Wonderingabout

2 hours ago, nocl said:

I would point out that ones legal status and application of laws vary, based upon ones status.

 

You mentioned some cases, concerning safe passage, where some things apply and some do not. If a person lands but does not clear immigration some laws would be applied, but some legal protections do not. So there are certainly situations where one is technically inside a countries waters, but the enforcement and application of laws vary. Just as on land you have cases where applications of laws vary based upon variations in status pre vs post immigration, etc.

It seems we have a lot of International law experts on this board.  Perhaps they can go to Belarus and settle the current international crisis in that country. 

On 5/3/2021 at 2:35 PM, Laminator said:

So let me try and figure this out. In order to get the cruise industry up and running the CDC is saying 98% of crew members must be vaccinated. In Florida the cruise industry is a billion dollar industry and responsible for thousands of jobs. I see the governor of Florida is being lauded here for allowing crew members to be vaccinated. And rightfully so. But in all honesty my 5 year old grandson could have put 2 and 2 together here. 

 

But lets face it Politicians often can not put 2 and 2 together and often act dumber than any 5 year old grandson.  

Ie;  Governor Cuomo ordering Covid 19 Positive patients into nursing homes. 

4 hours ago, T8NCruise said:

Now that they know how successful it is, perhaps it will be recommended in future.

Just how sucessful is it.  Are there any statistics?

Using Japan, Australia, New Zealand or any other country (usually island countries or countries with a single closed border ie South Korea.) as examples does show the effectiveness of quarantines.  In this case quarantining an entire nation.  Then again quarantining has always shown itself to be effective against communicable diseases.  But it does not show the efficacy of wearing a mask.  Distancing an entire population from the virus means that the population will not get the virus whether they wear masks or do not wear masks.  The test is -  given when there is little or no social distancing do masks reduce in any statistically verifiable way  the chance of getting the virus compared to not wearing a mask.

I have not seen any statistics that support this conclusion.  Certainly all tests with viruses prior to this pandemic showed that there was no reduction.  Statistics released in July by the CDC indicated that 70% of the people diagnosed with the Covid virus claimed to always wear a mask and another 15% claimed to wear a mask when in public.  (Yes you say but maybe 80% wear the mask all the time and therefore the mask is effective)  Anecdotally, In early March the County records office in my county was closed because of half of the employees in that Department being out with Covid.  The County is in a state and county that mandates all employees wear masks and no one is permitted in the County offices without wearing a mask.  But it appears that once the covid entered the facility the masks were not very effective in controlling its spread.  (Yes you say., but 51%  would have gotten the covid if not for the mask wearing.)  What good are anecdotes.   

What I am saying is presuming something is effective does not make it so.  We should have proof that it is effective if we are going to claim to be following the science.

But I must admit that saying and thinking that wearing a mask is somehow effective  is a cheap and easy way of  doing something positive can be very calming to people who have otherwise felt a total loss of control.

38 minutes ago, kazu said:

 

Just take a look at China & Japan’s covid results and successes where mask wearing is prevalent.  Take a look at the flu cases this year in North America - way down compared to any other year and accredited to mask wearing and physical distancing.

 

Looking at any scientific report shows you how masks help and why they are so effective.  It’s really not rocket science and have been proven  to work - even during SARS and as far back as 1918.

So you have statistics?  Is it Social distancing or is it the Masks?  

On 12/20/2020 at 7:15 AM, Fred arbuthnot said:

From the CDC Conditional Sail Order (page 32)

 

(2) The cruise ship operator must not sail or offer to sail on an itinerary longer than 7 days. CDC may shorten or lengthen the number of days permitted to sail based on public health considerations and as set forth in technical instructions or orders.

 

Seabourn (or any other cruise ship operator) does not have a choice in the matter until the CDC changes their Conditional Sail Order.

That answers the question or does it just shift it.  The Question the original poster was really asking is why the order not who instituted the order.

Apparently some people are looking for more from experts and rules makers  than being treated like a child who after asking why is told by her parent "Because I Said So".  

