Mandate the vaccine and establish a realistic start date

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, TheMastodon said:

yep.  Certain members of this board feed off it too

I personally find a medium between both sides of the discussion.  I have optimism, but not to the extreme.  I have negativity too. IMO the sky is falling, but how one can compartmentalize it will determine how realistic/successful you are in dealing with the pandemic. 
 

I look at it with common sense from both sides of the discussion.  Unfortunately common sense isn’t common anymore.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, ace2542 said:

Because they want the cruise industry to go bust.

Again, ace?  If they wanted the industry to go bust, as I've said many, many times before, they could have done it a couple of decades ago, by rescinding the VSP, and making a full inspection and interview of passengers and crew every time the ship entered the US.

7 hours ago, ace2542 said:

That is not strictly true from what I have heard. Though I have never been on it. The NCL ship Pride of America/NCL Pride is all American crew apparently including the wait staff and cabin stewards.

Well, almost.  US flag vessels are allowed to have unlicensed crew (everyone but deck and engine officers) up to 25% to be resident aliens ("green card holders").  NCL has a special exemption to have up to that 25% be non-resident aliens (generally supervisors from their international ships that have been with them for many years).

6 hours ago, ace2542 said:

Yes for the brand of that. But to my understand it doesn't cost massive amounts of money to go on does it? Yet they must be paying American minimum wage? Yet they still make money on it? So maybe more ships can do that? Or is that operating as a loss leader for NCL? And they make it up with their other ships.

Pride of America, for a 7 day cruise around the Hawaiian Islands, costs a bit more than a Carnival 14 day cruise to Hawaii from the West Coast, with a foreign crew.  While they do pay Hawaiian minimum wage, they don't have to, if the crew's collective bargaining agreement allows it.  To give an example (I worked the NCL Hawaii ships for 4 years), when we first started out, the overtime rate for the unlicensed deck and engine crew was $0.35 less than their straight time rate.  Yep, they were paid less per hour for working more than 40 hours per week.  As for making money, POA is the highest revenue ship in the fleet, but just about breaks even on profit, due to the higher operating costs.  US government agencies have calculated that it costs over 3 times as much to operate a US flag ship as a foreign flag ship (and that is for a cargo ship with a crew of 20, not a cruise ship with a crew of 1000.  

 

Now, not sure what you mean by the comment "maybe more ships can do that"?  Do you mean hire US crew?  Sure they could, but they wouldn't have to pay US wages, since the ship is not US flag.  Do you mean go US flag and hire US crew?  Sure they could, but again, it would cost them about 3 times or more to operate, as there are many more costs to US flag than crew salaries.  Also, since the ships are not built in the US, they could not do similar cruises to the POA, which has no foreign ports, as that is restricted to US flag, US owned, US crewed, and US built ships.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, ace2542 said:

Possibly. It will never go away.  This will kill thousands even hundreds of thousands each year in UK/US vaccine or no vaccine. And will spread on cruise ships like wildfire vaccine or no vaccine. Cruising might very well be finished.

Ah, just like smallpox will never go away?

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, ace2542 said:

The CDC wants to destroy the industry because they don't like how illness spreads onboard. And their practice of saving ships in distress in the ocean that could be anybody lets just leave it at that on a public forum shall we. 

New flash, ace.  The CDC has absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, to do with saving ships in distress in the ocean.  That is a function of the USCG, just like it is a function of the UK CMA, to provide assistance for vessels and people in distress at sea.

[Yorkvillain]

If my math is correct I believe the current score is:

 

Chief Engineer 5

Ace 0 

[chengkp75]

23 hours ago, Suncoastsailors said:

Today 6.5 % of the nation is vaccinated. If cruise lines would mandate the vaccine for crew and passengers and give a realistic start date. Those who want to cruise can focus on getting the vaccine. Let the ports of call know that all crew and passengers will be vaccinated. This seems like the answer to cruises returning. Testing can be relaxed, ship precautions can be reduced. Even if someone gets the virus onboard it won't spread to other passengers or crew. Those who don't want the vaccine can cancel, but those still booked on cruise ships want to cruise.

