Canada Locks Down to Feb 28 2022

[hamrag]

19 hours ago, Daniel A said:

It may be that the cruise lines are 'keeping their powder dry' and hoping that diplomacy will convince Canada to reassess the ban...

 

8 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but even if the PVSA was waived, the transit from Seattle to Alaska traverses the inside passage, much of which is in the now forbidden Canadian waters.  I fail to see how prohibiting ferry service from Alaska to the lower 48 without a stop in Canada protects the health of Canadian citizens...

 

You started  out arguing the case for cruise lines to reassess the ban, but now you argue a case for ferries.....don't think you know what you want, presumably you know cruises are different from ferries?! 🙄

Edited February 9, 2021 by hamrag

[Shawnino]

NCLH really ought to be ashamed.

Law varies by jurisdiction and weasel words vary by contract. That said, if you're collecting/holding deposits for a cruise that the government publicly says you can't deliver, that may or may not be fraud, but it's certainly in the neighbourhood.

 

As to the people who think that Canada's federal government gives a rat's about Keystone XL, well, that's just cute. Bless your hearts.

[pinotlover]

So, what’s the overall feeling here? Seems people want NCLH to cancel all 2021 cruises passing through Canadian waters due to this ruling.

 

Well, the CDC hasn’t changed its rulings and mandate on cruise lengths. Should they also now cancel all 2021 cruises over 7 days in American waters? What about the Med, same story there also?

 

Is any wait and see anywhere appropriate? Should they cancel all cruises, even throughout 2022, until the authorities have specifically approved those cruises? South America isn’t open now, should they cancel al cruises to S.A? Everything in excess of 7 days cancelled? If you believe that, why did you sign up for a longer cruise?

 

 

[Daniel A]

6 hours ago, Shawnino said:

As to the people who think that Canada's federal government gives a rat's about Keystone XL, well, that's just cute. Bless your hearts.

According to the BBC:

"Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has called the cancellation an "insult" and a "gut punch" and has urged Mr Trudeau to consider retaliation. Mr Kenney's provincial government invested some $1.5bn in the project last year."

 

So, just add the BBC to the list of conspiracy theorists ...

[clo]

6 hours ago, Shawnino said:

Bless your hearts.

Did you mean that in the Southern way??? 🙂

[YoHoHo]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

d 1 hour ago

  7 hours ago, Shawnino said:

As to the people who think that Canada's federal government gives a rat's about Keystone XL, well, that's just cute.

According to the BBC:

"Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has called the cancellation an "insult" and a "gut punch" and has urged Mr Trudeau to consider retaliation. Mr Kenney's provincial government invested some $1.5bn in the project last year."

 

So, just add the BBC to the list of conspiracy theorists ...

Your source is good but your understanding is wrong.

 

Yes, to Kenny it is a gut punch. As noted his government invested $1.5 bn last year (alone.) That is about 2.5% of the total provincial budget so not trivial to them, even in sad CA$. He hitched his political wagon to that pipeline so I imagine he is felling a little off-put.

 

BUT that is the Premier of a Province (like your governor) and absolutely not the Federal government. The federal government did invest in (bought) a different pipeline (also out of Alberta. You're welcome) but that is within Canada and struggling with all that that entails but it is not subject to USA rules and approvals. 

 

Naturally the federal government will press the USA to approve (a modified)  Keystone XL (who have seemed to clean up a lot of its act and objections) but not a gut punch to the Feds (there are other gut punches such as dumping on Canada with arresting Meng Wanzhou, Huawei CFO (and daughter)) and not backing Canada but I digress). Feds will use more diplomacy than Kenny. I.e. the Feds are calling it "a disappointment". $2.5 bn of goods cross the border every day; Feds will not let a Kenny tantrum destroy that with a tit-for-tat (such as another poster ridiculously suggested the US shutting down the the Lawrence Seaway in retaliation to Canada not allowing cruise ships in its (sovereign) waters.)  Alberta is landlocked and couldn't care less about cruise ships.

[hamrag]

3 hours ago, pinotlover said:

....Well, the CDC hasn’t changed its rulings and mandate on cruise lengths. Should they also now cancel all 2021 cruises over 7 days in American waters? What about the Med, same story there also?....

 

When was CDC granted jurisdiction within the Med?.....

[Mary229]

Just now, hamrag said:

 

When was CDC granted jurisdiction within the Med?.....

You gave me a good chuckle.  It is just like the belief that the US is the only one with authority over vaccine distribution.    

[pinotlover]

Just now, hamrag said:

 

When was CDC granted jurisdiction within the Med?.....

Please reread. My comment about the Med came after the question mark. New sentence. Perhaps should have been a new paragraph. The EU has currently limited cruises there to 3-7 days also. Sorry about the confusion.

[hamrag]

10 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Please reread. My comment about the Med came after the question mark. New sentence. Perhaps should have been a new paragraph. The EU has currently limited cruises there to 3-7 days also. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Rereading, it was somewhat ambiguous but your clarification makes sense in relation to 7 day maximum cruises. Thanks.

