No NCL cruises out of USA yet? Am I missing something?

[NikiPinkston]

7 minutes ago, ShakeDaddy said:

 

Agree exceptions, "may be made" in the future.  NCL isn't quoted as saying, "will be made". 

 

"Limited exceptions may be made pursuant to valid medical or religious exemptions".

  

 

THANK YOU, ShakeDaddy!  That's how I read it, too.

[BermudaBound2014]

1 minute ago, aubreyc1988 said:

I don't have a problem with VALID MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS, which can be proof provided by a physican. But religious exemptions, blah. Anyone can cry that. 

 

I do hear you. I have never been opposed to the 100% vaccination rule in terms of safety. It is clearly the safest way to operate a cruise ship. Hands down. No argurment.

 

However; my point has always been that  NCL does not have the luxury of requiring 100% vaccination from a business standpoint. They need bodies onboard. It appears 100% vaccinated didn't even pass the niche market test, althought I still think a niche market exists to capture all the people who are going to cancel now that NCL is 95% vaccinated like the competition.

 

The fact that they have included religious exemptions pretty much opens the gate. I suspect families with unvaxxinated children will start planning a NCL cruise vacation, if not under medical exemption, than under religious.

 

I am not saying this to be mean at all, but people who are genuinly afraid to cruise without 100% vaccination, including those who don't want to abide by the precautions that come along with less than 100% vaccinated (mask wearing and social distancing) should cancel and rebook for third quarter 2022. We aren't even close to the end yet.

 

Don't hate the player.... hate the game.

 

 

 

 

[BermudaBound2014]

3 minutes ago, NikiPinkston said:

.... but it seems like NCL is opening themselves up to lawsuits if passengers who've been vaccinated & promised a 100% vaccinated cruise ....

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those pesky little 'forward looking caution statements" apply to all rules. Every cruise lines have granted themselves the flexibility to change rules at any time. We don't blame them.

 

Since you are not worried about sailing with 95% plus vaccinated and you are aware that with that change comes the liklihood that you will be required to social distance and wear a mask, then I recommend ignoring today's change. The science supports that vaccinated passengers will remain safe with 95%+.

 

Now we just need to figure a way around using96% false positive antigen tests so people can book a cruise without fear of being turned away at the pier.

 

On a side note,  I think passengers were going to be masked up regardless of whether or not NCL remained 100% vaccinated. Refer to the interview with Dr. Fauci yesterday for details.

 

 

 

 

[Karaboudjan]

16 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those pesky little 'forward looking caution statements" apply to all rules. Every cruise lines have granted themselves the flexibility to change rules at any time. We don't blame them.

 

Since you are not worried about sailing with 95% plus vaccinated and you are aware that with that change comes the liklihood that you will be required to social distance and wear a mask, then I recommend ignoring today's change. The science supports that vaccinated passengers will remain safe with 95%+.

 

Now we just need to figure a way around using96% false positive antigen tests so people can book a cruise without fear of being turned away at the pier.

 

On a side note,  I think passengers were going to be masked up regardless of whether or not NCL remained 100% vaccinated. Refer to the interview with Dr. Fauci yesterday for details.

 

 

 

 

I think this is much ado about nothing (or at least very little)  I still believe that NCL went with 100% vaccination because it seemed like the best approach at the time, and now it has outlived its usefulness but they are stuck with it.  I think that as of 11/1 they will come out with something that keeps Florida and the CDC happy, opens up their pool of potential passengers and has been demonstrated to be safe by the other cruise lines.  If the latter is not the case then everybody's hand is going to be forced and it won't be just NCL going against the flow.

 

As for antigen tests, I did some reading last night and the number that I saw was 98.9% accurate for a non-infected person.  So if they do a re-test of a truly non-infected person I think the chance of two false positives would be very small.

[BermudaBound2014]

35 minutes ago, ShakeDaddy said:

 

Agree exceptions, "may be made" in the future.  NCL isn't quoted as saying, "will be made". 

 

"Limited exceptions may be made pursuant to valid medical or religious exemptions".

  

 

Notice the asterisk in the first section of today’s press release….

 

“To resume cruising in the safest way possible in the current public health environment, the Company has a consistent 100% vaccination policy*“ (notice asterisk).

 

That asterisk is referenced to this disclaimer;

 

“*Limited exceptions may be made pursuant to valid medical or religious exemptions.”

 

All present tense as I read it. 

