Paul Bogle

5 minutes ago, npcl said:

Because even for the best antibody test that currently exists (95 specificity)for every 100 people tested 5 will get a false positive.  So at current infection levels over most of the US you will have approximately as many false positives as you will true positives.

 

Also while the test might show antibodies, it does not necessarily show level of those antibodies and that they might convey any level of immunity.  Even a titer test of antibodies, will not give that information because no one knows what level of antibodies are necessary for immunity.

Again....we were discussing a hypothetical world in which antibody tests were highly accurate and demonstrated immunity. 

Selective reading causes these misunderstandings. Please read more closely.

15 hours ago, pmd98052 said:

Perhaps if you pass an antibody test prior to boarding, wear masks, and can prove you have immunity;

I took this as a hypothetical.

14 hours ago, Paul Bogle said:

If a person passes an antibody test and can prove immunity, why should such a person be required to wear a mask?

I responded to the hypothetical.

8 hours ago, gizfish said:

Since antibody tests just prove exposure to the virus, and at this point (and probably for the foreseeable future) there is absolutely no way to prove immunity,

58 minutes ago, pmd98052 said:

Cruising if you're in a high risk group (over 70, over weight, asthma, high blood pressure, CPAP, diabetes etc) isn't going to be a risk cruise lines are going to take.

 

Perhaps if you pass an antibody test prior to boarding, wear masks, and can prove you have immunity; but again not enough is known about the disease to even know if that helps. NCL/CCL etc are not going to risk getting sued by people in high risk groups who can't prove they've already had this and scientists prove that once you've had this you cannot get it again.

 

 

If you are in a high risk group you shouldn't consider a cruise until a vaccine is developed.

I think cruise lines will deal with this by requiring passengers to sign a liability waiver informing them of the risks of covid 19, the mitigation techniques the line is using and the passenger is ultimately responsible for the decision to cruise and the risks and costs that may come with that decision.

If a person passes an antibody test and can prove immunity, why should such a person be required to wear a mask?

Bahamas Paradise is a hybrid which is more ferry service than cruise line. The fact that Grand Bahama Island is open to hosting tourism soon is a very good sign that short cruises to the Bahamas may restart this year.

I know you can book onboard. If space is available on the next cruise I don't see any reason why they wouldn't allow you to book it. What I don't understand is why you want to do this. If you know you want to book b2b2b and know when you want to go and are happy with the current offerings why not book now? CN certs are fully transferable. You should have no issue buying for of them for $125 each which is what you will pay onboard.

As far as Blue water and cruising goes, change the language from distant foreign port to foreign port and most of this problem goes away. As I understand it and I know you will correct me if I'm wrong....this provision is a relic of the original Jones act passed after the Civil War. The idea was to protect the US merchant fleet operating at home from foreign competition. That may have been prudent at that time. The distant part (meaning South America) was an intentional loophole to allow foreign ships to carry passengers and cargo between the east coast and the west coast. At that time there wasn't anything close to the domestic capacity needed to meet demand as California grew. 

What we really need are sunset requirement for all laws forcing them to be reviewed and updated or at least voted on again, perhaps every ten years. Our failure to do so is making our country less efficient and less competitive slowly over time.

9 minutes ago, Cruising Lynne said:

This thread has devolved way off topic 😒 

No it hasn't. It's the same course all his threads follow.

Earlier in this thread I suggested we allow foreign flagged vessels to operate where no domestic provider operates. I think that is a very good place to start. Since this all will need to be done through waivers we can set rational guidelines that protect workers' rights while providing needed services which otherwise would go unfulfilled. These ideas should apply to both the PVSA and Jones act. The specifics will require debate and give and take. The one size fits all does not work well.

The domestic build requirement should go without regard to the above. We do not require aircraft, trains, cars, trucks, bicycles etc. to be domestically made. Sensitive military equipment whether ships planes or tanks are built under national security laws. That should not change though specific regulations should be periodically reviewed for efficacy.

10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And, yet, when you talk about the PVSA, it is not simply about blue water cruise lines.  Until there is a change in the definition of a passenger vessel, at the international level via the IMO, because you are dealing with international law, then a water taxi is just as much a passenger vessel as the Oasis of the Seas, and the PVSA applies to both equally.

All G20 nations have laws similar to the USA's PVSA. Does any other G20 nation define a compliant vessel as meeting all four of the following:

1) Domestically Built

2) Domestically Owned

3) Predominantly Domestically Crewed

4) Domestically Flagged

Other than the USA, none that I am aware of.

I think we can amend the PVSA to make blue water voyages more rational without damaging dinner cruises  and water taxis.

I think we can allow the operators of dinner cruises and water taxis to purchase ships made in the USA or abroad without risking the health or safety of their passengers.

You imply that the PVSA is a Jenga tower that will collapse if just one block is moved. I do not believe that to be true.

3 minutes ago, Waquoit said:

How is NCL not on top of this? Why is all the risk on the customer?

I agree it's bad form on the part of NCL and seems to me it should be easier to avoid. 

Unfortunately the customer bares the risk because the customer agrees to pay all fines associated with a violation when they agree to NCL's contract of carriage. NCL is responsible to not provide such cruises but the penalty ultimately falls on the passenger.

8 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

Are we saying that the OP would be OK if they were booked as two separate trips?
I mean, they settle the bill and disembark then go through security and reebark in a completely different stateroom.

 

If so, is this not possible, could the OP just cancel one part of the B2B and rebook it as a completely different booking. 

The PVSA doesn't concern itself with the booking arrangements made by the shipping company. It concerns itself with where the passenger first embarks the ship and where the passenger permanently disembarks the ship. The reason for this is to avoid creating loopholes which the shipping company could use to circumvent the law.

