CDC UPDATE

[chengkp75]

58 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

That story was a bunch of nonsense...  The CDC has mandated masks on all forms of public transportation, (trains, planes, buses and of course cruise ships and the Staten Island Ferry)  In reality, the CDC has a total ban on cruise ships so there's nobody to boss around and require that you wear a mask on the Lido Deck.  I guess it makes them feel important and make it look like they're doing something despite the downgrading of their reputation.

Sigh.  The previous mask order was for domestic forms of travel, and international flights.  It specifically did not cover foreign ships.  This new order covers not just cruise ships (horror of Cruise Critic horrors, there are other ships out there?) but all ships wishing to enter US waters.  The only way that the CDC could tie this to foreign ships was to make it a condition of obtaining "pratique", or health clearance, to enter US waters, which this new order does.  So, it does a whole lot more than "make the CDC look important", but then it must look that way from the narrow CC perspective.

[Outerdog]

There are way too many people with opinions who are not qualified to have them compared to the number of people with opinions who are qualified to have them. 

 

Sigh indeed.

 

[billco]

1 hour ago, sunsetme said:

https://cruiseradio.net/cdc-rule-cruise-passengers-will-be-required-to-wear-masks/?fbclid=IwAR0rPe6xEDHs_6Z4Q32cMbnxDNyARvrNz0LfZ_u7F46MCSsw-I8FTXHJNJ0

So, what is wrong with requiring passengers to wear masks. I am fine with it. i certainly wouldn't want to sail on a ship with people who have issues wearing masks.

Edited February 4, 2021 by billco

[D C]

2 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

The issue is it isn't like the flu or norovirus. If someone tests positive for covid while on board it could be the end of the sailing. At 90% the risk factor is lower. 

Why? 

On a ship with a 100% vaccination rate, the occasional positive test is irrelevant.  Especially so if data shows vaccines limit transmission.  Someone mildly ill among thousands of people with immunity is unlucky statistics for that person. Nothing more. 

[D C]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Sigh.  The previous mask order was for domestic forms of travel, and international flights.  It specifically did not cover foreign ships.  This new order covers not just cruise ships (horror of Cruise Critic horrors, there are other ships out there?) but all ships wishing to enter US waters.  The only way that the CDC could tie this to foreign ships was to make it a condition of obtaining "pratique", or health clearance, to enter US waters, which this new order does.  So, it does a whole lot more than "make the CDC look important", but then it must look that way from the narrow CC perspective.

So sail the 7 seas mask-free until you get close enough to the US shore and close enough to someone who both cares and has the authority to do something about it and THEN put a mask on? 

[caribill]

16 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

Those of you who are touting vaccines are overlooking one very important aspect. We haven't enough vaccines in this country to vaccinate 75 and over. How do you propose that the crew who fall at the back of the vaccination line due to age get the vaccine.

 

They do not have to get vaccinated in the USA. Vaccines are in short supply world wide, but are becoming available from more vaccine manufacturers and I suspect those who arrange such things will be able to get the crew members vaccinated before reporting to a Princess ship.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, D C said:

So sail the 7 seas mask-free until you get close enough to the US shore and close enough to someone who both cares and has the authority to do something about it and THEN put a mask on? 

You obviously have not read the order.  It states that unless the Captain certifies that a mask mandate was enforced for the entire voyage, then "pratique" will not be granted.  That places a civil burden on the Captain to provide a truthful federal document, failure to do so could lead to personal fines.

[Potstech]

10 hours ago, D C said:

Why? 

On a ship with a 100% vaccination rate, the occasional positive test is irrelevant.  Especially so if data shows vaccines limit transmission.  Someone mildly ill among thousands of people with immunity is unlucky statistics for that person. Nothing more. 

So if you were vaccinated and on a cruise and someone tested positive you would not worry?  What is to say that none of those "100%" vaccinated had false paperwork?  What would the next ports of call do when they learned that there was a positive case on board do?  After all it is just an unlucky person that tested positive.  Nothing more.

