Some in Congress want the CDC to put back the "no sail" order

[HappyInVan]

6 hours ago, Hlitner said:

So this goes to my question of why there is such an emphasis on testing as though it is a cure-all.  Testing certainly helps feed statistics but does very little in terms of prevention. 

 

I'm not a statistician or medical expert. I do read the playbook for the Health Authorities.

 

It goes something like this. Test to diagnose the infected. Then, contract trace to eliminate or reduce the next chains of infections. Finally, track the infected to make sure that they isolate until they are cleared by further testing.

 

To me, it seems like a no-brainer. You can't contact trace until you have a diagnosis. Without testing, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people will cause super-spreader events. Yes?

 

Of course, some HA do this carefully and well. While others don't bother to follow up after testing. So, it all depends on where you live?

 

[generichandle]

FYI: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/egg-allergies.htm

 

Please see South Korea and Taiwan records on COVID. South Korea has less than 500 deaths in a country of 50 million. Taiwan has less than 10(!) death for 23 million people. And they had like 200 consecutive days with NO death from COVID. And never 'shut down'.   Maybe a natural immunity or some such?

 

No way! For those who say 'well no one could have done better', stop lying to yourself and us. They did! How? They STARTED with test and trace, quarantining those that had contact with infected person. immediately, before the disease became so widespread that tracing was virtually impossible. I could have been done anywhere if someone knew, say in January, and actually TRIED. 

[Daniel A]

On 11/16/2020 at 8:51 PM, Earthworm Jim said:

 

That's quite a leap from one of 50 senators and one of 435 house members calling for reinstating the no sail order to assuming that means congress wants to restrict cruising.

 

(Not that I think there will be any modification to the PVSA)

 

On 11/13/2020 at 11:17 PM, caribill said:

Members of Congress are calling for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reinstate its "no-sail" order, which expired at the end of October and was replaced by a "Conditional Sailing Order" that allows a phased-in return to cruising.

 

full story at   https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-putting-american-lives-risk-204133748.html

 

On 11/14/2020 at 12:26 PM, nocl said:

no but it goes the fact that members from congress including at least one from a major cruise port state want the ban reapplied shows that there is unlikely to be support for modifications to the pvsa that many on cc were hoping for.

Not to nitpick, but Blumenthal is just 1 of 100 Senators, or in other words 1% of the Senate.  Matsui is 0.23% of the House.  Even if you combine the weight of both, they only constitute 0.37% of Congress.  Hardly a mandate.  Is it worth discussing or presuming what the full Congress would do based on a 0.37 minority?

[Earthworm Jim]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

 

 

Not to nitpick, but Blumenthal is just 1 of 100 Senators,

 

Yeah, a big Duh! on my part. Mea culpa.

[latserrof]

On 11/17/2020 at 11:22 AM, caribill said:

 

The main lesson is that someone who has undetectable levels of the virus can come aboard infected and then reach detectable levels during the cruise.

 

I have no idea how to prevent this.

Simple. No cruises.

[caribill]

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention upgraded the cruise ship travel risk to a level 4, the federal agency’s highest risk level possible for contracting COVID-19.

 

Amid reports of widespread outbreaks in cruises earlier this year, CDC recommends for travelers to avoid cruise ships, including river cruises, around the world, given the “very high” risk of becoming infected or spreading the novel coronavirus.

 

If passengers decide to go on cruises, they should get tested three to five days after the trip. Even if they test negative after a trip, cruise ship travelers should stay home for seven days after the trip.

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article247355354.html?ac_cid=DM329196&ac_bid=-1356942218

(may have a paywall)

 

[stevenr597]

The CDC this morning raised the level of risk for cruising.  For all intents and purposes, the CDC has effectively banned cruising in the United States for the near future.

I doubt that we will resume any type of "normal" cruising until a vaccine is out and mass vaccination of the public begins.   

