What will happen today with the CDC?

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, HLGW60 said:

The first paragraph on page 20 seems to imply it would

 

(b) Scope.  This framework applies to any person operating or intending to operate a cruise ship in U.S. waters and to anyone operating a cruise ship outside of U.S. waters if the cruise ship operator intends for the ship to return to operating in U.S. waters while this order is under effect.

This would still not include European cruises, as the cruise line would only say, "the ship is staying in Europe", and then when they want to bring it back, "we changed our mind, and the ship will be coming back, so we will now comply".  Otherwise, this would not be legal or enforceable.

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

I'm curious what these simulated cruises will be. Will it be employees acting as passengers in a dry run? Or will it be more like the "soft opening" in a restaurant, where the volunteers are members of the public that knows going in it's really just a test, so no guarantees about the experience. If the latter, will the volunteers cruise free or will they be charged?

 

I'd guess the employees acting as cruisers scenario. The other might not fly with the CDC.

Not sure about that.  The requirement is that the volunteers be "consensual", and not as a condition of employment.

[seaman11]

4 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

I'm curious what these simulated cruises will be. Will it be employees acting as passengers in a dry run? Or will it be more like the "soft opening" in a restaurant, where the volunteers are members of the public that knows going in it's really just a test, so no guarantees about the experience. If the latter, will the volunteers cruise free or will they be charged?

 

I'd guess the employees acting as cruisers scenario. The other might not fly with the CDC.

I think it will be real pax , as it says they should have a clean bill of heath from the dr. and form filled out. no underlining cond. 

 

I doubt they would charge, im not sure how they will select them though, that will be interesting.  maybe execs family and friends, or maybe have frequent cruisers apply for it. 

[HLGW60]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This would still not include European cruises, as the cruise line would only say, "the ship is staying in Europe", and then when they want to bring it back, "we changed our mind, and the ship will be coming back, so we will now comply".  Otherwise, this would not be legal or enforceable.

 Gosh.....this sounds sneaky to me.  Wouldn’t they know the ship’s itineraries in advance and know they must depart U.S. waters and then return again?    Will they quit booking transatlantic cruises?    All of this is confusing to this novice.

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, HLGW60 said:

 Gosh.....this sounds sneaky to me.  Wouldn’t they know the ship’s itineraries in advance and know they must depart U.S. waters and then return again?    Will they quit booking transatlantic cruises?    All of this is confusing to this novice.

Transatlantics would have to comply, since the itinerary includes a US port call.  I thought you were referring to cruises in Europe, like the Med or Baltics.  Those would have no CDC jurisdiction, even if the line intended to return to the US at some time.   The language in the document only means that a ship must come into compliance before it returns, and start compliance within the timeline set for reporting, etc, before it returns.  The CDC only has jurisdiction over ships that wish to enter the US.  Ships that are sailing around the Med do not have to comply.

[BlerkOne]

22 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

I think it will be real pax , as it says they should have a clean bill of heath from the dr. and form filled out. no underlining cond. 

 

I doubt they would charge, im not sure how they will select them though, that will be interesting.  maybe execs family and friends, or maybe have frequent cruisers apply for it. 

It would be non-rev volunteers with no recourse if the cruise is a disaster.

[TomCruise48]

1 hour ago, Earthworm Jim said:

I'm curious what these simulated cruises will be. Will it be employees acting as passengers in a dry run? Or will it be more like the "soft opening" in a restaurant, where the volunteers are members of the public that knows going in it's really just a test, so no guarantees about the experience. If the latter, will the volunteers cruise free or will they be charged?

 

I'd guess the employees acting as cruisers scenario. The other might not fly with the CDC.

 

I'm also guessing that it will be shore side Carnival employees.  It would be better to have pax whose employment is not dependent on Carnival to make the test more realistic.  Even though the CDC order requires that "volunteering" is not to be a condition of employment, employees are more likely to understand and follow all of the rules for fear of non-compliance affecting their jobs.

