BeachyBrowns

2 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

Exactly right.  Truth serum is about the only thing that would get the truth out of these clowns they've lied to us so many times it's hard to catalog them all. This is one of the few things they actually control and by god they're not going to relinquish that God like power for anything.  Petty bureaucrats, who nobody cared about, suddenly thrust in the lime light for their 15 minutes of fame. They'll exercise that control and milk that significance for as long as they can.

Mmmkay, buddy.

This issue is not "the limelight," because, as I said, cruising is just not important to public health, which is the CDC's overriding consideration. 

Step back from the trees, Skier, and see the forest.

Just now, dswallow said:

 

Except that what, only 3 cruise ships have had any significant outbreak, and all were when few if any knew a thing about what was breaking out? And some of those as large as they were, because governments didn't handle them well and isolated people aboard the ship, basically being the cause of the outbreak spreading as it did?

COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships - Wikipedia


Haven't there been larger outbreaks traced to various political gatherings?

Or other things... The 25 Biggest COVID Outbreaks in America (msn.com)

And even today the guidelines from the CDC still barely even acknowledge any differences of behavior for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. And they completely ignore gatherings exclusively of vaccinated people.

Political gatherings are not industries of the sort that the person to whom I was replying was referring to when he complained that the cruise industry is being held to a higher standard.  The CDC doesn't have jurisdiction to prevent political gatherings or, indeed, most kinds of land-based activity.  But they DO have jurisdiction to prevent the spread of communicable disease by ship.  They have the power (it's not a power grab--they already have the power) to restrict cruise lines and other kinds of maritime activity, too.

In the end, the hard fact is that the people here, including me, really love cruising, but what we all really love is really frivolous and, therefore, not worth taking public health risks with.  Stick the bigwigs at CDC with truth serum and that's what they'll tell you.  Airports, meat packing plants, industrial facilities, and similar productive economic activity are just more important than cruising.  If CDC could have forbidden people from engaging in frivolities like casino gaming and house parties, they probably would have, but they don't have that power.

On 5/10/2021 at 2:23 PM, Big_G said:

When an argument side steps the real issue, which is why an industry is being held to higher standard, my opinion is they are wrong.  That doesn't always translate to a victory for the plaintiff. There are othrer issues that come into play including politics.

Sidesteps the issue of the cruise industry being treated differently?  Ah, no.  From the brief:

"These experiences demonstrated that cruise ships are uniquely suited to spread COVID-19, likely due to their close quarters for passengers and crew for prolonged periods, and other factors."  You may not like that argument, but it's not a dodge.  And the fact that Defendants make other legal arguments does not constitute a dodge, either.

22 minutes ago, BeachyBrowns said:

...

 

Anecdotally, I would estimate the number of kids on the summer/holiday Royal sailings I've been on at higher than 10% of the overall passenger populace and (kids + teens) at well over 15%, perhaps 20% or more.

 

EDIT: Looking back, I realized I have never even been on a midsummer sailing--my impressions are from non-peak-family sailings, and kids are everywhere on Oasis-class ships even then!  (It just feels like summer when you're sailing the Caribbean.)  Our Thanksgiving 2019 Allure OTS sailing had tons of kids, to the extent that we were unable to book several time slots in Royal Babies and Tots, even days in advance.  The point is, on a summer sailing on an Oasis-class ship, an allowance of 5% unvaccinated passengers will not even cover all the kids, much less any unvaccinated adults with faked vaccination cards.

https://www.cruise1st.co.uk/blog/cruise-holidays/how-old-is-the-average-cruise-passenger/

See the image below, apparently with data from CLIA.  If that's correct--and that's the average across adult-oriented lines like Holland America as well as family-friendly lines like Royal--then there are still going to be plenty of kids left out, especially during the summer.

Anecdotally, I would estimate the number of kids on the summer/holiday Royal sailings I've been on at higher than 10% of the overall passenger populace and (kids + teens) at well over 15%, perhaps 20% or more.

16 hours ago, Stallion said:

Cruise Lines need to call his bluff--announce their intention to sail in mid-July with requirements for vaccination cards so they can certify compliance with CDC guidelines and let him file his lawsuit and request for temporary injunction. He has cornered himself into a corner with an extremely weak argument. He'll never get the temporary injunction because he doesn't have control over the requirements for international travel

 

 

Tony from La Lido Loca bemoans the negative effects of politics, but this is a great example of how the politics of "owning the Libs" trumps everything for DeSantis.  He could be cooperating with CDC's efforts to make sure ships sail safely, but that wouldn't help him politically, so he doesn't do it.