[billco]

47 minutes ago, Potstech said:

So if you were vaccinated and on a cruise and someone tested positive you would not worry?  What is to say that none of those "100%" vaccinated had false paperwork?  What would the next ports of call do when they learned that there was a positive case on board do?  After all it is just an unlucky person that tested positive.  Nothing more.

https://www.princess.com/news/notices_and_advisories/notices/cdc-travel-advisories.html

"If a threshold of COVID-19 is detected on board the ship, the voyage will be ended immediately, and the ship will return to the port of embarkation." Does threshold mean one person or is it a number that must be exceeded before the cruise would be ended? Port of embarkation could be a big issue.

[Daniel A]

13 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sigh.  The previous mask order was for domestic forms of travel, and international flights.  It specifically did not cover foreign ships.  This new order covers not just cruise ships (horror of Cruise Critic horrors, there are other ships out there?) but all ships wishing to enter US waters.  The only way that the CDC could tie this to foreign ships was to make it a condition of obtaining "pratique", or health clearance, to enter US waters, which this new order does.  So, it does a whole lot more than "make the CDC look important", but then it must look that way from the narrow CC perspective.

I think you misunderstood the point of my previous posting.  I was referencing a prior post and a recent CC article which made it appear that the CDC had just issued a new order specific to cruise ships.  It left the impression that masks are now a condition of resumption of cruising.  I wasn't making reference to any previous mask orders.  If you were to re-read my post you will see that I was mostly pointing out that the new CDC order covers all forms of transportation and wasn't currently having much effect on cruise ships since the CDC still has a ban on cruise ship operations anyway.  I'm not sure what you inferred from my post but it wasn't about any prior orders, just the new one.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Daniel A

[D C]

1 hour ago, Potstech said:

So if you were vaccinated and on a cruise and someone tested positive you would not worry?  What is to say that none of those "100%" vaccinated had false paperwork?  What would the next ports of call do when they learned that there was a positive case on board do?  After all it is just an unlucky person that tested positive.  Nothing more.

Correct, I would not worry.

If they had falsified vaccination proof, I would not worry.

Cruise lines would need to sort out in advance, as they have already been working to do per the conditional sail order, to arrange medical care and safe passage home for anyone testing positive.  

No worries at all. I would enjoy my cruise. 

[D C]

59 minutes ago, billco said:

https://www.princess.com/news/notices_and_advisories/notices/cdc-travel-advisories.html

"If a threshold of COVID-19 is detected on board the ship, the voyage will be ended immediately, and the ship will return to the port of embarkation." Does threshold mean one person or is it a number that must be exceeded before the cruise would be ended? Port of embarkation could be a big issue.

A single positive would be an unreasonably low threshold.  That's also from the conditional sail order pertaining to cruises in a pre-vaccine world, and is certain to change before cruising resumes. 

[billco]

26 minutes ago, D C said:

A single positive would be an unreasonably low threshold.  That's also from the conditional sail order pertaining to cruises in a pre-vaccine world, and is certain to change before cruising resumes. 

That was posted on the Princess website today.

[caribill]

Who should get which vaccine?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/world/europe/vaccine-coronavirus-variants.html?

 

“If I could choose, I’d like to get the safest one, but more than anything, I would like to get vaccinated as soon as possible,” Ms. Alario said. “I am scared, like everyone.”

 

"Scientists have largely advised people to accept the first vaccine they are offered, given the widespread protections against severe disease and the societal need to tamp down the emergence of new variants."

 

 

[billco]

1 hour ago, D C said:

Correct, I would not worry.

If they had falsified vaccination proof, I would not worry.

Cruise lines would need to sort out in advance, as they have already been working to do per the conditional sail order, to arrange medical care and safe passage home for anyone testing positive.  

No worries at all. I would enjoy my cruise. 

This might serve as proof:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vsafe.html

until this is available:

https://www.ibm.com/products/digital-health-pass

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, D C said:

A single positive would be an unreasonably low threshold.  That's also from the conditional sail order pertaining to cruises in a pre-vaccine world, and is certain to change before cruising resumes. 