Okay, so the cruise line says, "all passengers and crew have to have the vaccine".  Now, who pays for, or even arranges for the crew to be vaccinated?  The cruise line?  Where do they get the vaccine?  Or do they rely on the crew's home countries?  If the US is experiencing shortages of vaccine, how is the third world doing?  And, what if the ports say "sure everyone is vaccinated, but what about the 8% that it didn't work on?  Do we risk our population being exposed to that 8%?  What if our population is not vaccinated? 

 

Your solution is a little simplistic.

[Mapleleafforever]

24 minutes ago, exm said:

 

Let me turn this around. Ban everyone age 50 and older on cruises due to the increased mortality rate: the age-specific infection fatality rate is extremely low among children and young adults, measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25. However, the rate progressively increased with age, growing from 0.4% at 55 to around 15% at 85.

 

Don't like that? I don't like it either that as parents I can't cruise since my kids can't get vaccinated (I will get my shot when I'm eligible).

 

So the solution I think will be:

- The entire crew will be vaccinated

- To board a ship you either need to be vaccinated or comply to a specific (TBD) testing schedule

Interesting take, everything is speculation at this point and this speculation is as good as any really.

[Mapleleafforever]

25 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

I personally find a medium between both sides of the discussion.  I have optimism, but not to the extreme.  I have negativity too. IMO the sky is falling, but how one can compartmentalize it will determine how realistic/successful you are in dealing with the pandemic. 
 

I look at it with common sense from both sides of the discussion.  Unfortunately common sense isn’t common anymore.

You hit the nail on the head here. 

[nelblu]

22 hours ago, TheMastodon said:

Yes.   Let’s do it.  
 

Even California is opening back up (how about those collapsing hospitals?)

 

The recall has a lot to do with it.

[crewsweeper]

1 hour ago, lizzius said:

The new vaccines (novavax and J&J) didn't have as high of an efficacy against symptomatic infection (even after full dosing). What we don't know is if you can have asymptomatic infection that is still transmissable after vaccination, but it seems likely that if you have a symptomatic one you are still going to be contagious. Given the lower efficacy vaccines are likely to be the ones widely used, I wonder what that could mean for health policy.

 

Well, lower is 89% vs 95%, so not as if the newer vaccines, which are 1 shot as I recall, are even down as low as usual flu vaccines which even at 40-60% work pretty well for most of us.

 

But efficacy in vaccines means something different than say 95 out of 100, or 89 out of 100, vaccinated people didn't get the virus. Take the Pfizer vaccine, for example.  Pfizer recruited over 43 thousand volunteers for the vaccine. Some with the vaccine some with a placebo.  170 of the volunteers came down with symptoms and tested positive for COVID.  Out of these 162 received the placebo shot and 8 received the real thing. Pfizer's health statisticians then calculated a relative difference between the fractions of people getting COVID positive between the two groups of real vaccine and placebo.  This relative fraction value is the efficacy.  If none of the vaccinated group had tested positive the efficacy would have been 100%.  

 

So 89% efficacy is still a very low number of people getting COVID after the vaccine relative to those not getting a vaccine.

 

 

[lizzius]

37 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Their efficacy is more than enough for herd immunity, especially in a 100% vaccinated setting (like a cruise ship)

Even at 60-70% efficacy, the amount of viral load in the "carrier segment" and the resistance of the "at risk of infection" segment makes the risk of a serious transmission statistical insignificant.

That's not the point... Some of those mildly symptomatic carriers get out of the controlled environment in a country with little or no immunity and then what happens?

[lizzius]

4 minutes ago, crewsweeper said:

Well, lower is 89% vs 95%, so not as if the newer vaccines, which are 1 shot as I recall, are even down as low as usual flu vaccines which even at 40-60% work pretty well for most of us.

 

But efficacy in vaccines means something different than say 95 out of 100, or 89 out of 100, vaccinated people didn't get the virus. Take the Pfizer vaccine, for example.  Pfizer recruited over 43 thousand volunteers for the vaccine. Some with the vaccine some with a placebo.  170 of the volunteers came down with symptoms and tested positive for COVID.  Out of these 162 received the placebo shot and 8 received the real thing. Pfizer's health statisticians then calculated a relative difference between the fractions of people getting COVID positive between the two groups of real vaccine and placebo.  This relative fraction value is the efficacy.  If none of the vaccinated group had tested positive the efficacy would have been 100%.  

