Viking Announced Resumption!

[Heidi13]

6 hours ago, uktog said:

P and O have announced this morning that for their round UK cruises for UK guests only proof of vaccination (both doses) is required.  Surely Viking has to say likewise 

 

In the UK market, Saga announced back in January that vaccinations will be mandatory and I suspect Cunard won't be far behind P&O.  Before too long, Viking could be the only cruise line accommodating anti-vaxxers.

[Heidi13]

24 minutes ago, Clay Clayton said:

Well for the P&O cruises which were announced today, there won’t be any port stops so excursions won’t be an issue-has Viking announced their iteniaries?

 

Clay - all they indicated was 8-day voyages R/T Portsmouth, with details to follow.

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24566-viking-to-cruise-from-uk-in-may-with-new-ship.html

 

[DGHOC]

Clay, Viking is gauging interest from their Viking customer base who will be offered it first, I suppose it will then be opened to the general public. We are still very much in lockdown here with potential full release not definite though expected early May which is when these UK cruises are planned. 

 

In the UK and mainland Europe, they are discussing a Government Covid vaccination app, that would detail tests, previous covid infections and vaccinations, so I would assume this would make it a little more difficult to forge.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

57 minutes ago, Porcupine 52 said:

So here is just a question.  You have 100 people that go on an excursion.  99 have had the vaccine.  1 lies about having the vaccine.  Who is being put into danger?  The 99 or the 1?

 I ask the nurse at the Pfizer vaccine study when I was there a few weeks ago about how many people that had the "real" vaccine come down with the virus.  She said they were not done unblinding yet but to date none.  I guess my point is I am sure you are going to get some people to lie... but I think the danger is to the person that is lying about it.

 

On a side note in our area they have dropped the vaccine age down to 16 starting April 26 

The danger is that the cruise gets canceled and the  whole ship gets put in quarantine for two weeks if one person on-board tests positive.

 

Vaccine passport at least three months off in EU:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/eu-vaccine-certificate-how-to-reopen-tourism-this-summer.html

 

And when an EU politician says three months, you can bet the squabbling will go on far longer than that....

[philsuarez]

What do we think cost will be for the week UK cruises?

 

[old biddy]

39 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Clay - all they indicated was 8-day voyages R/T Portsmouth, with details to follow.

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24566-viking-to-cruise-from-uk-in-may-with-new-ship.html

 

I've just had a conversation with UK office, (although all working from home) the itinerary for proposed cruises is Portsmouth, Falmouth, Scily Isles, Liverpool, Portland and back to Portsmouth. They are reducing the number of passengers to 450 to allow for greater social distancing.

However they are NOT insisting on vaccination, apparently it is down to personal choice! When I pointed out I thought that would put a lot of people off, me included, the reply was 'insisting on vaccination would put a lot of people off'. They are holding a lot on the daily testing, but that doesn't stop Covid getting on board. By the time it is picked up by testing it is too late, the infected individual will already have been in contact with goodness knows how many people.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I guess I should stop being so pessimistic, this virus can be beaten.  Our county here in Southern California has now vaccinated approx 30% of adults, and hospitalizations have dropped to 10% of January levels.  And still falling rapidly.  Daily new cases have fallen off a cliff, down >95% from the peak.

 

[Porcupine 52]

44 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

The danger is that the cruise gets canceled and the  whole ship gets put in quarantine for two weeks if one person on-board tests positive.

 

Vaccine passport at least three months off in EU:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/eu-vaccine-certificate-how-to-reopen-tourism-this-summer.html

 

And when an EU politician says three months, you can bet the squabbling will go on far longer than that....

so again.. if every one except 1 has the vaccine do you put every one in quarantine or just the one person that lied?  Do you send them home for  breaking the rules.  Airlines are kicking people off and banning them for life for not wearing a mask

 

I sure don't know the answer but I'm not sure why you would punish people that follow the rules?