[Aloha 1]

On 2/8/2021 at 4:56 PM, njhorseman said:

And what if there's a large outbreak on the ship with multiple persons needing an ICU and neither a fleet of helicopters nor a sufficient number of ICU beds are available?

 

We can talk hypotheticals all day long. The odds today of such an event happening  on a ship that adheres to CDC protocol are miniscule. Also, by the time sailings resume more and more cruisers will have been vaccinated, plus worldwide cases are now dropping per WHO.

[Shawnino]

@YoHoHo I mostly agree with your analysis but I disagree that the Feds will press for a (potentially) modified Keystone project. They long ago threw in their lot with the sky-is-falling wing of the environmentalists. Last time, by my count Junior's government won zero seats in AB, zero in SK, and four in MB (looks like mostly in urban Winnipeg) so the pipeline is not a priority going forward, at all.

 

I'm actually afraid of something darker. I'm afraid Junior will deliver a speech this time next year along the lines of "We've gone two years without those big, nasty, polluting cruise ships. We've survived. Let's save the world by banning them forever!" Policy-wise, it fits his m.o.

[Daniel A]

15 minutes ago, Shawnino said:

I'm actually afraid of something darker. I'm afraid Junior will deliver a speech this time next year along the lines of "We've gone two years without those big, nasty, polluting cruise ships. We've survived. Let's save the world by banning them forever!" Policy-wise, it fits his m.o.

I'm not discounting the same happening in the U.S. 

[TrulyBlonde]

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not discounting the same happening in the U.S. 

Our Jr. is getting a book deal worth millions about drug addiction and an art show. 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Aloha 1 said:

We can talk hypotheticals all day long. The odds today of such an event happening  on a ship that adheres to CDC protocol are miniscule. Also, by the time sailings resume more and more cruisers will have been vaccinated, plus worldwide cases are now dropping per WHO.

What CDC protocols? They are no approved protocols as of today so obviously those nonexistent protocols haven't been tested yet. But you're sure they're going to work. You obviously don't understand that you could test negative for the virus on embarkation day because you were just infected but within a few days you could become seriously ill and you could have been spreading the virus for several days to other passengers before you showed signs of illness.

 

The vaccines are not 100% effective and also have not been shown to prevent you from transmitting the virus. That means a vaccinated person may still transmit the virus to others. At this point all that is expected is that you likely won't get ill, or if you do the illness will be minor.

 

If you haven't noticed the number of cases rise and fall. After the initial outbreak cases fell but subsequently the outbreak not only increased, but in some countries, including the US, the number of infections is far higher now than it was in the initial wave. You can't take an observation of a short period of time and assume that the current trend is indicative of a permanent reduction in cases.

 

Fire away, but I have no intention of responding any further. 

[pinotlover]

Njhorseman;

 

While we can follow your logic, your entire argument is built on the assumption that vaccinations for all crew and passengers won’t be required.

 

Maybe a good assumption, maybe not. If the non vaccinated go, we won’t be. Requiring vaccinations mathematically makes the chances very very small that anyone aboard becomes ill. 
 

Even if O doesn’t require it, most countries will as a condition of entry.

[Aloha 1]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

What CDC protocols? They are no approved protocols as of today so obviously those nonexistent protocols haven't been tested yet. But you're sure they're going to work. You obviously don't understand that you could test negative for the virus on embarkation day because you were just infected but within a few days you could become seriously ill and you could have been spreading the virus for several days to other passengers before you showed signs of illness.

 

The vaccines are not 100% effective and also have not been shown to prevent you from transmitting the virus. That means a vaccinated person may still transmit the virus to others. At this point all that is expected is that you likely won't get ill, or if you do the illness will be minor.

 

If you haven't noticed the number of cases rise and fall. After the initial outbreak cases fell but subsequently the outbreak not only increased, but in some countries, including the US, the number of infections is far higher now than it was in the initial wave. You can't take an observation of a short period of time and assume that the current trend is indicative of a permanent reduction in cases.

 

Fire away, but I have no intention of responding any further. 

Please remember that the CDC asked for cruise line input to develop said protocols. There will be no sailing from or within US waters until they are released, therefore in the hypothetical case you posit the protocols must be in place.

Second, The vaccines have not been shown to NOT prevent transmission. The latest research I have heard is that viral load would be so small as to not be significant. 

 

Finally , I stopped equating positive cases with deaths way back last summer. CDC now believes at least 4 times more people have already had covid than the official number. Herd immunity is becoming a reality. 

 

Since you won't be replying, I'll leave it at that. 

Ciao

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Aloha 1

[pinotlover]

4 minutes ago, Aloha 1 said:

Please remember that the CDC asked for cruise line input to develop said protocols. There will be no sailing from or within US waters until they are released, therefore in the hypothetical case you posit the protocols must be in place.

Second, The vaccines have not been shown to NOT prevent transmission. The latest research I have heard is that viral load would be so small as to not be significant. 

 

Finally , I stopped equating positive cases with deaths way back last summer. CDC now believes at least 4 times more people have already had covid than the official number. Herd immunity is becoming a reality. 

