up to 17 days duration. My renewal in May - "Premium (includes applicable taxes): $135.00".

 

https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/insurance/travel-medical-insurance/

 

 

 

A good plan from a Canadian back for Canadian residents.

 

I wonder if it is available also from any source in the USA

[Ombud]

9 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

Thanks. Late 60s.

 

FYI, I subscribe to travel medical insurance with a coverage of up to $5m. Annual plan for trips up to 17 days duration. My renewal in May - "Premium (includes applicable taxes): $135.00".

 

https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/insurance/travel-medical-insurance/

 

thank you for mentioning that!! Although I buy Princess insurance for Coastal trips (my land base insurance covers me) and USAA for others (now) + upping my stateroom (ordinary balcony if solo / Mini-suite or better if sharing) so if I get stuck onboard it's not any worse than my Sheltering in Place here

 

Also 60s & although I still hike / speed walk daily / have no underlying health problems (other than Ca survivor) I'm still careful

 

@caribill yes it is available here but unlike ordinary health insurance it is not mandatory (California requires everyone to either get health insurance from work, privately, or from the state exchange)

Edited October 13, 2020 by Ombud

[ksheehan16]

5 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

So, I don't think that a typical senior person should get the disease. Probably would not end well.

 

From the CDC:

"According to those "best estimates," which were published this month as an update to the CDC's COVID-19 Planning Scenarios, the IFR is 0.02 percent for 20-to-49-year-olds and 0.5 percent for 50-to-69-year-olds."

 

The article does not say but the IFR (infection fatality rate) increases substantially beyond 70 but doesn't reach 5% until after 80.  But remember that most who die have comorbidities so if you are healthy then the risk is reduced. For me at 68 (senior?) and healthy( at least I think I am)  my chance of survival is 99.5% or greater.  Given that, I choose to live my life as normal as possible knowing that there is a small chance of getting covid and having a problem.  If I was 85 and in poor health then I would make a different choice.  Freedom has been taken away unnecessarily.  

 

[MissP22]

10 hours ago, caribill said:

Like the movie theater industry, the cruise industry may end up with the same scenario.  Some cruises with limited capacity and limited ports. Not a money making combination

I'm really afraid this is a distinct possibility if they don't come up with a vaccine very soon. 

I also think it's going to be hard to sell a cruise vacation {at any price) to people that have to wear masks, social distance and limited venues open on most ships. 

I'm not sure any of the cruise lines can hold out long enough.

[HappyInVan]

8 hours ago, ksheehan16 said:

 

For me at 68 (senior?) and healthy( at least I think I am)  my chance of survival is 99.5% or greater.  Given that, I choose to live my life as normal as possible knowing that there is a small chance of getting covid and having a problem.  If I was 85 and in poor health then I would make a different choice.  Freedom has been taken away unnecessarily.  

 

 

 

Obviously, there are no vulnerable people in your circle. Obviously. you don't live in an area where there are many cases.

 

Anyway, I'm a good analyst and I'll run the numbers for you.

 

Most cases are so minor that the infected don't bother to get tested. But, among those who are concerned enough to get tested in Georgia, 9% were admitted into a hospital.

 

Of those 18% ended up in ICU. How do these odds compare to winning at bingo or lotto?

 

https://covidtracking.com/data/#state-ga

 

So, get a test if you have symptoms. Don't be a hero (like me) if symptoms are serious. (I'm lucky that I didn't get a blood clot in a vital organ) Go for the VIP treatment.

 

Good luck.

 

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, MissP22 said:

I'm not sure any of the cruise lines can hold out long enough.

 

I'm not worried at all.

 

The ships will still be there when the customers return. The present shareholders may have to take a bath. But, I'm not a shareholder.

 

The creditors may have to take a loss too. But, I have only one MSC FCC and one Ponant deposit. So, the personal loss is minor.

 

The crews will be in bad shape. Third world employees will have minimal to no unemployment benefits. So, the best thing we can do is to minimize the amount of infection. So, that cruises can resume in more countries.

 

The economies of the destinations will fare poorly. However, Spain is n example of how badly things have gone with the return of tourism. Here in BC, we want the border to be closed until the danger is past.

 

[ksheehan16]

2 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

Most cases are so minor that the infected don't bother to get tested. But, among those who are concerned enough to get tested in Georgia, 9% were admitted into a hospital.

 

Of those 18% ended up in ICU. How do these odds compare to winning at bingo or lotto?

 

 

You are making my point for me. I have read many times that up to 80% of cases have little or no symptoms. For the afraid, this makes it worse because everyone they come in contact is a potential killer. And, 18% of 9 % is about 1.6 (say 2) people out of 100 sent to ICU. That's 2% sent to ICU, most likely elderly with comorbidities . The elderly are smart enough to protect themselves. Why punish everybody else and destroy the economy?  Freedom.

[nocl]

4 minutes ago, ksheehan16 said:

 

You are making my point for me. I have read many times that up to 80% of cases have little or no symptoms. For the afraid, this makes it worse because everyone they come in contact is a potential killer. And, 18% of 9 % is about 1.6 (say 2) people out of 100 sent to ICU. That's 2% sent to ICU, most likely elderly with comorbidities . The elderly are smart enough to protect themselves. Why punish everybody else and destroy the economy?  Freedom.

A few reasons

 

The more infections, the more chance of mutation.

 

the more minor infections, the more potential exposure for those at risk

 

the illness is not just about fatalities. more and more cases of long term symptoms and impacts showing up, even after relatively minor cases. These impacts are sufficient to leave people unable to work and do previously normal activities long after the virus is gone. Many of the long hauler cases are young healthy individuals that had relatively minor cases.

 

Last and most important, lockdowns or not, the economy will not return to anywhere near normal until the virus is under control. Even where restrictions are removed  people self limit their behavior. a recent survey indicated that only 30% felt safe enough to travel. That leaves atleast 70% that are changing their behavior and self limiting, restrictions or not.

 

The best way to get the economy back to normal is to get cases down.

[caribill]

2 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

The creditors may have to take a loss too. But, I have only one MSC FCC and one Ponant deposit. So, the personal loss is minor.

 

Although in a bankruptcy creditors may have to take a loss, customers' deposits and credits will still be there.

 

As with airline bankruptcies in the past for airlines that survived, stockholders and creditors did have a loss, but all customer paid tickets and frequent flier points were intact.

 

To cause customers to loss their deposits, payments and FCCs would mean lost customers which would threaten any cruise line survival.