 

If we don't have some kind of confidence that the vaccine is working why in the world did we get it?

Edited March 17, 2021 by Porcupine 52

[DGHOC]

12 minutes ago, old biddy said:

I've just had a conversation with UK office, (although all working from home) the itinerary for proposed cruises is Portsmouth, Falmouth, Scily Isles, Liverpool, Portland and back to Portsmouth. They are reducing the number of passengers to 450 to allow for greater social distancing.

However they are NOT insisting on vaccination, apparently it is down to personal choice! When I pointed out I thought that would put a lot of people off, me included, the reply was 'insisting on vaccination would put a lot of people off'. They are holding a lot on the daily testing, but that doesn't stop Covid getting on board. By the time it is picked up by testing it is too late, the infected individual will already have been in contact with goodness knows how many people.

Thanks Old Biddy, that counts me out!

[Porcupine 52]

10 minutes ago, DGHOC said:

Thanks Old Biddy, that counts me out!

Every one will decide what amount of risk they are willing to take in life.  I think ( maybe wrong here) the virus will be around this time next year and maybe many more years.  I don't think we will wake up one day and it will be gone.  Before Corona started ( and I know it is not as deadly) my wife and I were concerned about the Norovirus.  We knew that there was a risk on a ship.  We did every thing we could do to reduce the risk... but we knew that the Norovirus was a risk... and still is.

 

My SIL and myself will do every thing we can to reduce risk if Viking sails. We will both be vaccinated by that time and will follow all of the rules that they have. If Viking doesn't sail we will be looking at other trips this year.  At 70 years old I'm not sure when or if I will get another chance to do things with my family.  If I wait until the risk is 0% I will be sitting at home.

JMHO

[Heidi13]

5 minutes ago, Porcupine 52 said:

My SIL and myself will do every thing we can to reduce risk if Viking sails. We will both be vaccinated by that time and will follow all of the rules that they have. If Viking doesn't sail we will be looking at other trips this year.  At 70 years old I'm not sure when or if I will get another chance to do things with my family.  If I wait until the risk is 0% I will be sitting at home.

JMHO

 

Having developed and written a new Level 2 - ISM  Safety Management System (SMS) manual/procedures for the Marine Operations (Deck) of my last company, a large Ro/Pax operation, I incorporated the latest risk management and human factors into all operational procedures.

 

Reducing the risk to zero (0%) in marine operations is both cost prohibitive and virtually impossible. Every operation/procedure was risk assessed and once the risks were identified, we determined risk mitigations, with a focus on a layered approach, using the analogy of the Swiss Cheese model. If each mitigation still has a risk, that is signified by a hole in the layer. The more layers, the less chance the holes will align, which represents an incident. Each operation had the risks reduced to "ALARP" - as low as reasonably possible.

 

With the Viking Health & Safety Plan, I saw a classic representation of a layered approach with multiple layers of protection - daily testing, social distancing, masks, cleaning, ventilation, etc. However, these have all been implemented by many regions and also cruise lines, but with varied success.

 

Before his passing, I talked weekly with my dad, a resident of Scotland, which has a similar population to BC. We compared the Govt Health Orders and daily infections/deaths. Scotland had significantly higher levels of lockdown, but consistent had significantly higher (at times 10 times) daily infection/death rates. Why, with more layers of protection, did Scotland have more infections - Human Factors, which is the greatest risk when conducting risk analysis.

 

Using this analogy, I am having difficulty understanding why Viking is sticking to their previously announced Health & Safety Plan, comprising layers that are not proven to work effectively on other cruise ships (Seadream) and with mixed results shoreside.

 

Vaccinations have proven their effectiveness in countries that have a significant proportion of the population already vaccinated - see data from Ragnar above. I believe UK is seeing similar trends and even in Canada with lower vaccination rates, our deaths have dropped significantly. In December, when vaccinations were still unproven, I can accept that Viking had most likely reduced the risk to "ALARP" However, with vaccinations being proven effective, I no longer consider Viking's risk mitigation to be at "ALARP".