I posted the above a while ago, but we have final payment looming for our August 7 cruise, and the circumstances have changed.  

Will the cruise be cancelled?  Depends on which route Royal goes with it.  If they go the test sailing route, it will surely not go, because there is not enough time to staff the ship, run the test sailings, and jump through the other hoops required.  No worries there.  If they go the 95% vaccinated route, the sailing might go, but our kids won't be able to be vaccinated.  I am very concerned about that possibility, so I called Royal's customer service and spoke to an agent.  She did her best to be reassuring, but I am not very reassured.

At first, the agent didn't understand what I was saying when I described our situation--she thought I was saying we didn't want to be vaccinated.  (My wife and I are, and I wish our children were.)  Then, when I made it clear that we wouldn't have the option of having our kids vaccinated, however we might wish to, she said that Royal would give us "every accommodation" in the event that our sailing goes but we can't go on it.  She was not able to tell me what "every accommodation" meant, specifically (nor would I expect her to, but I was hoping for something more specific than that).

Now we are deciding whether to make final payment and possibly be stuck with nothing better than the Cruise with Confidence 100% FCC, which of course devalues with the passage of time, or just to cancel now and get our deposit refunded.

16 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Then they should in no way be promoting their cruise line as being dedicated to safe cruising.  They should not be making claims that their vaccine policy and other health protocols will ensure a safe and healthy cruise for their guests.  I understand that they are concerned about liability, and certainly guests will be signing away whatever rights they have if in fact their cruise goes south or they become infected or ill.  But if you cannot assure people that you have a plan in place to prevent those who are not in compliance with the rules from boarding, then just fess up and admit that it will be a crap shoot and best of luck to everyone.  For sailing out of the US, those lines that are going to mandate vaccines will certainly be hard pressed by the CDC to prevent fraud and to enforce the rules.  

That’s not exactly realistic for a corporation desperate to get back to its billion-dollar money-making enterprise, is it?  Brutal honesty is not going to entice many people.

14 hours ago, Keksie said:

Why would anyone fear criticism from random strangers on social media?  

Are you asking why social media is the way it is?  People care—way too much—about what is said to and about them on social media.  Given what we have seen about the deleterious effects of social media on society, you could just insist that people ignore others’ statements or not take them seriously, which is also an option IRL, but people don’t do that.  They do take it seriously, and they do feel social pressure.  That’s another of those corollaries of free speech: that speech will affect people’s thoughts and behaviors.  If it didn’t, there would be no need to protect it, because speech itself would be powerless.

5 hours ago, Keksie said:

There is an ignore feature if you feel that way.  I personally think that giving alternate viewpoints and stats is a healthy way to have free speech.  Not everyone has to have the same viewpoint as you do (at least not in America).

The corollary to the idea of free speech that no one seems to remember is that everyone else is just as free to call out stupidity when they see it.  "Free speech" does not mean that anyone can say anything without fear of paying a social price for it in the form of criticism.

On 4/23/2021 at 1:16 PM, djjoe said:

I'll probably get flamed for this post, but here goes. The Royal Caribbean cruises outside of the USA require the vaccine, why can't we. ...  By summer there's no reason why we can't get back to sea feeling comfortable aboard a ship knowing that all guests are fully vaccinated.

 

Probably because of this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/18/scams-coronavirus-vaccination-cards/

Royal doesn't want to do what would have to be done to ensure, with legal liability at stake, that everyone is in fact vaccinated and not just claiming to be vaccinated.  And I don't blame them.  I have no idea how they would catch the liars, but it would be expensive and probably intrusive, with the potential for some bad publicity, however they might do it.  I wish there were an easy way to make absolutely sure that people are vaccinated.  That would make the situation much simpler.

7 hours ago, Biker19 said:

Are you sure?

Yes, I am sure that cruise lines will not permanently cut young and middle-age adults with children out of their customer base.  I am quite sure of that.  Even if there are kid-free cruises as a stepping stone to full cruises, they will not be the permanent business model.

1 hour ago, dswallow said:

 

Cruises of 100% vaccinated would really be little different than the population in general having reached a high level of vaccination, better really since it'd be 100% vaccinated, not 80-90%. The doom and gloom is directed at a mixed population and always ignores the idea of looking at outcomes where you've gatherd only vaccinated people together in the controlled environment of a cruise ship.

Sure, but kids have to be factored in, and they can’t get vaccinated right now.  A 100% vaccinated cruise would have no kids on it.  And the lines are not about to disallow kids on cruises.  They would essentially shut out my demographic.  The consequence of the vaccine hesitancy in the article I posted is that the kids of the hesitant won’t get vaccinated either, and we won’t get to the vaccine uptake threshold we need for a very long time.  

