keep wearig your masks!

[fabnfortysomething]

we disemabarked from QM Mary 2 this morning having done a round trip July 29 from Southampton

we had proof of vaccination and negative status on boarding but no one checked

we didnt go off in New York but did the torturous in transit 2 hour offf and and in New York

today which woould be day 14 and disembarking day hubby woke with sore throat and tested positive so acquired on board

all staff wearing facemasks 

we had to be disembarked after general public and joined other isolating passengers severaal of whom had been moved to isolation cabins earlier in cruise

obviously several passengers slipped throgh  net either accidently or on purpose

be careful!!!!!

 

[Host Hattie]

Hope you're husband is feeling better soon

 

[fabnfortysomething]

1 minute ago, Host Hattie said:

Hope you're husband is feeling better soon

 

thanks

he is quadruple vaccinationed so hopefully mild disease

just wanted to give heads up you can never be too carefull 

[navybankerteacher]

The sad fact is that Covid is still with us. Folks smart enough to be fully vaccinated are probably safe from serious illness, but crowds (such as cruises) are virtually guaranteed to produce some spread.  My step daughter got infected two weeks ago (probably at a wedding she attended) fully vaccinated, but still experiencing flu-like symptoms.  We are going to continue avoiding such locales for the time being - cruising is not the only travel option, and the measures still in place have negative impact.

[exlondoner]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

 the measures still in place have negative impact.

 

Covid has a negative impact, a very negative impact on some. I don't see that measures such as vaccination, testing, and mask wearing when moving around in public places, which Cunard imposed until recently, had a negative impact at all. A positive one in fact, as they made one feel more confident.

[Victoria2]

20 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

 

Covid has a negative impact, a very negative impact on some. I don't see that measures such as vaccination, testing, and mask wearing when moving around in public places, which Cunard imposed until recently, had a negative impact at all. A positive one in fact, as they made one feel more confident.

Agree 100%

I would go so far as to say the protocols have a positive impact for us.

 

The only reason we will travel at the moment is because Cunard have all their measures in place. No guarantee we won't succumb, as you found out, but there's a better chance of not doing so, with them there.

[Windsurfboy]

I'm glad to hear the OP's husband is well

 

However whilst 500 plus people are allowed to gather 3 times a day in an enclosed space without masks, at breakfast, lunch and dinner for half an hour to one and a half hours.  Never mind in bars and coffee shops without masks as well.  Then wearing masks at other times is just tokenism, and gives a false sense of security .

 

With so many places where masks can be taken off , the protocols are just PR.

 

If you are vunerable you must accept there is a higher risk on a cruise ship, the protocols do almost absolutely nothing to reduce this. It's a  personal choice. 

 

Vaccination on the other hand is essential. 

 

 

[ballroom-cruisers]

Over time virtually every friend and member of the family have had Covid despite being fully triple vaccinated - and all of those infections were acquired on land and nowhere near a cruise ship. However as people have mentioned if you have had all the available jabs including boosters, then when you do catch it, most people have relatively mild illness, no worse than a bad cold. But also apart from a few people we know who had the original variant of Covid, and who had it again earlier in the year, though very mildly and likely one of the Omicron variants, almost nobody has had it twice.  So for those who have had it, as well as all available jabs, the worry about the risk of being infected on a cruise ship is much lower than most of us felt about it in the the first year and a half of the lockdown period. As time continues to pass it looks like more and more will have had it, and be less and less concerned about getting it again, even if on a cruise. Quite a few people we know are now very happy to book cruises, and get on board and have no concerns with the continued easing of the mask protocols and the removal of the requirement to have certified Covid tests before boarding at Southampton. Perhaps as the number of people continuing to have major worries about these changes gets smaller over time, cruises will continue to move forward, and fill the available room capacity despite the ongoing posts here about hoping that the protocols will be maintained. Of course hopefully people will be sensible, and if they know they are symptomatic they will do what they can to avoid passing any infection, whether Covid or any other respiratory infection to other passengers.  Of course if you are concerned about becoming infected then clearly risk will be lower on a personal level if you avoid crowded places, and even avoid going on any cruise.   It is likely those concerns will be no different in daily life away from a cruise ship too, so everyone will be making their own personal decision about what risks they will or will not be prepared to accept.  Nevertheless, it seems that more and more voyages are now completing very successfully, with the majority of passengers unaffected by Covid, and also much less affected by the old coughs and chest infections that were around prior to Covid, but of course an unlucky few are still getting infected whilst on board.  Things may of course change in the winter or in  another year, but all the information we see is showing a gradual return to more normality as we have been going through this year.  Let's hope it continues to allow us to get even closer to the way things were, even if we get served our portions in the buffet (which is likely a very good thing in preventing some of the old problems like norovirus transmitting too, so maybe that should stay permanently!). Also note Carnival's latest news release at https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cunard-updates-covid-19-travel-requirements-0