 

Although it does not appear to be required by the CDC, it would be good if the simulation also determined how well the passengers will understand and comply with the new rules, such as wearing masks, social distancing, venue and elevator capacity, etc.  

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, TomCruise48 said:

 

I'm also guessing that it will be shore side Carnival employees.  It would be better to have pax whose employment is not dependent on Carnival to make the test more realistic.  Even though the CDC order requires that "volunteering" is not to be a condition of employment, employees are more likely to understand and follow all of the rules for fear of non-compliance affecting their jobs.

 

Although it does not appear to be required by the CDC, it would be good if the simulation also determined how well the passengers will understand and comply with the new rules, such as wearing masks, social distancing, venue and elevator capacity, etc.  

Fear of non-compliance affecting their jobs is a form of "condition of employment".  It does not talk about how the volunteers "understand" the new rules, but it does require the cruise line to enforce those rules like masks and social distancing.

[nomad098]

56 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Transatlantics would have to comply, since the itinerary includes a US port call.  I thought you were referring to cruises in Europe, like the Med or Baltics.  Those would have no CDC jurisdiction, even if the line intended to return to the US at some time.   The language in the document only means that a ship must come into compliance before it returns, and start compliance within the timeline set for reporting, etc, before it returns.  The CDC only has jurisdiction over ships that wish to enter the US.  Ships that are sailing around the Med do not have to comply.

 

I would add that any ship that includes an EU stop is subject to EU rules, with the ECDC being in close contact with the CDC, I would not be surprised to see the harmonising of the rules in regard to covd-19 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

I would add that any ship that includes an EU stop is subject to EU rules, with the ECDC being in close contact with the CDC, I would not be surprised to see the harmonising of the rules in regard to covd-19 

They are pretty close as it is, and with the CDC backing off of the offshore handling of medical cases and quarantine, it more closely resembles the EU model.

[Dunk]

On 10/30/2020 at 9:06 AM, Moviela said:

Masks are good to control dust and pollens, but next to worthless against viruses. Walk through the perfume department or down the soap aisle in a market. Smell all the fragrance coming right through your mask, and those molecules are huge alongside a virus. Wearing a mask is Kabuki theater, and we are all performers in that show. Those who forcefully promote their use are cynically trying to show their "concern" to fight the virus, and wag their "shaming" finger at the actual science.

Yes! You can certainly smell things when wearing a mask. But, as is often said, wearing a mask doesn't protect you, it protects others. it's why a surgeon wears a mask when they're performing a surgery. To prove my point, wear any decent mask, and try to blow out a candle. You won't be able to do it.  

 

 

[TomCruise48]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Fear of non-compliance affecting their jobs is a form of "condition of employment".  It does not talk about how the volunteers "understand" the new rules, but it does require the cruise line to enforce those rules like masks and social distancing.

The main point that I was trying to make is that if all of the volunteers are Carnival employees, the simulation will not be as reflective of the actual situation had the volunteers come from a broader population.  I'll try a different angle.  These employees are already worried about their jobs and I'm sure the possibility of bankruptcy is on their minds.  They should be highly motivated to make certain that the simulation goes well since that will affect their job security.

[BlerkOne]

27 minutes ago, TomCruise48 said:

The main point that I was trying to make is that if all of the volunteers are Carnival employees, the simulation will not be as reflective of the actual situation had the volunteers come from a broader population.  I'll try a different angle.  These employees are already worried about their jobs and I'm sure the possibility of bankruptcy is on their minds.  They should be highly motivated to make certain that the simulation goes well since that will affect their job security.

The volunteers still won't be representative - they have to be over 18 with no preexisting conditions that put then at risk for Covid complications.

[Earthworm Jim]

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Transatlantics would have to comply, since the itinerary includes a US port call.

 

A 7 day crossing wouldn't leave time for many ports of call to make the cruise more enticing to passengers. Could they even fit in 2 ports?

[chengkp75]

26 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

A 7 day crossing wouldn't leave time for many ports of call to make the cruise more enticing to passengers. Could they even fit in 2 ports?