 

So 89% efficacy is still a very low number of people getting COVID after the vaccine relative to those not getting a vaccine.

 

 

I agree with everything you said, with the exception that J&J is considerably lower than 89% and both new vaccines are lower against the newer strains (Moderna and Pfizer may be too, we just don't know for sure yet). 

 

My broader point is that requiring 100% vaccination on a cruise ship doesn't offer better marginal protection against disruption than just making sure all of the at-risk passengers and crew are vaccinated. 100% vaccination doesn't ensure there is no virus on board. It doesn't ensure that once it gets on board it doesn't spread, and it definitely doesn't ensure that it ends up being imported to the ports the ship stops at. Especially if it only reduces your chances of mildly symptomatic  infection by about 50% (there's no way 3rd world countries are going to be distributing the mRNA vaccines, and as we mentioned above there's no guarantee those are actually better than the new, easier to distribute vaccines anyway).

[Goodtime Cruizin]

43 minutes ago, exm said:

 

Let me turn this around. Ban everyone age 50 and older on cruises due to the increased mortality rate: the age-specific infection fatality rate is extremely low among children and young adults, measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25. However, the rate progressively increased with age, growing from 0.4% at 55 to around 15% at 85.

 

Don't like that? I don't like it either that as parents I can't cruise since my kids can't get vaccinated (I will get my shot when I'm eligible).

 

So the solution I think will be:

- The entire crew will be vaccinated

- To board a ship you either need to be vaccinated or comply to a specific (TBD) testing schedule

 

If this is what they choose to do in a failing industry, then so be it. I'll comply. But you do realize that if they chose to do this, they will eventually go bankrupt. And even you with kids won't be able to cruise. Families cruise on Spring Breaks, Summer, and Holidays due to kids at school. The cruiseline industry will not survive opening up for basically what amounts to 3 1/2 to 4 months a year.

 

If Royal adopts a vacination only policy and they start cruising,  and I have not been vaxed yet, oh well. I'll be required to patiently wait until I am. Life's a ***** at times. 

[smokeybandit]

55 minutes ago, exm said:

 

Let me turn this around. Ban everyone age 50 and older on cruises due to the increased mortality rate: the age-specific infection fatality rate is extremely low among children and young adults, measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25. However, the rate progressively increased with age, growing from 0.4% at 55 to around 15% at 85.

 

Don't like that? I don't like it either that as parents I can't cruise since my kids can't get vaccinated (I will get my shot when I'm eligible).

 

So the solution I think will be:

- The entire crew will be vaccinated

- To board a ship you either need to be vaccinated or comply to a specific (TBD) testing schedule

 

That's just as viable of a plan as mandating a vaccine rule for all passengers.

[exm]

19 minutes ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

If this is what they choose to do in a failing industry, then so be it. I'll comply. But you do realize that if they chose to do this, they will eventually go bankrupt. And even you with kids won't be able to cruise. Families cruise on Spring Breaks, Summer, and Holidays due to kids at school. The cruiseline industry will not survive opening up for basically what amounts to 3 1/2 to 4 months a year.

 

If Royal adopts a vacination only policy and they start cruising,  and I have not been vaxed yet, oh well. I'll be required to patiently wait until I am. Life's a ***** at times. 

 

Listen, I agree it's out of control for all of us. There might never be a vaccine for children younger than 12. Does that mean no kids on cruises? That too will be the end of a lot of cruise lines.

 

To me the key is this: get as many people vaccinated as possible, come up with a plan in case someone gets tested positive on-board and let's resume life. If someone has a health condition, get the shot.

 

It's unreal that most of the people under 50 have to endure lockdowns and disruption of life with a mortality rate that's probably lower than the average flu at this point. I'm not seriously advocating to ban older people (I'm pushing 50 myself), but at a certain point it comes down to personal responsibility if a vaccine is available.

 

Unfortunately the government (CDC) feels that they need to 'control' everything.