 

So why are Viking so against adding another layer of protection, especially when it is the layer proving to be most effective?

 

Well, I suggest Old Biddy has answered this question, where she was advised requiring vaccinations would result in a loss of pax. In my opinion this is prioritising marketing over safety.

 

After experiencing Viking's safety actions and treatment of the crew during the 2020 WC, we are hoping this is a temporary oversight. Therefore, although highly disappointed, we will keep an open mind until final payment is due for the 2023 WC. If they have not introduced another level of protection with mandatory vaccinations, we will cancel and will never again be aboard a Viking ship.

[shank63]

8 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Having developed and written a new Level 2 - ISM  Safety Management System (SMS) manual/procedures for the Marine Operations (Deck) of my last company, a large Ro/Pax operation, I incorporated the latest risk management and human factors into all operational procedures.

 

Reducing the risk to zero (0%) in marine operations is both cost prohibitive and virtually impossible. Every operation/procedure was risk assessed and once the risks were identified, we determined risk mitigations, with a focus on a layered approach, using the analogy of the Swiss Cheese model. If each mitigation still has a risk, that is signified by a hole in the layer. The more layers, the less chance the holes will align, which represents an incident. Each operation had the risks reduced to "ALARP" - as low as reasonably possible.

 

With the Viking Health & Safety Plan, I saw a classic representation of a layered approach with multiple layers of protection - daily testing, social distancing, masks, cleaning, ventilation, etc. However, these have all been implemented by many regions and also cruise lines, but with varied success.

 

Before his passing, I talked weekly with my dad, a resident of Scotland, which has a similar population to BC. We compared the Govt Health Orders and daily infections/deaths. Scotland had significantly higher levels of lockdown, but consistent had significantly higher (at times 10 times) daily infection/death rates. Why, with more layers of protection, did Scotland have more infections - Human Factors, which is the greatest risk when conducting risk analysis.

 

Using this analogy, I am having difficulty understanding why Viking is sticking to their previously announced Health & Safety Plan, comprising layers that are not proven to work effectively on other cruise ships (Seadream) and with mixed results shoreside.

 

Vaccinations have proven their effectiveness in countries that have a significant proportion of the population already vaccinated - see data from Ragnar above. I believe UK is seeing similar trends and even in Canada with lower vaccination rates, our deaths have dropped significantly. In December, when vaccinations were still unproven, I can accept that Viking had most likely reduced the risk to "ALARP" However, with vaccinations being proven effective, I no longer consider Viking's risk mitigation to be at "ALARP".

 

So why are Viking so against adding another layer of protection, especially when it is the layer proving to be most effective?

 

Well, I suggest Old Biddy has answered this question, where she was advised requiring vaccinations would result in a loss of pax. In my opinion this is prioritising marketing over safety.

 

After experiencing Viking's safety actions and treatment of the crew during the 2020 WC, we are hoping this is a temporary oversight. Therefore, although highly disappointed, we will keep an open mind until final payment is due for the 2023 WC. If they have not introduced another level of protection with mandatory vaccinations, we will cancel and will never again be aboard a Viking ship.

Thank you for a very creditable explanation of the vaccine dilemma.  This confirms my common sense approach, just am amazed that Viking is still waffling.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Haha, companies are ruled by spreadsheets, not by common sense.

[Porcupine 52]

It will be interesting to see what happens.  Like many of us have said with Viking...they do things their own way.  If you don't like it you can go some where else.  If they are able to fill up the rooms I doubt they will change ( kind of like the way they do deposits).  If they start getting empty rooms they may change.

 

If I was a betting man ( I guess I am because if they go I will be on the ship) they will fill up rooms and not change.

[Heidi13]

15 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Haha, companies are ruled by spreadsheets, not by common sense.

 

So true, Accountants are the biggest detriment to a safe and efficient ship.