[Linsifer]

On 11/14/2020 at 3:46 PM, Hlitner said:

The CDC Guidelines are, in many ways, akin to a no sail order.  The requirements to resume cruising are onerous and ultimately depend on the CDC granting, ship by ship, authorization.  When I read the original CDC document I posted that there is nothing in the guidelines that requires the CDC to approve any ship for cruising.   In some ways I believe the CDC simply shifted the burden from the CDC to the cruise lines who now have to find a way to comply with the tough requirements.   But if folks simply look at facts rather then speculate, the data is really bad.  Consider that in Europe, where they tried some limited cruising with very tough guidelines, there have been more then 140 COVID cases on the ships with several River Cruises having multiple cases.  Most European cruising has either stopped or is being further limited (such as just staying within Italy).  The recent situation with the Sea Dream (which embarked from Barbados) is a great example of why cruisng is just not going to work (for long) in the US market.  The Sea Dream only had about 60 patients, all were tested several times, and a case stilled slipped through the cracks and apparently spread COVID to several other passengers.  The Sea Dream is a small very spacious high end ship and yet they could not even stay COVID free.  A large mass market ship, even operating at reduced capacity is doomed to failure.  It might not happen the first cruise or even the 2nd, but it will happen and the publicity will be UGLY.

 

Hank

P.S,  Praying that one or more vaccines makes this COVID thing a distant memory.

I heard that it might be a vaccine that we’ll get annually like the flu vaccine. 

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, stevenr597 said:

The CDC this morning raised the level of risk for cruising.  For all intents and purposes, the CDC has effectively banned cruising in the United States for the near future.

The CDC travel notice regarding covid and cruise ships is a recommendation only, and has absolutely no enforcement to it.  It is up to the cruise public whether to abide by, or even consider the recommendations.

[Daniel A]

45 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The CDC travel notice regarding covid and cruise ships is a recommendation only, and has absolutely no enforcement to it.  It is up to the cruise public whether to abide by, or even consider the recommendations.

When CDC issues a specific travel advisory against certain travel, doesn't that prevent travelers from getting travel insurance that would cover that concern?

[ontheweb]

46 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

When CDC issues a specific travel advisory against certain travel, doesn't that prevent travelers from getting travel insurance that would cover that concern?

Yes, I believe that is true. And under those circumstances, it is hard to believe that any rational person would not follow the recommendation.

 

OTOH, there are probably a lot of not rational people.😒

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The CDC travel notice regarding covid and cruise ships is a recommendation only, and has absolutely no enforcement to it.  It is up to the cruise public whether to abide by, or even consider the recommendations.

One of the rare times you and I will agree to disagree.  The bottom line is that no cruise ship, with paying passengers, is going to embark, disembark, or even make a port stop in any USA port unless the CDC grants that ship their certification.  Whether that is legal is for the courts, but the CDC can easily enforce their Guidelines by using the USCG, CBP, and even the various Port Authorities.  The cruise public has no standing other then to complain to politicians.  It does seem that the incoming administration is going to give its full support to the CDC (at least that is what they say).

 

I will grant you that once aboard the cruising public may choose to ignore some of the CDC Guidelines and similar rules imposed by the cruise lines (i.e. wearing masks, social distancing, etc).  But violating the CDC Guidelines would likely result in the ship losing their CDC certification and not being allowed to embark on any future voyages.

 

Hank

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

When CDC issues a specific travel advisory against certain travel, doesn't that prevent travelers from getting travel insurance that would cover that concern?

Not necessarily, it depends on the policy, I believe.  Besides, how many cruise without insurance, so would this be a "ban" on cruising?

[Daniel A]

53 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not necessarily, it depends on the policy, I believe.  Besides, how many cruise without insurance, so would this be a "ban" on cruising?

No, I don't see it as a ban but it's an additional discouragement from taking any cruises anywhere.

[mcrcruiser]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

No, I don't see it as a ban but it's an additional discouragement from taking any cruises anywhere.