It is amazing how everybody knows the truth about how to approach the Virus and and how different the truth is depending on the person. And it is amazing how anybody who does not follow the truth as he sees its is either foolish because he is too adverse to risks that don't exist.  ie Foolish to hide in the basement.   Or Foolish because not only does he risk infecting himself but risks infecting everybody else.  ie  Foolish not to be wearing a mask.  (When and where depends on the opinion of the responder)    ie. Foolish not to be wearing a particular type of mask.  (Gaiter is okay, or gaiter is not okay, multi layered.  cover the nose.  N95 only.)

The one constant in all the varying opinions is "follow the science" is the rule..        Amazing how science seems to vary from person to person.  When we say follow the science we are presuming to say follow the facts BUT:   Perhaps a better definition of the rule is "Follow the Scientists".  Scientists are all over the board on the issue of the spread of the virus  because they have their own opinions, hypothesis and theories.  They are just as human as we are.  We can pick the scientist or group of scientists that we like best or sounds the best and rely on him or  her or them.  Scientists that match our preconceived opinions, our natural inclinations are the ones we quote and accept as gospel   However the best scientists are those who say different things at different times so they can be relied on to support different positions.  Dr. Fauci is a good example.  In March Masks are useless and in May Masks are necessary.  AND NO the facts did not change rather he says he was lying in March but for a good cause.  Or No we should not gather in large groups for Thanksgiving but no comment on protestors gathering in mass in cities and towns.  AND NO the facts did not change rather he will not comment on protests group gathering which would be a political comment and might make him seem partisan and not a saint who is above politics whereas he sees nothing to lose on commenting on thanksgiving gatherings.

Thinking outside the box.

The projection of deaths in the United States by the experts in mid March  ie Fauci etal was 200,000 Dead .  This was prior to the recommendation to wear masks or the requirement to wear masks indoors, or to wear masks outdoors when near people, or to wear surgical masks and not scarfs or kerchiefs, or to wear double layered surgical masks.  Last week the projection was 200,000 to 300,000 Dead.  It seems the projection has changed very little even as the suggested protocols have changed continually.

What the changing protocols have been effective at is pitting people against each other.  It is creating a blame game.

Let us for the moment ignore the economic and social effects that the current protocols have on our society and look at the Covid 19 as purely a medical issue.

The Covid 19 Virus came out of Pandora's box  when it arrived at a meat market or a virus research lab in Wuhan and all our wishing and hoping is not going to put it back in the box.   A Vaccine is not a cure, it is a preventative which works ideally for most, never for all and with negative effects for a few.  But vaccines are relatively recent,  the first being Edward Jenner's small pox vaccine in 1796.   A measles vaccine had to wait until the second half of the 20th century to be used.  But Measles which devastates a population without childhood immunity ie see Rome in the 2nd Century AD or the American Indian in the 19th century was not devastating to most European populations.  This is because it was a disease that becomes more virulent the older the victim and while most children acquired the disease and suffered from the disease, they survived the disease and acquired an immunity to the disease.

Based on current statistics it appears that for almost all young people the effects of the Covid 19 Virus are far less than Measles as to be almost non-existent and perhaps the proper protocol for dealing with the virus is to let the young people get the disease and develop their immunity.  That is have the younger members of the society develop the herd immunity.  Rather than quickly quarantining the child who tests positive for the Virus he or she should be allowed to spread the disease among his or her peers.  This would accelerate the spread to the younger population and subsequently after their immunity kicks in, limit their ability to spread it to the older population.  In the interim the older population would need to be quarantined from the younger population but this could be  very limited time if the spread among the younger population was rapid even by artificially accelerating the spread to the young. 

This is counter-intuitive thinking but maybe this is the proper solution.   A vaccine is itself a counter-intuitive solution to the Virus problem.  A Vaccine works by infecting you with the disease that you are trying to avoid.   Imagine yourself in 1796 being told that by voluntarily infecting yourself with a disease you are preventing that disease.      

The age of the cut off and who allows the cutoff could be done at the individual and family level rather than at the State Government level, with each person assuming the risks he or she is willing to take.  We have current statistics which give general odds of dying from the disease based on age and preexisting medical conditions.  The young and those willing to take the risks of dying or suffering permanent complications from the disease would be the ones to get the Herd immunity.  While those not willing to take the risks could remain at whatever level of self quarantine they wish ie N95 Masks, cloth masks , stay at home, social distancing at 6 feet, social distancing at 10 feet.  This  would not be unique as anti-vaxers already use the herd immunity of the  majority to protect themselves from measles and other similar diseases. It would be a win-win as the risk to the more fearful would go down and the freedom to the less fearful would go up.

