PRINCESS SHIPS & CORONA VIRUS

[npcl]

1 minute ago, cruiser man 60 said:

Given the above , should everyone traveling from USA be out in quarantine for 14 days to stop the spread!!

the Flu, Noro and Strep and much shorter incubation times.   If one decided that they needed quarantine the length would vary based upon the illness.  Noro for example does not spread until symptoms exist and then by surface contact, not an URI, So there quarantine is only a few days.

[npcl]

2 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

It's good to follow protocol, but we are dealing with unknown here.  How can they guarantee that it doesn't spread from room to room?  

SARS spread through the toilet pipe connecting all the apartment units inside quarantined buildings.  Is the ship different how they do plumbing on the ship vs in apartment?  

The only case of SARS spreading through plumbing was through a building where the P-trap seals were defective. Not a normal situation.

[Earthworm Jim]

35 minutes ago, Mrs CruisinCritter said:

 

I am not surprised. It’s ravaging the East coast right now. We live in WV and they have had to close school systems in several counties throughout eastern KY, western WV, and southern OH due to Influenza A and B. Strep is also making the rounds again along with a nasty stomach bug. These are my biggest worries on a cruise ship right now when sailing out of the US. Along with the dreaded norovirus of course. Yuck! 

 

A "stomach bug" IS norovirus. (Or possibly rotavirus, but that's normally just in babies and very young children who stick their hands in their mouth.)

 

Everyone seems to think norovirus is just a cruise ship thing, but that's just because it only makes the news when there is a cruise ship outbreak. The rest of the time people just call it a stomach bug or stomach flu and don't make the connection.

[Mrs CruisinCritter]

12 minutes ago, cruiser man 60 said:

Given the above , should everyone traveling from USA be out in quarantine for 14 days to stop the spread!!

I don’t believe I said that, did I? I was just replying to the person I quoted as we were discussing the uptick in flu cases in the US. 

Besides, if I were that worried about catching something then I would never leave my house, but I’m not so I am out and about every day. I even venture into Walmart at least once or twice a week for groceries because we don’t have much else as far as grocery stores go where I live. Talk about walking into a Petri dish...

 

 

[kent9xxx1]

5 minutes ago, npcl said:

The only case of SARS spreading through plumbing was through a building where the P-trap seals were defective. Not a normal situation.

 

Except it was multiple buildings.  Btw, how do you know the Diamond Princess plumbing is sound?  Isn't this the kind of risk I've been pointing out?  Why the extra risk by confining everyone on a small quarter on a ship?  That is always my point.  They are taking risky action because "protocol"  

 

Ok, if you are on that ship, and you get a choice of getting quarantined on land vs. quarantined in your cabin, what do you prefer?  

[Earthworm Jim]

Just now, kent9xxx1 said:

 

Except it was multiple buildings.  Btw, how do you know the Diamond Princess plumbing is sound?  Isn't this the kind of risk I've been pointing out?  Why the extra risk by confining everyone on a small quarter on a ship?  That is always my point.  They are taking risky action because "protocol"  

 

Ok, if you are on that ship, and you get a choice of getting quarantined on land vs. quarantined in your cabin, what do you prefer?  

 

They aren't being quarantined to protect the people on the ship. They are being quarantined to protect the people on land. And keeping everyone on the ship is the most efficient way to accomplish that, regardless of whether it's best for the pax or not.

[kent9xxx1]

3 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

They aren't being quarantined to protect the people on the ship. They are being quarantined to protect the people on land. And keeping everyone on the ship is the most efficient way to accomplish that, regardless of whether it's best for the pax or not.

 

This is a false narrative.  They took 61 infected people from the ship to land.  

Whatever they are doing is not protecting the people on land.  Protecting the people on land would mean refuse the ship from start and send them away like the case in Manila and Taiwan.  

 

If they decide to treat them, then it's better to quarantine them on land.  That's very simple.  

[Earthworm Jim]

4 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

 

This is a false narrative.  They took 61 infected people from the ship to land.  

Whatever they are doing is not protecting the people on land.  Protecting the people on land would mean refuse the ship from start and send them away like the case in Manila and Taiwan.  

 

If they decide to treat them, then it's better to quarantine them on land.  That's very simple.  

 

Those people were known to be infected, and I'm not suggesting they are callous enough to just let infected people on the ship die rather than isolating them and taking them to the hospital. But as for the rest of the pax, if you think this quarantine is to protect them rather than to protect the people of Japan, you're deluding yourself. Which also explains why you think it doesn't make sense; because you're assuming the wrong motivation.

[npcl]

3 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

 

Except it was multiple buildings.  Btw, how do you know the Diamond Princess plumbing is sound?  Isn't this the kind of risk I've been pointing out?  Why the extra risk by confining everyone on a small quarter on a ship?  That is always my point.  They are taking risky action because "protocol"  

 

Ok, if you are on that ship, and you get a choice of getting quarantined on land vs. quarantined in your cabin, what do you prefer?  