10 hours ago, dswallow said:

99.992% of fully vaccinated people have dodged COVID, CDC data shows | Ars Technica

And here's the sad complement to that: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-15/unused-vaccines-are-piling-up-across-u-s-as-some-regions-resist

WE WON'T GET TO CRUISE AS NORMAL UNTIL 75-80% OF THE POPULATION IS VACCINATED, PEOPLE.  The half-capacity, masked-and-distanced cruises aren't going to satisfy cruisers or cruise lines for long.

Does anyone realize how few issues out there get 85% support?  Play this game with yourself: read through the comments on this thread and then guess what the percentages would be based on them.  You might guess over 50% support, but you would never guess 85%.

(This is why universal background check measures fail in Congress, BTW, despite having similar levels of support.)

5 hours ago, ace2542 said:

The CDC will because they want to destroy the cruise industry.

OK, bro.  If conspiracy theorizing is what makes you happy, you do you.

On 3/21/2021 at 8:17 AM, WorldTraveler151208 said:

Do you think it's fair that the RCCL and Celebrity Cruises already require the Covid-19 vaccine for the Odyssey, Adventure, and Millennium cruises, given that currently in most countries younger people don't have the chance to get vaccinated even if they want?  For example in many European Union countries  and Canada, the vaccination process is very slow.  Most people will probably not be able to get vaccinated in the coming months, and Odyssey of the seas sailing in Israel and Greece since May will accept only fully vaccinated guests. Isn't that a kind of discrimination?

It is discrimination in a sense, but it's not discrimination against a marginalized group.  No one is being oppressed.

That said, the cries of discrimination, oppression, and bias against vaccine-hesitant people are EXACTLY what the CDC and the cruise lines don't want to have to deal with, even though such claims of unfair treatment are ludicrous.  They don't want to be seen to be contributing to the stratification of society along Covid lines.  So, even though vaccination is the overwhelming factor in the safe restart of cruising, they don't want to mandate it.

2 hours ago, ace2542 said:

Sounds like the CDC intend to mandate mask wearing forever as I have said all along. After all how can you eliminate the risk without mask wearing plus vaccination? Not just vaccination alone.

CDC do not intend to eliminate all risk of Covid; they just don't want a significant outbreak on a cruise ship to happen on their watch.  They clearly consider cruising to be just about the highest-risk, least important activity possible, which means that it's the last to get the go-ahead.  Once herd immunity has been reached through vaccination, there will be no more mandatory mask wearing anywhere.  People will not stand for it, and CDC will not insist on it. 

Covid will always be with us.  Some people will get sick with it every year, just like they get sick from flu, cold, norovirus, etc.  Some of those infections will inevitably happen on cruise ships.  We just have to get past the point where the consequence of a few Covid infections is similar to the consequence of a few cruisers showing flu symptoms on a cruise: very little chance of hospitalization and no disruption to the cruise.  We're not there yet.  Covid is somewhere in between common cold and measles on the "oh $#!+" scale: many people could show symptoms of a cold, and there would be no cause for alarm; one person could show symptoms of measles, and there would be huge cause for alarm.  (If one case of measles were found on a cruise ship, the captain would know about it immediately, and the cruise would end abruptly and serious measures taken--https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/12/health/scientology-cruise-ship-measles-immunity.)  The fact that we weren't required to wear masks on cruises to stop measles outbreaks is because the measles vaccine has been so incredibly effective at nearly (though not entirely) eradicating the disease in the places where cruising happens.  We have to get close, though not completely, to that place with Covid.

13 minutes ago, mek said:

I don't think that's totally true.  I think there are many like me who think that the first ships should be sailing only with vaccinated passengers and crew - no exceptions because that is the quickest way the CDC will finally let cruises restart from US ports.

 

FTR, I agree with you, and I don't have a problem with the cruise line telling me my kids can't cruise at first--I just want to be given the same options as others who are prevented from cruising by Royal's decision, not theirs.

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

If you look at the FAQ that Royal put out for their sailings outside the US, it says that if you are unable to meet the vaccine requirement by the time of your voyage you can cancel but will only receive FCC, not a full refund.  But of course those cruises allow for unvaccinated children under 16 AND people booking understand what the rules are before making a decision to book.  IF Royal starts in the US requiring all vaccinated crew and passengers (no exceptions; no unvaccinated children) then anyone booked on a cruise before that decision is made it could be handled the same way.  They may take a hardline and say that they have the right to change terms and conditions of sailing, but that will obviously NOT go over well with customers who booked BEFORE the decision date.  Maybe they will do what NCL is doing by offering a full cash refund for anyone who booked any of their cruises before the date they put out their vaccine announcement.  That would seem to be a fair approach.