17 hours ago, iancal said:

There is really no point in a discussion about what is happening with covid.  Time will provide the answer.

 

The next few weeks will take it's toll and I believe this is where our thoughts should be on those who are impacted, and will be impacted.

 

One thing for certain, covid will not be defeated by a haphazard approach with cities, counties and states all pulling in different directions.  Too much movement for that.  It will need to be the same levels of determination and co-ordination that have been present in other nations and other leaders.

I must admit that everything related to this Virus and our reaction to it is contradictory by each individual at the same time.  I obviously do not have the magic bullet for how to handle the Virus.  Certainly science is confused.   Should we let it run wild and go for herd immunity as long as the hospitals do not get overwhelmed which seems to have been the idea at the beginning or should we quarantine everybody as if they are under house arrest except without the tracking electronic ankle bracelets until the virus goes away or a vaccine is found.  

Even politics have become self contradictory.  Its not just that if the US enacts travel restrictions to foreign countries it is xenophobic while a the same time if other countries enact similar travel restrictions it is wise policy.  Or if Florida restricts travel from New York it is bad but if New York restricts travel from Florida it is good or do I have that backwards?

But people who have argued for the past three years that the President is an autocrat now are arguing that the problem with handling the Virus in the U.S is that we lack an autocrat in the White House who will tell us what to do and enforce that we do it.

I must admit to some confusion.  It is as though we are thinking with our emotions and will not let the lack of consistency  in our logic get in the way of our opinions.

25 minutes ago, JeffElizabeth said:

One of the reasons we stay with HAL is that formal nights have become more casual.  I still enjoy dressing in a tuxedo for Gala nights but my wife stopped that many cruises ago. 

Maybe she did not like wearing a commerbund.

1 hour ago, whogo said:

This is the correct answer, lots of pipe dreams in the other replies. If cruising comes back, I expect a completely different beast. Holland Arabia line anyone? Seabourn Dubai Cruise Line? Norwegian Chinese Line? I expect higher prices, bigger ships, fewer crew, more passengers and more nickle and diming. Tender and deck chair prices will vary with demand. Want showroom entertainment? Buy a ticket to a show and enjoy. The Lido will be turned into a food court with a McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Chik-fil-A. Table service will be available at the Texas Roadhouse (deck 3) or Red Lobster (deck 4). I would expect commercials to be mixed in with the canned music. "This is Captain Torgudsen. Today's noon update is brought to you by Ford, proud manufacturers of the F-150 pickup truck. Remember that the Ford seminar is at 1:30 in the atrium next to the brand new 2022 Ingot Silver F-150 . Our noon position..."

That business plan might work but I would expect if that is done it will be with the Carnival Cruise line Brand as it competes with Royal Caribbean which is already doing this.  There is no need for one of CCLs other lines to follow suit as that would be too redundant and CCL would be better off just closing down that division.  General Motors tried multiple brands making the same car in the 1980s and 1990s without any success.

Some of the wishes posted here are contradictory and I must admit  to contradictory thinking as well.  Some people love the addition of BB King bands (personally I love the music) while others find it to be too loud (personally I can not stay in the same room where the band is playing because I cannot hear myself think)

But most of the wishes to be fulfilled are going to cost money.  Most of the things that the posters wish to have back went away to save money and would cost money if reinstituted.  It may be that rather than raise cruise fare that HAL absorb these costs by reducing its profit.  We may wish that that is what HAL would do but that is the most wishful thinking of all.

Therefore to get our wishes granted we will need to accept much higher fares but then there would be a decrease in potential passengers who would could afford or be willing to pay these higher fares.   HAL would need to adjust its fleet size to match reduced demand at the higher price point.  These would include both the number and size of the ships.  Azamara in the RCL brand and Oceania in the NCL brand are example of the higher price point level size.  

HAL would need to sell off the newer ships like the New Statendam and Konigsdam because:

1. Their size would be way in excess demand at the new higher price point

2. They probably have the highest mortgages in the fleet on them and would result in the most benefit on the balance sheet if they were removed.