I really would like to see an ICU bed being wheeled into any cabin that isn't directly open to a stairwell. There isn't any way to turn 90 degrees in those narrow hallways.

Every couple booking an ocean view and above gets an inside cabin thrown in for free.

(a nominal service charge of 50% of a one person inside fare will be added to your bill for your convenience.)

15 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Uh, no.  It was being built for American Hawaiian Cruise Line with US government loan guarantees.  When American Hawaiian went bankrupt, the US government was saddled with paying those loan guarantees, until NCL made the agreement to pay for the ship, and get the right to flag in two ships under US flag and get PVSA exemptions for those two ships.  There was no taxpayer subsidy to NCL for the POA.

The Project America loan guarantees cost MARAD $180 million. That is 180 million taxpayer dollars to make Northrup Grumman's Ingalls Shipyard whole and make the sale of the hull and the parts for the second ship economically viable for NCL. I never claimed NCL negotiated a check from the federal government.

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

What I am talking about are the hundreds or thousands of vessels that are PVSA compliant, and are working in the US.  Please do not look at the PVSA from the narrow perspective of the cruise industry.  PVSA applies to ferries, commuter boats, water taxis, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, dinner cruises, casino boats, diving and snorkeling excursion boats and large charter fishing vessels.

We are chatting on a blue water cruise line forum. Discussions in this light are eminently appropriate.

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

You are correct, that the exemption still exists, and as njhorseman notes, it is used seasonally.  While the restrictions of the PVSA may be superfluous in Puerto Rico, they still apply to many vessels operating and carrying passengers in the US today.

Of course they still apply. They are protecting us from the risk of noncompliant ships carrying passengers from Alaska to Hawaii. Carrying them to Vancouver, kicking them off and loading up a new batch for the Hawaii runs seems to be safe. I guess one must be more experienced with the workings of maritime operations to understand why any of this is either logical or beneficial to the broad American public.

3 minutes ago, Budget Queen said:

The POA is not any exception.   It complies fully with the policy.    

And was built with substantial taxpayer subsidies.

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This has been done in the past.  The cruise lines and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption for Puerto Rico.  Only one cruise line decided to start one way itineraries to/from Puerto Rico to the US mainland, Carnival, and the service only lasted a little over a year, before it folded for lack of demand.  The cruise lines see no benefit to their bottom line from an amendment or repeal of the PVSA.

My understanding is that the exemption for conveying humans to and from Puerto Rico still exists as long as a PVSA qualified vessel isn't offering the service.

"As of October 30, 2003, foreign vessels are also allowed to transport passengers (but not cargo) between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (46 USC § 55104). However, this exemption will disappear if U.S.-flagged ships resume passenger operations of this type."

As you noted it isn't the Cruise Vessel Services act. If no foreign or domestic provider wants to offer the service the restrictions are superfluous.

How about repealing the PVSA or amending it to allow foreign flagged ships to operate where PVSA qualified ships do not?

3 minutes ago, pcakes122 said:

In some of those instances I was referring to the general public and in others I was asking your opinion (in other words "dont you agree?) omg lol.  

 

I don't want to give an English lesson here but look up the definition of "you".  It can either mean "you personally" or "people in general" based on context.

 

Maybe you took it personally because that's the way you feel? But we never discussed at any point your personal view on masks so I certainly was not commenting on that.

Clearly it was a misunderstanding. 

Since second and third person use the same pronouns in our language I try to avoid using "you" when I quote someone unless I am directing it at whom I quote.

4 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

no i havent . im not into river cruises so much. 

I'm not interested in river cruising on the Mississippi or Columbia river. Cruising from Amsterdam to Budapest was exquisite. Let me know when those cruises start again.

As I understand the virus now, masks in public will be necessary until:

1) a vaccine ends this pandemic.

2) It is reliably demonstrated that those with antibodies cannot spread the virus. In such case those with antibodies are exempt.

I'm saddened but not surprised that some people oppose wearing masks. I do think that when the WHO, CDC and other authoritative bodies recommended against wearing them as late as March, then slowly did an about face with the explanation being it was a noble lie. There are no noble lies. Lying spreads distrust.

4 minutes ago, pcakes122 said:

It's that's true don't you think it's even more important for people to wear masks?  If you are seemingly healthy but unable to easily get a test to confirm that you don't have the virus, isn't wearing a mask to protect others the minimum you would want to do?   This is what I don't understand about people who don't want to wear masks.

2 minutes ago, pcakes122 said:

Where did you get the idea that I said that you were opposed to masks? 

I guess it was all the you's in your response to me.

Just now, pcakes122 said:

It's that's true don't you think it's even more important for people to wear masks?  If you are seemingly healthy but unable to easily get a test to confirm that you don't have the virus, isn't wearing a mask to protect others the minimum you would want to do?   This is what I don't understand about people who don't want to wear masks.

Where did you get the idea I oppose wearing masks?

That is good news. Still I do not think testing for active virus in real time will ever be practical for determining who can get on a cruise ship or an airplane much less a NJ transit train or PATH or the New York subway.

1 minute ago, pcakes122 said:

I guess my question is one of social awareness and responsibility.  If you knew you could be a SILENT carrier of a potential deadly disease, and there was a simple test to confirm whether or not you were carrying the disease, would you take the test if no one forced you  before venturing into a group of people?

Unfortunately there isn't and likely never will be a simple and quick way to discover if someone is a "SILENT" carrier. The test for active virus is the mucus swab test which requires a lab and time to process. 

Only tracing of positive virus tests can ring fence active virus. This requires a robust regimen of active virus testing combined with an ability to trace contacts a positive test result had.

The antibody test is quick and simple. It provides valuable information also. It tells us who had the disease and perhaps isn't at risk of being a carrier. Both tests are necessary until treatments or vaccination can make at risk communities safer.