It was the  Amoy Garden apartment complex, all designed in the same way, all sharing the same issues. While people don't like it, the conditions on the cruise ship are pretty much the same as they would get on land quarantine.  Actually better in many ways.  The TV system is better with more options.  Quarantine on land and you would expect pretty much Japanese TV.  The only benefit might be larger rooms, but then again have spent a fair amount of time in Japan (where my usual comment about business class hotels was that either I or my suitcase could be in my room, but not both at the same time) any space for quarantine would not be large and would not be luxury. Probably no outside space, probably not even windows that open. Food prep would be Japanese. Actually from looking at the posted menus on the ship they tend to be looking Japanese like (stir fry lunch etc), and makes me wonder if food prep is being handled by MHW and not normal ship personnel.  I expect that you would be getting just as many complaints and issue as one is now seeing on ship

 

Ok try and find 1500 rooms for isolation for the passengers. Then deal with transportation while maintaining isolation, etc.

 

It is not going to happen.  The fastest way to clear quarantine is to keep them on ship.

 

Quarantine is first and foremost, intended to limit disease spread and clear potential victims as fast as possible. Comfort is second to the first 2 requirements.

[npcl]

Just now, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Those people were known to be infected, and I'm not suggesting they are callous enough to just let infected people on the ship die rather than isolating them and taking them to the hospital. But as for the rest of the pax, if you think this quarantine is to protect them rather than to protect the people of Japan, you're deluding yourself. Which also explains why you think it doesn't make sense; because you're assuming the wrong motivation.

Actually it is both.  It is design to protect those not infected from getting infected, It is designed to not spread the illness beyond the currently at risk population. It is designed to clear that population as soon as possible.  Protocols that are very similar to US protocols.  The major difference is the Japanese is faster to fully implement them.

 

Keep in mind that a large percentage of the passengers on the Diamond are Japanese.

[K.T.B.]

1 hour ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

Seems to be a lot of misinformation going around, especially the idea that the coronavirus isn't as dangerous as the "normal" flu.  Fact is, the flu kills about 1 in every 1000 people that contract it.  So far, the coronavirus worldwide has killed 1 in every 49 people that have contracted it.  That makes it 20 times more likely to kill you than the normal flu.  I highly recommend you take the disease serious and avoid areas/locations/situations that could infect you.  Good luck to those traveling in potentially bad areas either by necessity or by choice.

 

So far, every single death, with the exception of 1, has been a Chinese national.  The other one was in the Philippines.

 

Now I'm not sure what kind of healthcare the Chinese have (i.e. annual vaccinations for children, etc.), but the fact that 99.6% of the deaths so far are in China cannot be dismissed.  

[capriccio]

12 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

 

This is a false narrative.  They took 61 infected people from the ship to land.  

Whatever they are doing is not protecting the people on land. 

 

Those 61 passengers didn't just mosey off the ship.  I'm sure there were strict protocols for the transfers to the hospital so as not to expose accompanying medical staff, transportation providers, hospital staff, etc.

[npcl]

12 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

So far, every single death, with the exception of 1, has been a Chinese national.  The other one was in the Philippines.

 

Now I'm not sure what kind of healthcare the Chinese have (i.e. annual vaccinations for children, etc.), but the fact that 99.6% of the deaths so far are in China cannot be dismissed.  

Actually it can be at this time. For example:

 

1. Incubation time - As far as every area outside of China the virus is very limited.  It only be 6 days since the travel restrictions were put in place to the US.  Not even 1 full incubation period

2. The patients outside of China are in fully staffed hospitals with one or two patients with the illness.  The hospitals in China have hundreds and would be overwhelmed by that many requiring care (many requiring oxygen, intensive care, etc).  That would limit the quality of care. Even with SARS the death rate was lower outside of China than inside even with the far lower number of patients, though it was still pretty high outside.

3. It the stats are for 15 to 25% serious cases, and there have been 317 cases identified outside of China. That would make at most 80 serious case.  Since the disease even once it occurs may take time to progress to a serious state (one US case did not turn serious until 9 days after the first symptoms).  So out of the 80 potentially serious cases many may not have progressed to that level yet.

 

 

Give it a couple of months see if data supports the same claim.  With 14 day incubation time impacts are not immediate.  To put it perspective SARS had about 9000 patients over a 9 month period.

Edited February 7, 2020 by npcl

[USCcruisecrazy]

11 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

So far, every single death, with the exception of 1, has been a Chinese national.  The other one was in the Philippines.

 

Now I'm not sure what kind of healthcare the Chinese have (i.e. annual vaccinations for children, etc.), but the fact that 99.6% of the deaths so far are in China cannot be dismissed.  

Not debating where any of the deaths have occurred...just the fact that the virus is nothing to take lightly.  I pray for the lives of all of God's children, not just the ones with good healthcare.  The point being...the virus is dangerous and should be treated as such.  BTW: the flu stats are based on worldwide deaths, so not just deaths in countries with first world healthcare...they still don't even come close statistically to the coronavirus. 

