KnowTheScore

Surprised some here haven't bothered to read the details on the P&O website concerning dining arrangements.  Please take a look:

https://www.pocruises.com/cruise-with-confidence/your-holiday-experience

Eating And Drinking

"We all know that delicious food and drink are a core part of your holiday and this will certainly not change. You may be asked to pre-book a table in the restaurants; the buffets and deck grills will now be served by our waiting staff and you will only be permitted to dine with your household or linked travelling group, up to a maximum number allowed by government guidelines at the time of sailing. We are adapting our restaurants and bars to ensure you can enjoy your experience and maintain social distancing in line with the guidance."

Seems very clear to me.  You will be dining only with your partner/family or others in your traveling group.  So sadly no more meeting lots of interesting and diverse people over evening dinner, which I think is an integral part of a cruise for many.  Not all of course. 

2 minutes ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Additionally, I think that if you are travelling with others, whether they be family or friends, it is still possible to link your bookings and you can dine together rather than be dotted around on tables for two.

yep that's what I referred to as your "cruise party"

At this point in time surely the notion of "Freedom" dining is a misnomer. 

Pre-pandemic there were 2 primary differences between Club Dining and Freedom Dining.

With Club, you had set dining times and you always shared a table with the same people  throughout the voyage.

With Freedom there was no set time and you dined with anyone and met different people each night.

Now, with the plethora of pandemic restrictions that's all changed AFAIK.

No-one will be allowed to dine with anyone that is not in their own cabin or cruise party.   So that "freedom" has been curtailed.   One assumes that this restriction must result in masses of large tables for 6, 8 or 10 no longer being there and tons of tables for 2 being added instead and I would imagine that makes dinner sittings more complicated to manage and thus there might be some level of restrictions to the times you can eat as a result.  As previous poster said you might have to book a slot rather than be able to just turn up on spec as we used to.

Thus the entire concept of "Freedom Dining" is for the time being a bit of a misnomer imo.

2 hours ago, slidergirl said:

The "brain fog" is nasty - I'll go to do something, and I'll forget what I wanted to do.  I'll try to grab something that is not there.  I'll forget where I'm driving to.  I have notes posted around the house with things I need to remember.  Sucks, but at least I'm not dead. 

That sounds frustrating indeed.    Do you think it's wise to keep on driving with such problems?

12 hours ago, sandancer said:

We have a cruise in April and if it goes (?????) and we’ve been vaccinated I’ll be getting those cruise clothes out. 

Ah but will the clothes still fit after all this lockdown ??? 🙂

18 minutes ago, cbr663 said:

I agree with another of your posts that once there is a certain level of cases that the ship will go into quarantine mode.  

It's a condition of the sail orders that they do so, they have no choice.  What is not known (at least to the public) is what that threshold is.  I think cruise lines should come clean and publicise it because I think it will determine for a lot of people whether they will cruise again.   If the number is low like say 5 cases then I think that would put a lot of people off.  You'll have lots of cruises with such cases imo.

If the number is higher like say 30 cases then people will have more confidence that their cruise will manage to be a reasonable one rather than a prison ship confined to the seas.

34 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Neither is testing 100% accurate, for example look what happened on the Sea Breeze.

 

That's why you have multiple tests not singular ones, to remove that chance of false results.

1 hour ago, Britboys said:

There used to be a Welsh female singer (a sort of 'poor man's Shirley Bassey') who appeared regularly on P&O ships that had a way of dealing with that. She would stop mid-song, ask for the house lights to be put up and interrogate the latecomers as to why they couldn't get here on time...😱

Her name was Diane Cousins and she was a brilliant entertainer and singer.  Her act was a mixture of comedy and singing and always brought the house down.  As you say she would stop mid-performance and get the house lights up if anyone came in late and equally if they tried to leave mid-performance.  Always hilarious and you certainly learned to get there in good time !

Played many hands of Whist with her in the past as she was a keen card player and I've greatly missed her shows over the past few years.   They don't make 'em like they used to !

13 hours ago, Miaminice said:

I don’t get your choice of word “refuse” - everyone on board knew what they were in for. They either decided to do a tour or not. 
 

Whilst of course everyone knew what they were in for, it remains a fact that some will have consented to go on shore excursions with the ship and others will have elected not to either on principle or because they don't like or value the ship excursions.   Either way you unfortunately didn't answer my question which was how many people seem to be staying on-board for the duration?  I would guess this is a topic that might come up during evening dinner conversation.

@Miaminice

OMG did you say only 4 people to a lift???