At 21 knots, Southampton to NYC is 6 days, 6 hours (minus the 5 hour time change), so they could throw in Halifax or Boston, but not both.  QM2 does 7 night (8 day) crossings now.

[d9704011]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

At 21 knots, Southampton to NYC is 6 days, 6 hours (minus the 5 hour time change), so they could throw in Halifax or Boston, but not both.  QM2 does 7 night (8 day) crossings now.

Additionally, Canadian ports (Halifax) are closed to the majority of cruise ships until at least the end of February, 2021.

[Earthworm Jim]

7 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Additionally, Canadian ports (Halifax) are closed to the majority of cruise ships until at least the end of February, 2021.

 

Yeah, but a lot of the repositioning trans-Atlantic crossings used to be more southerly. Maybe Barcelona to Miami kind of thing. I'm guessing that would be a similar story. They could add a stop in the Canary Islands or the northern Caribbean and keep it to 7 days, but not both.

[Calnev1]

23 hours ago, Dunk said:

Yes! You can certainly smell things when wearing a mask. But, as is often said, wearing a mask doesn't protect you, it protects others. it's why a surgeon wears a mask when they're performing a surgery. To prove my point, wear any decent mask, and try to blow out a candle. You won't be able to do it.  

 

 

Incomplete information is misinformation.  THank you, Dunk,  for providing the complete info and thus explaining why masks, in fact, DO WORK.

[skridge]

On 10/30/2020 at 9:33 AM, jimbo5544 said:

I have no idea.  I doubt with the current virus conditions they will allow ships to sail.  They could always be proactive.....naw, that would be stepping up to do their job proficiently.  That said, they are failing our country big time, so one more announcement in that light will not hurt.  

Not sure who they is, but I think a large group of people in this country are failing our country by not taking the virus seriously.

[skridge]

On 10/30/2020 at 12:13 PM, PhillyFan33579 said:

 

Until someone shows definitive proof based on extensive testing, no one is going to convince me sailing on a cruise ship is any more “dangerous” when it comes to this virus than being in extremely close proximity of other people on an airplane, a train, a subway, a bus, etc. I know from your previous posts you are a big supporter of the CDC, but it appears the CDC just has a personal vendetta against the cruise industry. I still have not seen one study proving being on a cruise ship significantly increases your chances of catching this virus. 

I think the virus spreading like wildfire across cruise ships back in March gives you a good test case.  

[PhillyFan33579]

1 minute ago, skridge said:

I think the virus spreading like wildfire across cruise ships back in March gives you a good test case.  

I would counter with the recent cruises overseas seem to prove cruise ships are no more dangerous than any other location. 

[pc_load_letter]

13 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I would counter with the recent cruises overseas seem to prove cruise ships are no more dangerous than any other location. 

 

Exactly. Here in San Diego, gyms are open, lots of people in restatarunts and Costco was PACKED....There was NO social distacing there for sure.

 

As others have said, I would feel increadibly more safe on a ship that is cleaned by the minute versus any of my above examples.

[PointNemo]

2 minutes ago, pc_load_letter said:

 

Exactly. Here in San Diego, gyms are open, lots of people in restatarunts and Costco was PACKED....There was NO social distacing there for sure.

 

As others have said, I would feel increadibly more safe on a ship that is cleaned by the minute versus any of my above examples.

The problem with COVID is that it is an AIRBORNE virus and can remain in that state for up to 3 hours. No amount of surface cleaning and disinfecting will ever get rid of it 100%.

[BlerkOne]

6 hours ago, PointNemo said:

The problem with COVID is that it is an AIRBORNE virus and can remain in that state for up to 3 hours. No amount of surface cleaning and disinfecting will ever get rid of it 100%.

There are methods for eradicating airborne viruses.

[jimbo5544]

15 hours ago, skridge said:

Not sure who they is, but I think a large group of people in this country are failing our country by not taking the virus seriously.

They are the cdc, thanks for letting us know your thoughts, even if off topic.