3.  They are likely to bring a better price on the market because of their condition than the older ships.

Even the most previous generation of ships in the 2,000 passenger level ie Westerdam would need to be considered for sale or extensive refurbishment to reduce the passenger level in these ships to correspond with the demand at the potential new price point.  By:

1. Increasing the number of neptune suites

2. reducing the number of interior cabins

3 Bringing the occupancy down to closer to 1,200 to 1,500 passengers . 

Whether our wishes relate to the quality of the food, the quality of the entertainment, the amenities that are not add on charges, or the number of staff to passenger ratio will determine our willingness to sail with HAL.   We will determine whether HAL has met these wishes ( or since we will be paying for it, these demands ) so as to justify our paying the higher cruise fares.

I wrote the previous post mostly as a humorous take on the virus, fear and its effect on cruising.  But as I think more about it there is a serious side to our pooh poohing the studies' results.

1. Threats of death from stroke, heart attacks, cancer and no doubt other diseases increase with smoking.  But these are chronic results of smoking over long periods of time.  There is little if any evidence that smoking over short-term periods result in an lasting negative results.  In fact many anti smoking ads tout that stopping smoking can reverse or at least halt the chronic effects of smoking.  " It is never too late to quit smoking"  But Covid 19 and its effects are immediate, real and deadly.

2. If these studies as indicated show smoking reduce hospitalizations due to Covid 19 by 85% to 98% then by not pushing smoking as a short -term therapeutic response to the Virus, atleast to the elderly, we are in our political correctness condemning people to death.  We are literally killing people because we have such an aversion to smoking.

3. Considering that most people who die of the disease are over 60, the detriments of the chronic diseases are likely not to be important even if they become addicted to smoking.  These people will likely die of something else before the effects of smoking kills them.  It is the reverse of the teenager who starts smoking and is likely to die of the effects of smoking before something else kills him.

4. The costs to our society, including our social relationships with other people because of masks, social distancing and the costs to our economy because of mandated shutdowns  The cost to our health because of delayed or undiagnosed  or untreated illness due to the lock down and limited access to other medical care  versus the cost to the society by pushing smoking is too vast to quantify whether from an economic, moral or mental health point.

I would like to say that I have never smoked, I do not like being in a smokey environment but I do have an open mind to people that do smoke and an open mind to the idea that logic should supersede political correctness or whatever we want call our obsession with smoking. 

Since evidence indicates that smokers are far less susceptible to the covid 19 virus.  Will cruising be reserved only for smokers and if you are a non-smoker you will be refused permission to board.  Perhaps you will be required to show your cigarettes and lighter prior to embarking.

April 29, 2020 - Today in the world of coronavirus news:

Few of those hospitalized with the coronavirus are smokers, and researchers are trying to understand why, according to VICE.

One hypothesis is that nicotine, which has anti-inflammatory properties, may interfere with the way that COVID-19 causes an overreaction of the immune system.

The hypothesis comes from Konstantinos Farsalinos, a cardiologist in Greece who focuses on tobacco-use reduction. Farsalinos noticed that few COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in China were smokers, though about half of men in the country smoke.

Farsalinos and colleagues wrote a new paper available as a preprint and scheduled to be published in Internal and Emergency Medicine. They found that among 13 studies in China with nearly 6,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use.

“The results were remarkably consistent across all studies and were recently verified in the first case series of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote, calling for an “urgent investigation.”

“We all know that smoking is obviously bad for you,” Raymond Niaura of New York University told VICE. Niaura co-authored the paper with Farsalinos. “It follows logically that smokers would be way worse off. I would think that too. But I've been surprised: That's not the story we're necessarily seeing.”

18 hours ago, KirkNC said:

I was referring to Scott Dahnke, co-CEO of L Catterton, he’s the smart guy.  Don’t think he wants to explain how or why he lost $400 million.

Smart guy indeed  Look deeper into the article on his investment and note that he does not give NCL the $400 million until they get at least an additional $1 billion from other investors.

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Those kinds of "technical" port stops are no longer allowed.

Thank you I stand corrected as my experience with this  was  in early January of this year.