You’re right—that hard line approach would not go down well with us.  
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

OK, let's say Royal follows Norwegian's lead and requires that its first cruises be entirely vaccinated with no exceptions.  Let's also say Royal and Norwegian's combined influence sways the CDC to such an extent that my early August sailing actually sails.  My booking includes my 2 children, who cannot be vaccinated, though my wife and I are.  Knowing Royal as you do, do you think Royal will consider my booking "cancelled" by Royal, so that I can take advantage of 125% FCC or Lift & Shift?  Let's hope so, but I'm not feeling confident about that.

1 hour ago, crewsweeper said:

Well, despite being asked for scientific evidence that masks work and giving no answer, Dr. F.  says even vaccinated wear 2 masks.  Even though the CDC says vaccinated people don't spread COVID and it's okay to mingle, Dr. F. says wear 2 masks and prepare for surge #4.  Even though areas with very strict lockdowns has just as many cases as those more open (COVID is APOLITICAL) , Dr. F. says wear two masks and stay inside with the germs in the air. 

So as long as Dr. F. says wear 2 masks, cruise lines will require masks.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Dr. Fauci does not need to waste his time saying repeatedly, yes, the science says that masks work.

On 4/9/2021 at 3:50 PM, smokeybandit said:

This is so false it's not funny.

 

Covid is killing more 1) because it targets elderly and those medically vulnerable, and 2) because we use a totally different way to record covid deaths as we do flu deaths. Flu deaths are estimated based on those who 1) test positive, 2) see a doctor and 3) are hospitalized. Covid deaths are merely dying within 30 days of testing positive or showing covid symptoms without a positive test.

 

Mitigation efforts haven't worked anywhere except small island nations who can get away with completely closing their borders.  Take a look at regional data in the USA.  Take states with severe mitigations efforts put along side states with limited mitigation efforts. Their covid trends are IDENTICAL.

 

But then there's this: https://www.wane.com/community/health/coronavirus/covid-19-precautions-lead-to-historic-lows-in-flu-cases-across-indiana/

And this: https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/covid-19-precautions-drive-down-flu-cases/

And this: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/flu-cases-decline-dramatically-this-season

And about a million others corroborating those.

Gee, who to believe, experts or some guy on the Internet?  I'll take the experts, thanks.  "Oh, but I know better than the so-called 'experts.'"  That bit is getting old.

There's plenty of arguing to do on this thread, but here's my take on the OP:

CDC would be fine with cruising restarting, as long as there is no statistically significant increase in cases related to cruising that CDC would be blamed for, given that they seem to have unique power to stop cruising altogether.

Here's the problem: in order to sail on an enclosed ship safely, there needs to be solid evidence that vaccines prevent Covid from spreading on the ship.  Why are vaccines so important?  Because CDC knows that the performative "cruises to nowhere" with restricted capacity and mandatory masking and distancing are not going to satisfy the cruise lines or cruisers for very long.  Both cruisers and cruise lines want things as close to normal as they used to be.  I sure do.

In order to accumulate that evidence, there must be test cruises of vaccinated people in which there are no outbreaks.  In order to allow test cruises, CDC must be satisfied that the variants that are driving the stall in case decreases are also controlled by the vaccine; CDC is clearly not satisfied with that evidence yet.  And they are in a no-win situation: they will not get credit for allowing cruises to restart; they will only be blamed for the first cruise ship outbreak, if it occurs.  They would rather be the bad guys urging caution than cave to pressure to restart and then have to answer for an avoidable outbreak.  

So, CDC cover their rear end.  They require lines to jump through unrealistic hoops to restart cruising, thereby allowing them to say, "welp, we did all we could to prevent Covid from spreading on cruise ships."  They don't care whether cruising, which is near the bottom of the list of human activities in importance, restarts; they just want to keep their public health credibility intact.

1 hour ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

 

Good question. 

 

I'm no epidemiologist, but could it be due to the difference in R naught between the flu and covid?  R naught for the flu is apparently 1-2 new infections per case, whereas covid is apparently 2-3 infections per case. 

 

Mathematically that should make a huge difference over time.  Maybe you'd need much better compliance to tame covid (without vaccines).

Spot on, without the "maybe."  You DO need much better compliance to tame Covid in the absence of vaccines.  In fact, the experience with the virus before vaccines is decent proof that you need more compliance than people are generally willing to engage in.