The queues for lifts must be massive esp at peak times like evening meals.   Goodness knows how disembarkation is going go with people with hand luggage and only 4 to a lift.   I guess for the fitsters not a problem, just use the stairs.

Also do you have any feel for the numbers or percentage of passengers that refuse to take excursions with the ship and consequently just stay on-board at every port?

Thanks

22 hours ago, Tapi said:

Not a repeat of the Diamond Princess. Hopefully procedures will be in place to quickly identify infected passengers and those who were exposed (using tracing). The infrastructure will be in place to isolate and quarantine infected passengers, and agreements will be in place with ports where these passengers can be transferred to a medical facility without impacting others.

This is simply wishful thinking.   The problem here is that unless you test EVERY passenger and EVERY crew member EVERY DAY of the voyage then Covid cases on-board will spread.   If you wait until someone shows symptoms and then test them then you will have missed up to 5 days or more of that person spreading the virus around.  With 80% of Covid cases have absolutely no symptoms at all then the frequency of testing is of paramount importance.       Quarantining an infected person clearly needs to happen but by then it's likely far too late and that person or persons will have already been spreading the virus to others.

There's just no answer to this unless you are constantly testing all passengers and crew every 5 mins which leads to a pretty horrible experience on-board.   There's only so much throat and nasal swabbing that people will endure imo.

I would be very surprised if there are not further cases appearing in this current situation.

There is presumably some magic number that the cruise lines have been given which changes their protocols from simply isolating the Covid positive people to quarantining every passenger on the ship ala Diamond Princess.

I'm sorry but just now this whole thing is a non starter.   Passengers have simply become cattle to be poked and prodded and constantly tested and pushed around if they get Covid.   add to that the constant need for mask wearing when walking around the ship and doing activities, being forced to take ship excursions if you want to get off and god knows what other inconveniences that they haven't yet told us about and for me that is not a holiday.  It's something else and most certainly not a cruise in my book.    

Cruising remains totally dead imo and will stay that way until the virus is treated like Norovirus.

Mein Schiff 6 comes down with a dozen cases of COVID

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/crew-first-post-lockdown-greek-cruise-contract-coronavirus-maltese

Carnival Corp released their Third Quarter Summary on 15th Sept.  It stated:

14 hours ago, magictam said:

1.       Pre-Testing: If I test positive I will be denied boarding (I understand and support this). But I won’t get a refund for not being allowed on the ship nor will the ship be responsible for any costs incurred due to not being allowed to board.  So they will really be encouraging purchasing insurance . I know many of you do, but I never do.

 

Did I read this right????!   You take cruises WITHOUT travel insurance?  If so I think that's incredibly unwise.  If you fall ill and if the cruise line deems it appropriate for you to be helivac'ed off the ship to a land hospital you're potentially looking at an £80,000 bill just for that evacuation let alone any actual treatment by the hospital.   Most cruise lines make it mandatory to have insurance so I'm surprised you are able to get away with it.

Aside from that it doesn't surprise me one iota that cruise lines will be doing everything they can to avoid any cost or liability for anything to do with COVID.  It was entirely predictable imo and I think it's stupid on their part and will affect their business.

We are after all supposed to be "all in this together" in regards to COVID

If cruise lines are not going to play ball and refuse to compensate people who they deem too ill to go on-board, then that will remove a proportion of their customer base.

If insurance companies equally don't play ball and won't underwrite the costs associated with COVID helivac's or any other treatments then again this is going to massively impact the entire cruising sector.

There is no way on earth I would travel on a cruise ship without travel insurance that covered at least £2 million worth of costs.   Doing so would be potential suicide and could lead to you losing your home.

All that such liability evasion will lead to is cruising becoming once again only accessible to the extremely rich.

Worth also noting that being cooped up in the small confined space of a coach on an excursion is probably the last place many passengers would want to be when facing the threat of viruses spreading.   As with flying on an aeroplane it's likely the number one place you will get infected whether by asymptomatic COVID carriers or people with Flu.   Safer to be strolling around an open ship than stuck on a coach with 50 other passengers.

I just can not see that strategy being a viable way forward.  The cruises that are trying it out will by no means be representative of millions of other cruisers. 