 

Fortunately, once aboard, for operational safety, the ISM Code Section 5 provides the Master with incredible powers that cannot be over-ruled by the accountants and shore-based managers.

[Captain_Morgan]

It's one thing to 'go their own way' but its another entirely to face the fallout when something goes sideways and they get bit in the backside.  As has been referenced already, SeaDream thought they had a good plan and we know what happened there, so does Viking really think their plan is better because they have a lab onboard (has this been confirmed on Venus?) and are catering to a hopefully vaccinated passenger base?  Seems more like a fingers crossed and hope for the best approach, and I can't help but think that they must be worse off financially than others if they're not willing to draw a line in the sand when it comes to mandatory vaccines.

[Clay Clayton]

I’m not disagreeing with any of you who are strongly questioning Viking moving forward without a vaccine requirement (actually I am with you) but I wonder if we have vaccines which we all have (or will soon) taken, do we need to draw a line in the sand of not ever stepping foot aboard a Viking ship?  If the vaccines protect us, then do I really care about those others who for whatever reason have decided to risk it and not get a vaccine? 
 

I guess the biggest issue is that if there are a bunch on non-vaxers aboard and they all get sick that it could ruin my cruise. I think it will take that sorta of outbreak happening and watching what happens when it does, for me to make the blanket statement.   Just another reason why I’m glad we made the decision to not book anything until we see how things proceed. 

[Heidi13]

15 minutes ago, Clay Clayton said:

I’m not disagreeing with any of you who are strongly questioning Viking moving forward without a vaccine requirement (actually I am with you) but I wonder if we have vaccines which we all have (or will soon) taken, do we need to draw a line in the sand of not ever stepping foot aboard a Viking ship?  If the vaccines protect us, then do I really care about those others who for whatever reason have decided to risk it and not get a vaccine? 
 

I guess the biggest issue is that if there are a bunch on non-vaxers aboard and they all get sick that it could ruin my cruise. I think it will take that sorta of outbreak happening and watching what happens when it does, for me to make the blanket statement.   Just another reason why I’m glad we made the decision to not book anything until we see how things proceed. 

 

Clay - a very good point.

 

However, for me it is more than simply whether all pax are vaccinated, or not. I survived almost 30 yrs in command of large, fast Ro/Pax, with safety never being paid "Lip service" and staying abreast of new technology/procedures and incorporating them into my operation.

 

When we cruised the first time with Viking, we were impressed by their response to safety, especially some of the very difficult decisions that were made, some of which no doubt made the accountants cringe. Safety really was their top priority and they walked the talk.

 

As per my previous note, reducing risk to zero is unlikely, as it is operationally and economically impossible, hence the top marine companies probably use the "ALARP" standard. While the Health & Safety Plan might have been at "ALARP" when developed, I'll suggest the recent vaccine developments have made an additional risk mitigation level available. With mandatory vaccinations being readily attainable, especially in UK, in my opinion, Viking are currently planning to operate, without reducing the risk to "ALARP"

 

If Viking isn't planning to operate at "ALARP" for COVID, what other risk mitigations could they be declining to utilise. This, and not failure to require vaccinations will be our reason for cancelling and never sailing with Viking again.

 

Will it come to this, I certainly hope not.

[Islandbc]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

So true, Accountants are the biggest detriment to a safe and efficient ship.

 

Fortunately, once aboard, for operational safety, the ISM Code Section 5 provides the Master with incredible powers that cannot be over-ruled by the accountants and shore-based managers.

On the news yesterday, a poll of people in the US noted that 2/3 of Americans said that they would be vaccinated and 1/3 said that they would not.  Is there some reason that the accountants and shore -based managers aren't more concerned about the 2/3 who are supporting the health guidelines of the expert scientists and doctors?