Edited August 13, 2022 by ballroom-cruisers
typo

[Victoria2]

14 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

I'm glad to hear the OP's husband is well

 

However whilst 500 plus people are allowed to gather 3 times a day in an enclosed space without masks, at breakfast, lunch and dinner for half an hour to one and a half hours.  Never mind in bars and coffee shops without masks as well.  Then wearing masks at other times is just tokenism, and gives a false sense of security .

 

With so many places where masks can be taken off , the protocols are just PR.

 

If you are vunerable you must accept there is a higher risk on a cruise ship, the protocols do almost absolutely nothing to reduce this. It's a  personal choice. 

 

Vaccination on the other hand is essential. 

 

 

You may consider them PR. I beg to differ.

 

Yes it's up to each individual to assess risks but mask wearing protects others as much as the wearer and if wearing a mask in certain areas of the ship will help anyone coming into contact with another passenger who has/is incubating the virus whom they would not necessarily come into contact with, then that, at the moment, is a positive step. 

 

As the virus loses it's intensity, masks will become a personal choice and quite right too  but personally, I can see us adopting  the [mainly] Japanese custom of wearing a mask in busy areas of very close proximity such as the theatre and lifts if it helps us avoid the usual respiratory problems which used to affect many passengers.

 

 

 

 

[ballroom-cruisers]

With your comment about the 'usual respiratory problems which used to affect many passengers' that is certainly true.  But it is also worth mentioning that there is a 'pneumococcal vaccine' that is routinely available as a single jab for life, that protects against between 13 and 23 different strains of pneumonia (chest infections), depending which particular version of the jab you get.  After my wife and I had that jab several years ago (a few years before Covid arose), we have not had a single occasion where we have had a chest infection either on board ship, or after we got home afterwards, and that is a huge contrast to our experience prior to having that jab, when we would regularly end up with either the 'Cunard cough' on board, or end up with a respiratory infection after we got home, possibly from being on a coach for many hours with various people coughing all the way back a few seats away! So having had the pneumococcal jab, means we have not been infected with respiratory infections, but also since we have been free of that, we have also then not infected others! I don't know how many people are aware of this vaccine, or have had it?

Edited August 13, 2022 by ballroom-cruisers
typo

[Victoria2]

As we wear masks in most places unless eating or drinking, I have no idea if the pneumonia  jab has helped us or not and not  having been onboard since we had our jabs, I have no idea if it will be effective against the seemingly quite virulent strains we've come across, particularly on World Cruise Segments.

 

We have avoided 'the cough' possibly to a robust immune system in my case, but we have had friends inboard who have been quite poorly and voluntarily  confined themselves to their cabin whilst taking the antibiotics, which is more than can be said for some coughers and sneezers.

 

We will follow the Japanese for a while yet.

 

 

[Windsurfboy]

1 hour ago, Victoria2 said:

You may consider them PR. I beg to differ.

 

Yes it's up to each individual to assess risks but mask wearing protects others as much as the wearer and if wearing a mask in certain areas of the ship will help anyone coming into contact with another passenger who has/is incubating the virus whom they would not necessarily come into contact with, then that, at the moment, is a positive step. 

 

As the virus loses it's intensity, masks will become a personal choice and quite right too  but personally, I can see us adopting  the [mainly] Japanese custom of wearing a mask in busy areas of very close proximity such as the theatre and lifts if it helps us avoid the usual respiratory problems which used to affect many passengers.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes but you missed my point, in a typical day , one can legitimately spend 4 hours or more in an enclosed space with hundreds of other people without a mask, for breakfast, morning coffee, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner , a drink at bar. 

 

Given that it is an air born virus and you and others have taken the risk of sitting in a room with a 100 or many more people without a mask for a hour or more . Why worry about the insignificant risk of a couple of minutes in a lift.  Risk is 100% related to exposure time

 

It's like burning pound notes , then thinking picking up the odd penny will make up the difference.