Imagine,

Going to Barcelona, but not being able to walk along Las Ramblas or around the Old Quarter or the famous market

Going to Venice but not being able to walk around the bustling winding streets, not seeing St Marks Square

Going to Dubrovnik but not being able to wander around inside the city walls

Going to Lisbon but not being able to roam the city and shops and have a coffee and Pastel De Nata

Going to Malaga, Cartagena, Valencia, Vigo and not being able to wander freely through the lovely towns

Going to Cadiz and not being able to visit the wonderful food markets or winding streets

Going to Florence and not being able to walk along the river Arno by Ponte Vecchio

Imagine visiting a foreign country and being treated like a bunch of lepers.  Herded off into some corner, unable to wander freely, shoved into some restaurant for tapas instead of the good restaurants you already know and love.

No.  I just can not see this strategy being a success.   You can not remove everything from cruising which makes cruising special and enjoyable and expect passengers to pay £1000s for the privilege. 

Countries cannot afford to simply stop tourism.  They are going to HAVE to allow visitors in and let them roam around freely at some point.  At the very least all that needs to happen is for all passengers to be tested for COVID immediately before going ashore.  If they are negative, no problem, let them go wander freely.

"Would you cruise if the only way you can get off the ship while in port is to take a shore excursion from the cruise line? "

No absolutely not.   For us being able to visit places at our own pace and leisure is an integral part of a cruise.  Going to restaurants to eat the local food, visiting restaurants where we have come to know the owners, wandering around the shops, sitting in a cafe and watching the world go by etc etc.

In all the many cruises we have done and in all the excursions we have taken with the cruise line, the number of excursions that were thoroughly enjoyable and worth the money number less than 10.

The vast majority were over-priced, poor quality, extremely boring affairs which we would never repeat.

Basic tourism cannot possibly be at an end.  That would be utterly farcical imo.

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

You are very free with throwing away human lives:  that "..just 1.4%..."  -- which you acknowledge is 4,620,742 PEOPLE -- that is PEOPLE, not percentages.  And, if the reasonably expected 1% mortality rate applies, that is 46,207 DEAD PEOPLE.

 

Where did you study statistics -- which you seem to like throwing around without any comprehension of or concern about what those statistics measure?

 

Please do not bother responding.

Thanks for admitting you got your number of 49 million wrong.  A strange way to say it but thanks anyway

14 minutes ago, wheezedr said:

Notwithstanding the rest of you argument, I suggest you recheck your math.  Your number is  off by a factor of 10.  14/1000 would calculate out to 4,900,000.

How many people are you using for the population of the US???

1.4% of 330,052,960  is 4.6 million.    You had it at 49 million !

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

That “just 14 people in a 1000” which you dismiss as “not much at all”  works out to about 49,000,000 people when applied to the US population.  Even if we consider just the roughly half of the population which does not now get immunized, we are talking about 24,500,000 people - or, given the roughly 1% mortality rate, 24,500 human US lives per year;  not to mention the costs in treatment and lost man hours.

 

Frankly, I think you should reconsider your Cruise Critic user name.

 

 

I suggest you buy a new calculator.  Your numbers are out.

It doesn't matter what population numbers you use, the ratio is always going to the same.  A reduction of 1.4%.

US population is 330,052,960

Cochrane says that 23 in a 1000 un-vaccinated people would get flu which is  7,591,218 people

Cochrane says 9 in 1000 vaccinated would also get flu which is   2,970,476

15 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

 

You skipped over the rest of that paragraph that said "Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9%". So, still a 40% reduction in people catching the flu. Not great, not terrible.

 

It's a sleight of hand misrepresentation of numbers I'm afraid.   It's actually just a reduction in percentage points of 1.4%

Essentially it is saying that without vaccination 23 people in every 1000 will get Flu.   With vaccination only 9 people in every 1000 will get flu.   The difference is just 14 people in a 1000 which is not much at all.

1 hour ago, latserrof said:

And don't forget the consequences: SIck on a plane, the plane lands, you go to the hospital. Sick on a ship, ?, good luck.

Good grief have you ever actually taken a cruise?!!!!

Even before the advent of COVID your statement is ridiculous.   If you get seriously sick on a ship, then a helicopter is called out and lifts you off and takes you to the nearest on-shore hospital.   The cruise line contract for many lines requires that a passenger's travel insurance covers such eventualities.  The P&O cruise line requirement for example is that your insurance must have a limit of not less than £2 million.   I witnessed 3 helicopter evacuations from my various cruises in 2019 alone.

54 minutes ago, Denarius said:

Aurora is several years older than Arcadia,  and her half sister Oriana has already departed. She is one of a kind, whereas Arcadia has several half sisters. This would make Arcadia easier to transfer within the Carnival fleet, whereas Aurora would only really fit in P&O. Arcadia also benefits from more modern pod propulsion system.

So sentiment apart, I think Carnival would prefer to retain Arcadia rather than Aurora.