 

Since you won't be replying, I'll leave it at that. 

Ciao

 

Your logic was fine until the end. A large part of the problem occurred when the community allowed finding the presence of any virus in the system to be defined as “ having “ the virus. That definition has caused problems since. A lot of people got very small doze loads whose bodies were able to quickly fight off the disease.   In fact, they fought it off so quickly and effectively that not only did they not develop and symptoms, they didn’t develop the antigens necessary to fight off a possible larger load later. Declaring everyone that had the virus discovered, even for a day, as having “ had” the virus was a mistake, imo. So yes, a lot of us may have “ had” the virus and we’d never know it.

 

Fauci, earlier this week, touched on this point. He said “ people that get the vaccine are more protected from the virus than those that have had the virus “. Reason “ many that had the virus had such light cases they didn’t develop significant enough antibodies to ward if off”. 

[Aloha 1]

18 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Your logic was fine until the end. A large part of the problem occurred when the community allowed finding the presence of any virus in the system to be defined as “ having “ the virus. That definition has caused problems since. A lot of people got very small doze loads whose bodies were able to quickly fight off the disease.   In fact, they fought it off so quickly and effectively that not only did they not develop and symptoms, they didn’t develop the antigens necessary to fight off a possible larger load later. Declaring everyone that had the virus discovered, even for a day, as having “ had” the virus was a mistake, imo. So yes, a lot of us may have “ had” the virus and we’d never know it.

 

Fauci, earlier this week, touched on this point. He said “ people that get the vaccine are more protected from the virus than those that have had the virus “. Reason “ many that had the virus had such light cases they didn’t develop significant enough antibodies to ward if off”. 

Valid point

[1985rz1]

For those of you who are wondering why the cruise lines have not cancelled Alaska and East Coast itineraries, yet, here's an interesting analysis: 

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5869/

[pinotlover]

12 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

For those of you who are wondering why the cruise lines have not cancelled Alaska and East Coast itineraries, yet, here's an interesting analysis: 

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5869/

Party Pooper! Did you not read the thread where so many bragged about unsubscribing to CC emails. Now you post one of those emails! 😂😂

 

A couple threaders declared me an insider because of the information obtained from reading a CC article! Only insiders will obviously follow your link. 😂😂

Edited February 12, 2021 by pinotlover

[njhorseman]

29 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

For those of you who are wondering why the cruise lines have not cancelled Alaska and East Coast itineraries, yet, here's an interesting analysis: 

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5869/

My money is on the severe loss of cash reserves being the real reason cruise lines haven't cancelled at least the earliest months of the Alaskan and Canadian Maritime cruise seasons. Given that not a single test cruise has sailed and that the cruise lines have all complained about the CDC not providing sufficient guidance for the cruise lines to even submit the required COVID protocols for approval, the reality is that the cruise lines should have already cancelled all US-based cruises, not just Alaska and Canada itineraries,  much further into the future than they have already.

 

NCLH has reversed course with the crew it had been bringing in for the restart and is now sending most of them back to their home countries by ship. It will take months to get the crew back here and the ships ready to sail, particularly since it appears likely crew is going to have to be vaccinated and vaccine supplies are not abundant in most of the world.

 

As an aside, one thing we can count on is that whenever the  Cruise Critic contributor Aaron Saunders writes an article that mentions the PVSA he will get it wrong, typically by incorrectly stating that cruises requiring a call at any foreign port instead require a distant foreign port call. I've tried to bring this to Cruise Critic management's attention repeatedly but it falls on deaf ears. It's ridiculous that  a site that is supposed to be the leading cruise message board apparently has inadequate standards for accuracy in its "news" articles.

Edited February 12, 2021 by njhorseman

[njhorseman]

14 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

Party Pooper! Did you not read the thread where so many bragged about unsubscribing to CC emails. Now you post one of those emails! 😂😂

 

A couple threaders declared me an insider because of the information obtained from reading a CC article! Only insiders will obviously follow your link. 😂😂

Suggest you read my post that immediate follows yours. In particular read the last paragraph, which gives a hint about one of the reasons why I no longer subscribe to Cruise Critic news releases.

[pinotlover]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

Suggest you read my post that immediate follows yours. In particular read the last paragraph, which gives a hint about one of the reasons why I no longer subscribe to Cruise Critic news releases.

Always an issue. I read numerous publications and articles that often given informative good information. Sometimes those publications get it highly apparently all wrong. If I waited to read only those publications that always get it right, my reading list would reduce down to zero, the big null, the 0. I glean what I reliably can, and pass over the mostly absurd. 
 

Your statement, in that thread which I read , was accurate. Cc should know better by now. NWT, CC still publishes some

good articles with interesting and informative interviews with industry leaders like FDR for instance.

[billf0401]

I continue to be surprised that the Canadian Maritime cruises are still being sold on the Oceania website.  Seems that there should at least be some note to potential buyers that these are at high risk of being cancelled.....We are booked on the 10/31/21 Montreal/Miami but fully expect that it will not take place.