[exlondoner]

If you arrive at meals in a mask, and sit at a table a little way from others, taking care, if you cough, that it is into a tissue, surely you must have less chance of spreading infection than if you travel, unmasked, coughing in a crowded lift, which can take a while to traverse ten decks.

 

Incidentally, I am healthy, with no known vulnerabilities, and all the jabs I am eligible for, and I found having Covid has been far, far worse than a bad cold. I know others in the same position.

[Victoria2]

20 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

Yes but you missed my point, in a typical day , one can legitimately spend 4 hours or more in an enclosed space with hundreds of other people without a mask, for breakfast, morning coffee, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner , a drink at bar. 

 

Given that it is an air born virus and you and others have taken the risk of sitting in a room with a 100 or many more people without a mask for a hour or more . Why worry about the insignificant risk of a couple of minutes in a lift.  Risk is 100% related to exposure time

 

It's like burning pound notes , then thinking picking up the odd penny will make up the difference.

No, I didn't miss your point.

 

[Windsurfboy]

Breathing spreads the virus. 

[Victoria2]

13 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Breathing spreads the virus. 

 

 

We won't all be dining in busy areas; we won't all be in busy bars and we won't all be crowding into the theatre or joining tour buses and so for the time being, if breathing through a mask with a decent filter can help mitigate, mitigate not stop,  the spread of this virus at any one time when the mask is worn, then I'm all for it.

 

 

 

[Windsurfboy]

1 hour ago, Victoria2 said:

 

 

We won't all be dining in busy areas; we won't all be in busy bars and we won't all be crowding into the theatre or joining tour buses and so for the time being, if breathing through a mask with a decent filter can help mitigate, mitigate not stop,  the spread of this virus at any one time when the mask is worn, then I'm all for it.

 

 

 

Of course if you dine in your suite and therefore don't spend the 4 hours a day in public rooms unmasked together with people with no masks, that completely changes the equation. You can then be masked for all the little time you spend with others. A very safe option.

 

However I think this option is really only for those in QG with a Butler and access to full menu in their suite.  Everyone else will need to spend the 3 or 4 hours in public rooms with no mask together hundreds of people with no masks to eat.  For them masks for the rest of the time is as I said symbolic. 

[exlondoner]

2 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Of course if you dine in your suite and therefore don't spend the 4 hours a day in public rooms unmasked together with people with no masks, that completely changes the equation. You can then be masked for all the little time you spend with others. A very safe option.

 

However I think this option is really only for those in QG with a Butler and access to full menu in their suite.  Everyone else will need to spend the 3 or 4 hours in public rooms with no mask together hundreds of people with no masks to eat.  For them masks for the rest of the time is as I said symbolic. 

 

Say you are awake and out and about indoors for eight hours, plus meals, taking it up to twelve. Doesn't being masked for two thirds of that time at least considerably decrease the potential for infecting others?? Simple arithmetic suggests it might.

[Windsurfboy]

2 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

 

Say you are awake and out and about indoors for eight hours, plus meals, taking it up to twelve. Doesn't being masked for two thirds of that time at least considerably decrease the potential for infecting others?? Simple arithmetic suggests it might.

 

If you spend all your time indoors (but not your cabin) then it does change the balance. Not something I've contemplated, but never gone north in winter, even then would go outside.

 

However if you are worried about covid 4 hours a day with in no mask environment,  is not to be ignored.

[exlondoner]

And the other thing is that wearing a mask is not irksome generally, though remembering to do so can certainly be. If it is both somewhat helpful and easy  to do, what's the argument against?

[Victoria2]

7 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

And the other thing is that wearing a mask is not irksome generally, though remembering to do so can certainly be. If it is both somewhat helpful and easy  to do, what's the argument against?

For me, there isn't 

 

30 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Of course if you dine in your suite and therefore don't spend the 4 hours a day in public rooms unmasked together with people with no masks, that completely changes the equation. You can then be masked for all the little time you spend with others. A very safe option.

 

However I think this option is really only for those in QG with a Butler and access to full menu in their suite.  Everyone else will need to spend the 3 or 4 hours in public rooms with no mask together hundreds of people with no masks to eat.  For them masks for the rest of the time is as I said symbolic. 

We don't agree and that's fine.

[Windsurfboy]

2 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

 

 

We don't agree and that's fine.