Edited March 17, 2021 by Islandbc
spelling error

[Heidi13]

25 minutes ago, Islandbc said:

On the news yesterday, a poll of people in the US noted that 2/3 of Americans said that they would be vaccinated and 1/3 said that they would not.  Is there some reason that the accountants and shore -based managers aren't more concerned about the 2/3 who are supporting the health guidelines of the expert scientists and doctors?

 

Hear, hear!! In addition to the percentages, based on the Princess/HAL experience last year, I am having difficulty understanding why any shipowner would knowingly accept non-vaccinated pax, as while the vaccine may not prevent the COVID spread, it severely reduces the symptoms.

 

Getting into port with full blown COVID cases - were never easy. If vaccinated pax are showing cold/flu level symptoms, I expect it would be easier to manage onboard, or land ashore.

[Porcupine 52]

So here is just a question.  You have 100 people that go on an excursion.  99 have had the vaccine.  1 lies about having the vaccine.  Who is being put into danger?  The 99 or the 1?

 I ask the nurse at the Pfizer vaccine study when I was there a few weeks ago about how many people that had the "real" vaccine come down with the virus.  She said they were not done unblinding yet but to date none.  I guess my point is I am sure you are going to get some people to lie... but I think the danger is to the person that is lying about it.

 

On a side note in our area they have dropped the vaccine age down to 16 starting April 26 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 hour ago, Islandbc said:

On the news yesterday, a poll of people in the US noted that 2/3 of Americans said that they would be vaccinated and 1/3 said that they would not.  Is there some reason that the accountants and shore -based managers aren't more concerned about the 2/3 who are supporting the health guidelines of the expert scientists and doctors?

Most cruise passengers loath smoking, and yet it is still allowed to some degree or other on most cruise ships.  Even on Viking ships,  though Viking limits it more than most.

 

The cruise lines allow it because they have determined it maximizes their profits, by picking up more customers by allowing smoking than it loses.  Vaccinations will likely be viewed through the same spreadsheet....

 

To a cruise line, a customer is no different than a cow on a cattle boat.  And them bessies are more likely to be vaccinated than the average pax.

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Ragnar Danneskjold

[Porcupine 52]

I think every one is going to have to determine what your level of risk will be.  I think it would be smart for Viking to require vaccination from every one on board, but with the age group on Viking my bet is most if not all will have the shot.  The other thing is some countries may require it.

 

At this point I'm willing to take the risk.  I have been going to church with a mask on (of course I have had the shot)... I have been around my school nurse daughter ( that has had the shot) with kids every week coming in with the virus... and around my other daughter that is a high school teacher that has had cases in her class ( she also has had the shot).  Went to Maui where no one had the shot yet.... and most of the people I talked to said they would never get the shot (and were mad at me for being a Guinea pig).  Not sure I will have any more risk on a cruise.

Like I said I think it would be smart for Viking to require it, but will go if they go.  I totally understand why some one would not step foot on a Viking cruise if they don't require it.  Just not me.

[Jim Avery]

Calm down folks. Still a way off before any cruises start.  And how would someone even get to a Viking ship without vax when all the airlines are falling in line with requiring it?  Say you are starting a cruise in Greenwich.  England will not allow you in, as they did when I was a kid,  without it and testing.  It's coming.  I do believe Viking will require the vax.  But still, someone will get covid on some ship at some time.  We have to get over the panic and treat covid much like all the other serious illnesses there are.  If a passenger comes down with pneumonia I believe they quarantine them and treat them until they can be safely put ashore to return home.  Spanish Flu is still out there.  Bubonic plague is still out there as are so many other serious viruses, bacteria, fungi.  Quarantine and treat the ill and keep on truckin'.  

[TayanaLorna]

UK Only Viking Venus Cruise is the title of a forum board recently opened in Viking Ocean.  It contains the text of an email sent by Viking to its registered  UK cruisers.  The prices are listed per cabin level and it states that an included excursion as well as optional excursions will be offered in each port.  Sorry i am not good at putting in links or copying/pasteing in this here.