[not-enough-cruising]

36 minutes ago, lizzius said:

I agree with everything you said, with the exception that J&J is considerably lower than 89% and both new vaccines are lower against the newer strains (Moderna and Pfizer may be too, we just don't know for sure yet). 

 

My broader point is that requiring 100% vaccination on a cruise ship doesn't offer better marginal protection against disruption than just making sure all of the at-risk passengers and crew are vaccinated. 100% vaccination doesn't ensure there is no virus on board. It doesn't ensure that once it gets on board it doesn't spread, and it definitely doesn't ensure that it ends up being imported to the ports the ship stops at. Especially if it only reduces your chances of mildly symptomatic  infection by about 50% (there's no way 3rd world countries are going to be distributing the mRNA vaccines, and as we mentioned above there's no guarantee those are actually better than the new, easier to distribute vaccines anyway).

The level of protection against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination.

 

The vaccine candidate was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied, 28 days after vaccination in all adults 18 years and older. Efficacy against severe disease increased over time with no cases in vaccinated participants reported after day 49.

 

While not 89% efficacy, I agree, it is not considerably lower either, 85% kept out of the hospital is very successful. 

 

[not-enough-cruising]

46 minutes ago, lizzius said:

That's not the point... Some of those mildly symptomatic carriers get out of the controlled environment in a country with little or no immunity and then what happens?

I never mentioned anything about a population with little to no immunity, my statement was in regards to the statement that these newest vaccine candidates were not a viable alternative due to their efficacy.

[lizzius]

Just now, not-enough-cruising said:

The level of protection against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination.

 

The vaccine candidate was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied, 28 days after vaccination in all adults 18 years and older. Efficacy against severe disease increased over time with no cases in vaccinated participants reported after day 49.

 

While not 89% efficacy, I agree, it is not considerably lower either, 85% kept out of the hospital is very successful. 

 

Well, it actually kept 100% of people out of the hospital. I think it's great news all around from a helping people survive covid standpoint. Not great in terms of us ever being able to live covid free, and I think it's time for us to move on from that goal.

[not-enough-cruising]

10 minutes ago, lizzius said:

Well, it actually kept 100% of people out of the hospital. I think it's great news all around from a helping people survive covid standpoint. Not great in terms of us ever being able to live covid free, and I think it's time for us to move on from that goal.

This we are completely in agreement on.

 

Cheers

[broberts]

2 hours ago, firefly333 said:

The cdc never had the excuse before. I think once a govt agency gets a taste of power it is easy to abuse in the name of we are protecting you. We are here, we are the government and here to help you. 

 

 

 

How quickly some forget. I take it you have forgotten about norovirus?

 

I do wish some people would examine facts rather than let dogma dictate thoughts. Just because an agency acts in a way one dislikes does not mean it is drunk on power. 

[TheMastodon]

2 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

I personally find a medium between both sides of the discussion.  I have optimism, but not to the extreme.  I have negativity too. IMO the sky is falling, but how one can compartmentalize it will determine how realistic/successful you are in dealing with the pandemic. 
 

I look at it with common sense from both sides of the discussion.  Unfortunately common sense isn’t common anymore.

That’s why I call it uncommon sense.

 

The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

 

 

[TheMastodon]

1 hour ago, nelblu said:

The recall has a lot to do with it.

I think because he’s an idiot who panders to woke losers.  Pitchforks came out and he got scared.  He’s got really white teeth tho!

[broberts]

47 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

While not 89% efficacy, I agree, it is not considerably lower either, 85% kept out of the hospital is very successful. 

 

 

Definitely. In fact zero deaths in the vaccinated group and a non-zeroo number in the placebo group suggests to me an extremely useful vaccine. Especially since it cost less than 20% of the mRNA options with substantially lower storage and transportation costs. The kicker of course is that twice as many people can be vaccinated in a given period with the same human resources.

 

[A&L_Ont]

13 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

You got it. Too many people are too far, one side or the other. 

[smokeybandit]

1 hour ago, lizzius said:

I agree with everything you said, with the exception that J&J is considerably lower than 89% and both new vaccines are lower against the newer strains (Moderna and Pfizer may be too, we just don't know for sure yet). 

 

But still considerably higher than the typical flu vaccines.