 

[BermudaBound2014]

10 minutes ago, Karaboudjan said:

I think this is much ado about nothing (or at least very little)  I still believe that NCL went with 100% vaccination because it seemed like the best approach at the time, and now it has outlived its usefulness but they are stuck with it.  

I agree that the difference between 95% and 100% is much ado about nothing, but I’m confused…. Doesn’t today’s press release release them from being “stuck with it”. Couldn’t someone book right now who is unvaccinated under religious exemption? Am I missing something (it wouldn’t be the first) 

 

As far as antigen tests go, I use the FDA Government site. A second test will help, but isn’t foul proof. Perhaps this is no longer relevant? I do acknowledge covid information is fluid https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/potential-false-positive-results-antigen-tests-rapid-detection-sars-cov-2-letter-clinical-laboratory

• Remember that positive predictive value (PPV) varies with disease prevalence when interpreting results from diagnostic tests. PPV is the percent of positive test results that are true positives. As disease prevalence decreases, the percent of test results that are false positives increase.
  • For example, a test with 98% specificity would have a PPV of just over 80% in a population with 10% prevalence, meaning 20 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
  • The same test would only have a PPV of approximately 30% in a population with 1% prevalence, meaning 70 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.  This means that, in a population with 1% prevalence, only 30% of individuals with positive test results actually have the disease.
  • At 0.1% prevalence, the PPV would only be 4%, meaning that 96 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
  • Health care providers should take the local prevalence into consideration when interpreting diagnostic test results.

 

edited to add- while I believe the difference between. 95% and 100% vaccinated is much ado about nothing, there are MANY forum members who have stated they absolutely will not sail unless it’s 100% so for some, today’s press release (and the disclaimer within) is a game changer. 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by BermudaBound2014

[RumRunner2021]

46 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

Notice the asterisk in the first section of today’s press release….

 

“To resume cruising in the safest way possible in the current public health environment, the Company has a consistent 100% vaccination policy*“ (notice asterisk).

 

That asterisk is referenced to this disclaimer;

 

“*Limited exceptions may be made pursuant to valid medical or religious exemptions.”

 

All present tense as I read it. 

 

Am I the only one focused on that word "may?"  It would mean much more if that word was "shall."

[BermudaBound2014]

6 minutes ago, RumRunner2021 said:

Am I the only one focused on that word "may?"  It would mean much more if that word was "shall."

May is the appropriate word in a disclaimer- otherwise it wouldn’t be a disclaimer it would be a statement of intent. 
 

I’ll be bellied up at the bar 🙂

[Karaboudjan]

37 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

I agree that the difference between 95% and 100% is much ado about nothing, but I’m confused…. Doesn’t today’s press release release them from being “stuck with it”. Couldn’t someone book right now who is unvaccinated under religious exemption? Am I missing something (it wouldn’t be the first) 

 

As far as antigen tests go, I use the FDA Government site. A second test will help, but isn’t foul proof. Perhaps this is no longer relevant? I do acknowledge covid information is fluid https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/potential-false-positive-results-antigen-tests-rapid-detection-sars-cov-2-letter-clinical-laboratory

• Remember that positive predictive value (PPV) varies with disease prevalence when interpreting results from diagnostic tests. PPV is the percent of positive test results that are true positives. As disease prevalence decreases, the percent of test results that are false positives increase.
  • For example, a test with 98% specificity would have a PPV of just over 80% in a population with 10% prevalence, meaning 20 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
  • The same test would only have a PPV of approximately 30% in a population with 1% prevalence, meaning 70 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.  This means that, in a population with 1% prevalence, only 30% of individuals with positive test results actually have the disease.
  • At 0.1% prevalence, the PPV would only be 4%, meaning that 96 out of 100 positive results would be false positives.
  • Health care providers should take the local prevalence into consideration when interpreting diagnostic test results.

 

edited to add- while I believe the difference between. 95% and 100% vaccinated is much ado about nothing, there are MANY forum members who have stated they absolutely will not sail unless it’s 100% so for some, today’s press release (and the disclaimer within) is a game changer. 

 

I was rushing my last comments too much and forgot to elaborate.  What I meant by 'much ado about (not much)' is that there are very few NCL cruises taking place before 10/31 where the 100% vaccination has been advertised, so the impact of these 'limited exceptions' on what people expected should be... limited.