One does seem extremely low as a threshold, but is there any idea of at what number the threshold would be set? Would it actually be a fixed number, or possibly a percentage of those aboard?

[ontheweb]

49 minutes ago, JimmyVWine said:

Outerdog's post was a bit more nuanced than that.  As a funder of government programs, you are entitled to have an opinion of that program.  "Qualified" is a different metric altogether.  I am paying for all sorts of satellite anti-ballistic programs.  I am entitled to have an opinion as to whether I want my money spent on those.  But I am certainly not qualified to have an opinion on the effectiveness of the missile systems or their operational proficiency.  Those issues are way out of my league.  Examples:

 

Opinion to which I am entitled--"I don't want my government to spend money on those systems and instead would like to see more money directed to food insecurity." 

 

Opinion for which I am not qualified--"Those missile systems don't even work."

 

I think what Outerdog was saying is that there are lots of opinions about mask orders, vaccine effectiveness, post-vaccine transmitability, dose availability, safe-cruising-strategies, etc. that are based on unqualified assumptions masquerading as facts. I could be wrong.  But that is how I read it. 

A more succinct way of saying that would be the famous quotation from the late Senator Moynihan (I may have the exact words wrong). " Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own set of facts."

[Ombud]

My guess is as good as anyone so I'm going to spout off. Based on what starts the trigger in California (https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/) my guess (and its just that) would be the yellow tier: under 2.2% of total occupants (cruisers + staff). 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Ombud

[D C]

2 hours ago, billco said:

That was posted on the Princess website today.

The relevant snippit from the Conditional Sailing Order from last October is below.  Strange that Princess would wait this long to post it.

 

[D C]

9 minutes ago, Ombud said:

My guess is as good as anyone so I'm going to spout off. Based on what starts the trigger in California (https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/) my guess (and its just that) would be the yellow tier: under 2.2% of total occupants (cruisers + staff). 

It's a starting point, arbitrary as it may be.   We can thoroughly debate the merits of that as the theoretical threshold, so that when the CDC pops in here for our collective recommendation, we'll have hashed it out already 🙂

[Potstech]

3 hours ago, D C said:

Correct, I would not worry.

If they had falsified vaccination proof, I would not worry.

Cruise lines would need to sort out in advance, as they have already been working to do per the conditional sail order, to arrange medical care and safe passage home for anyone testing positive.  

No worries at all. I would enjoy my cruise. 

But I bet you would have a lot to say if you were on a ship with a positive case and were either forced to stay at sea or had to return to your originating port. You have a high idea of what cruise ships and ports will do for positive cases.  Which port would you want to receive a case of a pandemic disease?

[billco]

1 hour ago, D C said:

The relevant snippit from the Conditional Sailing Order from last October is below.  Strange that Princess would wait this long to post it.

 

Thanks. I looked for something more recent that would have prompted the update. I wouldn't want the ship to meet the threshold near the end of a point to point cruise.

[caribill]

13 hours ago, Potstech said:

 Which port would you want to receive a case of a pandemic disease?

Part of the CDC requirements for cruising again is that the cruise line must have arranged in advance which ports are willing to take any Covid-19 cases from the ship.

[D C]

19 hours ago, Potstech said:

But I bet you would have a lot to say if you were on a ship with a positive case and were either forced to stay at sea or had to return to your originating port. You have a high idea of what cruise ships and ports will do for positive cases.  Which port would you want to receive a case of a pandemic disease?

 

Do you think that cruise lines have no contingency plans whatsoever and have no idea how ports would react if there were any cases onboard?   This is all groundwork that's laid in advance.  

 

5 hours ago, caribill said:

Part of the CDC requirements for cruising again is that the cruise line must have arranged in advance which ports are willing to take any Covid-19 cases from the ship.

 

Exactly.  Every passenger knows in advance what could happen.    

 

If cruises sail with vaccination requirements, the odds of any of that actually happening is extremely remote.

[Outerdog]

6 hours ago, caribill said:

Part of the CDC requirements for cruising again is that the cruise line must have arranged in advance which ports are willing to take any Covid-19 cases from the ship.

 

I wonder how long that list is so far...