MrDonald ,CEO of CCL has stated in a press release that they can carry their cruise lines through the summer of 2021  because of their cash position . We can only hope that enough people get vaccinated to slow the virus down  .  Then ,at the ports people can show a certificate of vaccination  or get tested fir the virus  & or get a test 3 days before arriving at the port & then retested at the port itself . Thus ,then cruising should be safe enough   .Imo ,this should be accomplished here in the USA by the summer using the fast track methods the government has already laid out to get the vaccines out to the public 

[memoak]

36 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

MrDonald ,CEO of CCL has stated in a press release that they can carry their cruise lines through the summer of 2021  because of their cash position . We can only hope that enough people get vaccinated to slow the virus down  .  Then ,at the ports people can show a certificate of vaccination  or get tested fir the virus  & or get a test 3 days before arriving at the port & then retested at the port itself . Thus ,then cruising should be safe enough   .Imo ,this should be accomplished here in the USA by the summer using the fast track methods the government has already laid out to get the vaccines out to the public 

I would go as far as to say that once vaccines are readily available that they should be required to board a cruise ship

[voljeep]

4 minutes ago, memoak said:

I would go as far as to say that once vaccines are readily available that they should be required to board a cruise ship

I'm more concerned about what happens if/when an outbreak occurs on a ship - in connection with being able to port and disembark in a reasonable, non-quarantine basis of time

 

we will get the shot as soon as it is available - wife will be in first group, I should be in second ...

[TTEllis]

On 11/14/2020 at 5:37 PM, ontheweb said:

But for those who think the whole thing is a hoax and want to get on a cruise today as well as the last several months, what the CDC or possibly Congress does, does mean something.

Means nothing.

[victory2020]

On 11/19/2020 at 4:25 AM, generichandle said:

FYI: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/egg-allergies.htm

 

Please see South Korea and Taiwan records on COVID. South Korea has less than 500 deaths in a country of 50 million. Taiwan has less than 10(!) death for 23 million people. And they had like 200 consecutive days with NO death from COVID. And never 'shut down'.   Maybe a natural immunity or some such?

 

No way! For those who say 'well no one could have done better', stop lying to yourself and us. They did! How? They STARTED with test and trace, quarantining those that had contact with infected person. immediately, before the disease became so widespread that tracing was virtually impossible. I could have been done anywhere if someone knew, say in January, and actually TRIED. 

And their population also follow rules.

[generichandle]

1 hour ago, victory2020 said:

And their population also follow rules.

Those are countries with freedom, but their people, unlike so many of ours, believe liberty comes with concomitant RESPONSIBILITY.  If choosing 'liberty' means putting others at risk, they act RESPONSIBLY and do what is needed. They don't just cry about how "if I don't want to, I don't have to; I am an American!"; Boo Hoo

[generichandle]

Whatever happened here? Does anyone think the same people here would have abided by 'Meatless, wheatless, and sweetless days' like most every American did in WW2? Hard to accept things could change this much.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, generichandle said:

Whatever happened here? Does anyone think the same people here would have abided by 'Meatless, wheatless, and sweetless days' like most every American did in WW2? Hard to accept things could change this much.

If they were limited in what they could buy as determined by their ration books, as they were in WWII, yes.

[caribill]

14 hours ago, voljeep said:

I'm more concerned about what happens if/when an outbreak occurs on a ship - in connection with being able to port and disembark in a reasonable, non-quarantine basis of time

 

 

That is part of what the CDC requires cruise lines to arrange before allowing them to sail from/to any USA port.

[caribill]

14 hours ago, memoak said:

I would go as far as to say that once vaccines are readily available that they should be required to board a cruise ship

 

QANTAS has announced that when vaccines become widely available, it will require proof of vaccination for international travel on their planes.

[generichandle]

9 hours ago, nocl said:

If they were limited in what they could buy as determined by their ration books, as they were in WWII, yes.

Please stop doing that. You KNOW what my intent is. This is using the letter of the law to defeat the intent of the law. 

 

I am saying that there are certain people, and you know whom I mean, who would refuse to cooperate with anything that is aimed at responsibility to society suggested by their 'enemy' JUST BECAUSE it is. 

 

Yes, they would drink and drive;  "I have never wrecked while drunk, so why should I be 'punished' for other's carelessness, I have a right to drive when I want!"

 

Yes, they would turn on their lights during night bombing; "It's my lights, I can risk MY life if i want!"

 

Yes, this is utter contempt for 'those people', and they could care less if other's are at risk. Reality intrudes.

 

South Korea did not have this attitude prevalent, and where able to act together, with great results. Nor did Taiwan, nor did Viet Nam, nor did New Zealand.  

 

BTW, Climate Change denialism is a refection of it. Did you notice?