As a practical matter the Jones Act is probably not a big stumbling block.  We were on a cruise San Diego  to Hawaii for which the foreign stop was Ensenada Mexico.  We were due to dock in Ensenada from 5 PM to 8 PM.  As a result of changes in the itinerary we never docked but at 5 in the morning, the mexican authorities were ferried out to the ship and all the paperwork required to show a stop in Ensenada was   completed and the ship went on its way without any passengers or as far as I know Crew ever setting foot in Ensenada.

One other way to look at the bond issue being so high.  Perhaps these bond buyers are betting that Carnival will declare bankruptcy and need to recapitalize with the current shareholders receiving nothing and the bond holders taking over the Company at pennies on the dollar.  If I were a shareholder, I am not so sure I would see the sale of the bonds as a statement that their investment will survive.

Note that GM survived but not the Shareholders.  In that case neither did the Bond Holders but that was due to the Government stepping in and changing the rules of Bankruptcy Court.  It is highly unlikely that the Government will step in in the case of Carnival going bankrupt and in any case it is no solace to the current shareholders even if they did. 

It would seem that a way to help the cruise lines which are foreign corporations is to have a win win situation by having various countries lease the cruise ships to use as hospital ships.  Infuse the ship with medical staff from the host country while much of the regular staff would continue to cook, clean and deliver food to the patients.  A different protocol for the staff but not different in its essentials.

1 hour ago, StartrainDD said:

 

 

I have to say we have celebrated DW's birthday (or our anniversary) on HAL before and they have never made a special cake with ingredients that she could eat like Azamara did.  This left a very big impression on DW!

Last year, one of the people on the HA ship that I was having dinner with had a birthday and the cake was made special, she also had similar dietary restrictions and she always ordered her meals the night before.  The head waiter and even the chef made appearance at the table to be sure she was satisfied.  I do not think this type of service is unique to Azamara. 

It should be made clear that interline rates are not small discounts from the published rates but are for the most part very large discounts. This is not the get an additional onboard credit or cashback by using a travel agent as opposed to booking directly with HAL.   I tested the pricing on a cruise I was considering.  The going price with all the normal consumer discounts as advertised by the cruiseline and advertised by independent travel agencies was twice what the interline rate was for the same cruise and room.    I then tested the pricing on other cruises advertised by the interline agency and found similar discounts.  A typical example I found was a Seabourne cruise list priced at $50,000 but really selling for $25,000 was $12,500 on the interline. Nobody would pay the list price but most of the passengers would be paying the $25,000 with whatever additional benefits might be offered by their travel agent but no where near the additional one half off the interline fare. 

It is not surprising that the Cruise Lines would have a number of major restrictions when they sell their berths a such a substantial discount.

Whether it is a gala night or not might not make a difference.  I was on the Oosterdam Western Caribbean three years ago over Thanksgiving.  The previous night was the listed gala night and Thursday night I believe was the last night of the cruise and not listed as a gala night.  I donned a sweater to go to dinner only to find as we were about to enter the dining room that almost all the men were dressed in suits.  I quickly retreated back to my cabin and put on a jacket and tie. (My wife did not have to retreat with me as she always dresses appropriately and looks beautiful.) 

Was it required?  Was it suggested?  Would I have been refused a seat if I did not wear the coat?  Would anybody have said anything if I just wore the sweater?  No NO No NO.  But I sure would have felt self conscious.

While this is a Thanksgiving day thread,  many  threads that relate to dress code are questions of this sort.  The thread starter is not asking what the limit is before getting a YES to to one of the above questions but rather is seeking to understand the norm so that he or she will not fall into the self-conscious moment.  It is not enough to tell the thread starter what he can do or wear but rather he should be provided with a sense of the norm. 

37 minutes ago, hiccups said:

Please re-read the post.  As has been pointed out, it was a muster drill, not dinner, and we sat where we were directed to sit by a crew member.  So no, we didn't need to "return to the Maitre D" and ask to be seated elsewhere. 

 

At a meal, we never would have sat down at a table uninvited, and that you would think someone would do this assumes you believe no one except you has any manners.

I apologize.

Since the thread was about dining / Sharing a table,  I assumed.  I missed where the thread was hijacked to cover muster drills.    I must read more carefully and never assume.  My Mistake.