[kent9xxx1]

20 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Those people were known to be infected, and I'm not suggesting they are callous enough to just let infected people on the ship die rather than isolating them and taking them to the hospital. But as for the rest of the pax, if you think this quarantine is to protect them rather than to protect the people of Japan, you're deluding yourself. Which also explains why you think it doesn't make sense; because you're assuming the wrong motivation.

 

What makes you think that I think quarantine is only to protect the people on the ship?  I know what quarantine means.  When Japan decided to quarantine them, no one is infected.  The guy who eventually got infected left the ship 5 days prior.  

[npcl]

2 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

 

What makes you think that I think quarantine is only to protect the people on the ship?  I know what quarantine means.  When Japan decided to quarantine them, no one is infected.  The guy who eventually got infected left the ship 5 days prior.  

Japan decided to quarantine only a couple of days ago when the ship arrived. At that time there were certainly people showing symptoms, enough that 273 were tested (those showing symptoms and considered to be at high risk).  Out of those 273 test 61 came back with positive results.  All of which were certainly infected prior to the start of quarantine.

[kent9xxx1]

For people who are readily branding anyone who thinks the situation could have been handled better "fear mongering", tell me what do you prefer?  Land quarantine or ship quarantine?  

If you prefer to be on the ship, then you are in the right forum.  🙂

[kent9xxx1]

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

Japan decided to quarantine only a couple of days ago when the ship arrived. At that time there were certainly people showing symptoms, enough that 273 were tested (those showing symptoms and considered to be at high risk).  Out of those 273 test 61 came back with positive results.  All of which were certainly infected prior to the start of quarantine.

 

You speak with absolute certainty.  How do you know for sure the quarantine didn't infect any of the 61 people?  

[voljeep]

1 minute ago, kent9xxx1 said:

 

You speak with absolute certainty.  How do you know for sure the quarantine didn't infect any of the 61 people?  

lots of 'absolute certainty' type posts on this topic

 

what are all of your  specific qualifications ?

[npcl]

6 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

For people who are readily branding anyone who thinks the situation could have been handled better "fear mongering", tell me what do you prefer?  Land quarantine or ship quarantine?  

If you prefer to be on the ship, then you are in the right forum.  🙂

I would prefer to stay out of quarantine, because it is never pleasant in side a land based or ship based facility. Fortunately quarantine regulations to the point that they have been activated now is seldom used. If I am on ship, I would expect to be quarantined on ship, if coming in by plane I would expect to be on land,  Though I would not be surprised if a country would use a cruise ship (if one was available) to house quarantine individuals if they do not have a facility on land for a large number of individuals.

 

To put it in perspective the space identified on the 1st of may was to set up space at 5 locations, each able to handle 200 people on military bases.  So to quarantine one ship would take 50% more space than all that the US set aside on May 1st.

Edited February 7, 2020 by npcl

[kent9xxx1]

25 minutes ago, capriccio said:

 

Those 61 passengers didn't just mosey off the ship.  I'm sure there were strict protocols for the transfers to the hospital so as not to expose accompanying medical staff, transportation providers, hospital staff, etc.

 

There would be strict protocols to quarantine the entire ship on land, too. 

Just now, voljeep said:

lots of 'absolute certainty' type posts on this topic

 

what are all of your  specific qualifications ?

where is the absolute certainty from my end?  I have always maintained from the beginning there is no certainty.  What are you asking?  

[npcl]

8 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

 

You speak with absolute certainty.  How do you know for sure the quarantine didn't infect any of the 61 people?  

On that I am absolutely certain the tests were taken when the ship arrived, during the 24 hour period before quarantine was even started.  The 61 current patients were all identified from that initial sent of test.  Thus they had to have the virus before the quarantine even started. Because the tests were already off ship before quarantine started. It took 3 days before all the results were in.

 

Now since even before quarantine was started some of them were showing symptoms and thus probably infecting others necessitating the need for a quarantine as long as the observed max incubation time.  It can be expected that additional cases will develop during the 14 days from transfer that occurred prior to the isolation period.

Edited February 7, 2020 by npcl

[kent9xxx1]

You are correct if they tested those 260+ people immediately.  Then 61 people who got it didn't get it because they were under quarantined.  

 

Let's wait and see if the other people are getting it in a few days.  

[Felix331]

For everyone talking about the south pacific changes, this is due to the measles outbreak going on there. Samoa wants proof of cruise passengers having the MMR vaccine or they won't take the ship. Hence why it was cancelled and why Fiji had been cancelled on previous cruises as well. 

[npcl]

5 minutes ago, kent9xxx1 said:

You are correct if they tested those 260+ people immediately.  Then 61 people who got it didn't get it because they were under quarantined.  

 

Let's wait and see if the other people are getting it in a few days.  

With an incubation time of up to 14 days you can expect additional cases that were infected prior to quarantine all the way up to the end of quarantine.

 

The more interesting question is how will they handle other people in the same cabin as someone that develops symptoms during the quarantine period.  Technically anyone in the same cabin with someone developing symptoms should be quarantined for 14 days after their last contact with that person.