 

 

[aubreyc1988]

One thing a lot of us hasn't considered is that if NCL has a clear and open pathway for having 100% vaccination onboard in Florida, this would mean that they could go back and forth between having 100% vaccinated and not 100% vaccinated, back to 100% vaccinated DEPENDING on how the pandemic goes this winter.  Remember, things could get worse or better, hard to say, but options are always nice. 

[choose2cruz]

I've never sailed with Norwegian, but I have two cruises booked with them. If they don't return to something approaching normalcy soon, I'm cancelling both. And I won't consider booking with them again. Sure, I'd feel more comfortable sailing on a ship that was 100% or even 95% vaccinated only. But, not sailing, despite the reasoning, is not sustainable. A company generates revenues or it goes out of business. If, in the worst case, there is a virus outbreak on a cruise ship, the CDC will shut everyone down again. Then what? I think you will see a lot of cruise lines go under, and I expect Norwegian would be one of the first.

[RumRunner2021]

3 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

May is the appropriate word in a disclaimer- otherwise it wouldn’t be a disclaimer it would be a statement of intent. 
 

I’ll be bellied up at the bar 🙂

I agree.  It seemed at least one poster now thought that unvaccinated kids under 12 could now sail NCL, but that's not for certain and likely not anytime soon.

[BermudaBound2014]

7 hours ago, RumRunner2021 said:

I agree.  It seemed at least one poster now thought that unvaccinated kids under 12 could now sail NCL, but that's not for certain and likely not anytime soon.

 

According to yesterdays press release I believe it is for certain. Parents of children under 12 would need to claim religious exemption if medical exemption isn't applied. Not saying a bunch of people are going to use the disclaimer this very minute, but it appears they could.

 

Note Disclaimer added to NCL policy:

"Limited exceptions may be made pursuant to valid medical or religious exemptions".

[tinkr2]

10 hours ago, choose2cruz said:

I've never sailed with Norwegian, but I have two cruises booked with them. If they don't return to something approaching normalcy soon, I'm cancelling both. And I won't consider booking with them again. Sure, I'd feel more comfortable sailing on a ship that was 100% or even 95% vaccinated only. But, not sailing, despite the reasoning, is not sustainable. A company generates revenues or it goes out of business. If, in the worst case, there is a virus outbreak on a cruise ship, the CDC will shut everyone down again. Then what? I think you will see a lot of cruise lines go under, and I expect Norwegian would be one of the first.

I have a cruise on September 12th in Greece with NCL. I specifically booked them bc of their 100% vaccinated policy and cancelled RCCL bc of their immediate caving to Desantis in Florida. I respected how Del Rio responded.That being said, I did book a short MSC next week bc of price and felt that Id be ok with vaccinated and unvaccinated . I am not as worried about catching covid as I am about my cruise being disrupted by a major outbreak. 

[coffeebean]

15 hours ago, mrlevin said:

NCLH now saying 100% vaccinated with both medical and religious exceptions.  Children under twelve qualify for a medical exception.

Ah, so they are loosening their protocols. Was hoping they wouldn’t but not surprised at all that they did. 

[coffeebean]

14 hours ago, aubreyc1988 said:

I don't have a problem with VALID MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS, which can be proof provided by a physican. But religious exemptions, blah. Anyone can cry that. 

Agree about the religious exemptions. To me, that is a bunch of hooey and phoney bologne. 

[coffeebean]

14 hours ago, Fla Senior said:

I really don't have a dog in this one way or the other. Just curious. Carnival is sailing from Florida with a 95% vaccination requirement and no resistance from the Gov. Wondering why NCL can't do same.

Celebrity is also sailing out of Florida with at least 95% vaccinated passengers. 

[Karaboudjan]

21 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Ah, so they are loosening their protocols. Was hoping they wouldn’t but not surprised at all that they did. 

 

I'm not so sure this is a loosening.  I would not be surprised if those exemptions have been required by law from the beginning.

[NikiPinkston]

13 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those pesky little 'forward looking caution statements" apply to all rules. Every cruise lines have granted themselves the flexibility to change rules at any time. We don't blame them.

 

Since you are not worried about sailing with 95% plus vaccinated and you are aware that with that change comes the liklihood that you will be required to social distance and wear a mask, then I recommend ignoring today's change. The science supports that vaccinated passengers will remain safe with 95%+.

 

Now we just need to figure a way around using96% false positive antigen tests so people can book a cruise without fear of being turned away at the pier.