Think we've both made our thoughts clear, subject closed. ☺

 

 

[NavyPanda]

5 hours ago, exlondoner said:

And the other thing is that wearing a mask is not irksome generally, though remembering to do so can certainly be. If it is both somewhat helpful and easy  to do, what's the argument against?

 

It may be easy to do, but many people find wearing masks unpleasant and not something they wish to do if they have a choice, especially on their holiday!

 

In supermarkets, shops, pubs and restaurants only a very small proportion of customers now wear masks. This is certainly the case in the UK where mask wearing is a personal choice rather than legally mandated. It does seem that most people have made their personal choice in favour of not wearing a mask. I assume there are some people who enjoy wearing a mask, or wear one for another reason and presumably these people still wear a mask, as is there personal choice. 

 

Looking at the travel industry more widely where mask wearing has gone from being mandated, either legally or as a condition of booking/carriage the proportion of people wearing them has plummeted. I see no reason why cruise lines, including Cunard would go against this trend. Indeed we have seen a significant loosening of policy in the past six months, 

 

Taking into account the evidence all around us that most people are choosing not to wear a mask (for whatever reason) a continuation or reinstatement of mask mandates may put people off from booking a cruise holiday as compared to other types of holiday where masks are not required. Cunard (Carnival) will be looking at their bottom line and will have reached a conclusion that mask mandates probably put off more people from booking than are attracted due to said mandate. 

 

I suppose there is a potential for a niche specialist cruise line to have a unique selling point in their marketing that they still mandate masks and they still adhere to higher levels of 'Covid safety' and are able to therefore charge a premium for this unique offering, but I highly doubt it considering there is no similar notable provision in the travel industry or hospitality currently.

[exlondoner]

14 minutes ago, NavyPanda said:

 

It may be easy to do, but many people find wearing masks unpleasant and not something they wish to do if they have a choice, especially on their holiday!

 

In supermarkets, shops, pubs and restaurants only a very small proportion of customers now wear masks. This is certainly the case in the UK where mask wearing is a personal choice rather than legally mandated. It does seem that most people have made their personal choice in favour of not wearing a mask. I assume there are some people who enjoy wearing a mask, or wear one for another reason and presumably these people still wear a mask, as is there personal choice. 

 

Looking at the travel industry more widely where mask wearing has gone from being mandated, either legally or as a condition of booking/carriage the proportion of people wearing them has plummeted. I see no reason why cruise lines, including Cunard would go against this trend. Indeed we have seen a significant loosening of policy in the past six months, 

 

Taking into account the evidence all around us that most people are choosing not to wear a mask (for whatever reason) a continuation or reinstatement of mask mandates may put people off from booking a cruise holiday as compared to other types of holiday where masks are not required. Cunard (Carnival) will be looking at their bottom line and will have reached a conclusion that mask mandates probably put off more people from booking than are attracted due to said mandate. 

 

I suppose there is a potential for a niche specialist cruise line to have a unique selling point in their marketing that they still mandate masks and they still adhere to higher levels of 'Covid safety' and are able to therefore charge a premium for this unique offering, but I highly doubt it considering there is no similar notable provision in the travel industry or hospitality currently.

 

I kmow for some people wearing masks make it hard to breath, but for most of us the most unpleasant thing is getting the strings tangled round you glasses. Surely most of us aren't so lacking in altruism we would choose not to protect others?

Or perhaps we are?

[NavyPanda]

7 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

 

I kmow for some people wearing masks make it hard to breath, but for most of us the most unpleasant thing is getting the strings tangled round you glasses. Surely most of us aren't so lacking in altruism we would choose not to protect others?

Or perhaps we are?

 

The argument of altruism with regards to mask wearing has been done to death over the past couple of years. I don't think we need to go over that again.

 

What is clear though is that the large majority of people who out in public spaces choose not to wear a mask despite undoubtedly being aware of the altruistic argument. Looking at the travel industry; airports, planes, trains and public transport there is little difference in the numbers choosing to wear a mask, I would suggest the numbers are even less.

 

People have made their choice so it seems. 

 

With regards to Cunard policy in particular it is notable that the mask mandate still applies to staff and crew. My guess is that will change soon and it will become a personal choice for them as well. I will fully support this change to, it is simply unfair to the hardworking staff and crew for them to have a mandate enforced against them but not for passengers.