31 minutes ago, hiccups said:

While attending the muster drill on our Oceania cruise, a crew member specifically directed us to two seats at a table for four in the dining room, where a couple was already sitting.  The wife spoke up and said, "We're saving those seats."  My husband replied that the crew member had told us to sit there, and as we didn't see other seats in the area, we proceeded to sit down.  The husband again said, "those seats are saved," and we again said that's where we had been directed to sit.  We could tell the couple was miffed, and about ten minutes later when their friends showed up, the husband of the couple told them, "We tried to save you seats, but..." and then pointed to us and gave an eye roll.  My husband was furious, and told the man if it was that important that they sit with their friends, THEY could leave the table.  To this day I'm still flabbergasted people could behave so poorly over something so ridiculous. 

A classic case of behaving poorly is always in the mind of the beholder.  The problem was with the Maitre D who directed the second couple to the table that was already taken.  (perhaps the Maitre D mistakenly thought that they were the other couple for that table)  The first couple  obtained a table for four because they intended dining with a specific other couple.  When the second couple showed up,  the first couple  properly indicated that the seats were saved for another couple that would show up in a few minutes.  The second couple should have returned to the Maitre D pointed out his mistake and request to be reseated.   Instead the second couple proceeds to take seats at the table where they obviously were not wanted and against the protest of the first couple.  And in the process ruining the dinner for them and the other couple.

The ball was in the second couple's court in that having been informed that they were not wanted at that table (and in this case for a very good reason) they could choose to start over with the Maitre D or create a confrontational situation.  The second couple choose the confrontational route.  That the first couple handled the confrontation with just a roll of the eyes shows tremendous restraint on their part.

All these me too replies.  Ugh.

When I am on holiday, I should be able to do whatever makes ME happy.  I pay a fortune for the cruise and I should be able to do, say and wear whatever I want.  When I am not on vacation or holiday I have restrictions on what I wear so I should be able to wear whatever I want, wherever I want, whenever I want.  Its my vacation and If you do not like it then you are just being judgmental.  Further I have to be pleasant and nice to everybody at work so when I am on Holiday I should be free to be as grumpy or nasty or demanding as I want to be without being judged by my fellow cruisers.   I paid for the cruise and if you do not like it then you should pay my fare.  There are just too many judgmental people on this board,  that is people with opinions of their own..

On 7/21/2019 at 1:07 PM, Hawaiidan said:

 The  market demographic of HAL would  just not accept  paying 600-1000 a day for a cabin in a  new Prinsendam size.....   Too Silver Sea, Azamar, Crystal,  Oceaina, Viking,, Pondant (?) Regent have the market already covered.

One thing these cruise lines have in common is that none of them are owned by Carnival.  CCL owns Seabourn whose ships range from 400 to 600 or so passengers.  I could see them possibly getting slightly larger but not much as they would soon lose their luxury status.  

The remaining CCL brands are all into large builds in excess of 2,500 passengers.   CCL, as they slowly sell off their aging fleet of mid size ships, is abandoning a market of the 800 to 1,500 passenger ship.   This is pretty much the area of the premium class lines such as Azamara under Royal Carribean or Oceania under Norwegian.  Perhaps CCL knows better than these other large corporations but it does seem that they are abandoning a large market.

Instead CCL has two upscale mass market brands in competition with each other, as Princess and HAL seem to be competing in the same size builds and in the same customer price range.  I would think it would be in CCL's corporate interest to keep an operating business in this midsize market .  CCL could create an entirely new subsidiary  or acquire one of the independent premium brand.  But if they wanted to convert one of their current brands into the premium brand, I would think HAL would be the best fit.

The conversion for HAL would involve any new builds to be in the 1,000 to 1,500 passenger range.  Probably an increase in price of the cruises and a decrease in number of interior cabins.  The wide wrap around promenade decks, the consistent quality of the Indonesian and Filipino crew, and the general old time classic cruise experience would be the selling points to distinguish the line from the other premium lines.

Because of the need to raise the prices to meet the added costs to match  the standards needed to compete in this market, ie food and entertainment upgrades, the line would probably alienate a large portion of its customer base over time but at least the CCL corporation would not be competing with itself and abandoning a large market share to its competitors.