 

On a side note,  I think passengers were going to be masked up regardless of whether or not NCL remained 100% vaccinated. Refer to the interview with Dr. Fauci yesterday for details.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know you're right - NCL can change the rules at any time.  I talked with our PCC yesterday, who's on the 8/7 Alaska sailing, and he assured me that the 100% rule still applies to the initial sailings, so there's that.  And I'm hoping that masking won't be something we have to do everywhere, all the time or, ideally, at all.  I think getting a false positive (or a real positive - yikes!) on the pre-boarding covid test is something that's in the back of the minds of all of us first cruisers.  At least we have good trip insurance that will pay for quarantining in a hotel & we're retired so the time spent doesn't matter, although it's definitely not my idea of a vacation.

[BermudaBound2014]

13 minutes ago, Karaboudjan said:

 

I'm not so sure this is a loosening.  I would not be surprised if those exemptions have been required by law from the beginning.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. I don't remember reading about religious or medical exemptions being allowed on NCL ship prior to yesterday. It has always read 100% vaccinated.

 

A quick google search for the terms "religious exemption" and "medical exemption"  indicate that the first time NCL has put in print that they will allow non-vaccinated passengers with medical or religious exemption was July 26, 2021.

 

Per law, if the exemptions were there since the beginning I would have expected the asterick disclaimer from the beginning.

 

If you can find the exemption published anywhere prior to July 26, 2021 I stand corrected. Perhaps these exemptions were included, but they certainly weren't advertised. Now the exemptions are clearly advertised. Game changer for those who will only sail on a 100% vaccinated ship.

Edited July 27, 2021 by BermudaBound2014

[BermudaBound2014]

9 minutes ago, NikiPinkston said:

Yes, I know you're right - NCL can change the rules at any time.  I talked with our PCC yesterday, who's on the 8/7 Alaska sailing, and he assured me that the 100% rule still applies to the initial sailings, so there's that.  And I'm hoping that masking won't be something we have to do everywhere, all the time or, ideally, at all.  I think getting a false positive (or a real positive - yikes!) on the pre-boarding covid test is something that's in the back of the minds of all of us first cruisers.  At least we have good trip insurance that will pay for quarantining in a hotel & we're retired so the time spent doesn't matter, although it's definitely not my idea of a vacation.

 

I think your PCC is wrong. NCL policy is no longer 100% vaccinated as evidenced by the disclaimer that popped up yesterday. NCL allows for religious and medical exemptions. It doesn't mean those not vaccinated will be on your August 7th sailing, but it does mean they could be.

 

With that said, Celebrity has been sailing successfully with 95% vaccinated and are not requiring masks.  I don't see any changes to your August 7th cruise in the immediate future. I absolutely believe you will stay safe onboard with 95% vaccination. Have a wonderful cruise and thank you for going first 🙂

[Karaboudjan]

47 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

I think your PCC is wrong. NCL policy is no longer 100% vaccinated as evidenced by the disclaimer that popped up yesterday. NCL allows for religious and medical exemptions. It doesn't mean those not vaccinated will be on your August 7th sailing, but it does mean they could be.

 

With that said, Celebrity has been sailing successfully with 95% vaccinated and are not requiring masks.  I don't see any changes to your August 7th cruise in the immediate future. I absolutely believe you will stay safe onboard with 95% vaccination. Have a wonderful cruise and thank you for going first 🙂

 

The press release does still clearly say that there is a 100% vaccination policy.  I'm not sure how that works but that is why I don't think the disclaimer necessarily indicates a change of policy.  

[choose2cruz]

Another weird thing is there are discounted NCL Caribbean cruises advertised on all the cruise discount sites, but according to NCL, as reported in the Miami Herald:

 

"All voyages embarking from Aug. 1 to Sept. 30 from Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises will be canceled. This does not include Seattle-based Alaska voyages in September. Some voyages, including Canada and New England sailings, will be canceled through October."

 

Seems a bit dishonest to promote cruises that are obviously not going to sail.

Edited July 27, 2021 by choose2cruz
correction

[All-ready2cruise]

I have only 1 problem with this:

The article https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article243583897.html

is from JUNE 16, 2020 07:18 PM, 

UPDATED JUNE 16, 2020 09:56 PM

 

which explains the mixed message. 

[DCGuy64]

Oh people, PLEASE take a look at the DATES before you post information like this. Jeez....🙄