Oriana had perpetual problems due to her faulty prop shaft which even after a dry dock refit were never fixed afaik.   It was no surprise that she was sold off.   Arcadia was always a marmite ship, mostly because she was designed for a US market not UK.  Consequently all her bars and lounges are all open and have annoying noisy and distracting walkways running right through them or alongside them.   She was more traditional than Ventura and the ships that came after her, but yet she was still nothing remotely like as classy and decadent as Aurora and Oriana.   Consequently I feel totally sure that both Aurora and Oriana had the larger followings among passengers and afaik Arcadia has since become somewhat of an "old folks home".   A contingent likes it and that contingent is an old demographic and in business terms if P&O are looking to attract the younger and more lively audience then I would think Arcadia would be top of the list to go.

I have cruised Aurora for many years and have enjoyed both summer holidays filled with younger people and kids as well as out of season breaks with mostly older people and the experience has always been great.   Aurora attracted both young and old before she became adult only.   She could do so again if P&O chose to revert back.   P&O would lose a sizable % of its cruise audience if they let Aurora go, no question.    With the advent of Oriana leaving the fleet you now have 2 loyal cruising groups all vying for the same ship Aurora which means filling her cabins is probably the easiest to do of all the ships in the fleet, and as we have seen that demand generated increased ticket prices for that ship which means more profits for Carnival.

In business you do not shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs.    I can't see Aurora leaving before Arcadia in all honestly and I would even think that the oft avoided Ventura might also be up the pecking order before Aurora.

1 hour ago, Britboys said:

With Amsterdam and Rotterdam having been sold to Fred Olsen, I think that means they will be looking for an additional three ships. I think Arcadia will be safe but I do worry for Aurora. Every time they announce more offloads, she gets less safe 😕

Somehow can't agree with that.  Of all the ships in the fleet I think Arcadia with it's infamous overly strong air con system that has given numerous cruisers "Cabin Cough" or "Arcadia Cough" over the years is probably the last ship I want to go on given what happened to the Diamond Princess.   The thought of being locked up in my cabin with cases of COVID on-board on that particular ship is not for me personally an inviting prospect.   I'd even consider the huge IONA over Arcadia.   However if they do ever decide to ditch Aurora then that would end mine and many other's use of P&O.   As most know I was already firmly determined to try alternative cruise lines to P&O as a result of the what I feel are relentless degradation of quality, service and value for money.   Who knows however what kind of service and experience they may choose to offer post COVID pandemic?

If this whole affair were to result in the former glorious years of cruising returning (in order to ensure the core bread and butter loyal cruising demographic) then I could always be tempted back to P&O.   But if they decide to ditch the smaller traditional ships like Aurora then no, it's not gonna happen.

12 minutes ago, Gettingwarmer said:

It is said in today’s papers that too many people are going for tests with no symptoms and taking up places for those with symptoms. That  is why they are now emphasising only get tested if you have symptoms to clear spaces. 

There's no logic to such a stance.  COVID mostly transmits and spreads because of asymptomatic carriers so only testing the people who already have symptoms is simply ridiculous.   If we want to do anything towards stopping the spread then you need to test EVERYONE without limitation and thereby identify the people who have it but who don't know they have it, so that they can they go and isolate rather than spread it around.  The whole thing is totally disingenuous and framed to create a scaremongering story imo.

6 minutes ago, Dermotsgirl said:

An April restart sounds like a reasonable aspiration. Get the winter out of the way, and hope the virus recedes when people spend more time outside. 

Wishful thinking imo

The advent of the annual Flu season will drive the scaremongering into a frenzy imo as lots of people come down with various symptoms which all appear to be COVID symptoms but which may simply be colds, ILIs and / or Flu.   It's going to cause lots of disruption, lots of people will have to go home and isolate and not be able to work until and unless they can get tested to prove if it's Flu or COVID one way or the other and a whole bunch of those tests will produce false-positive results causing further problems.

Doubtless there will be reports of increased (cough) "COVID deaths" given that the NHS guidelines expressly told doctors and coroners to basically GUESS (make a medical judgement) of whether a patient had COVID or not in the instances when there was no testing or swabbing done.  So they look at the symptoms a person had before dying and make a judgement.  I wonder what percentage will go down as COVID and what percentage as Flu when the symptoms are essentially identical?!

I consequently think Jan/Feb will be a frantic period and I doubt whether cruises will occur any time shortly afterward.

Of course I could be wrong.

Source Ref:  NHS Guidelines for recording deaths, Section 4 refers:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf

.