What are the chances of Fall Cruises being suspended?

[clo]

Oh, criminy (or however it's spelled), I hadn't read this before

 

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/is-it-safe-to-fly-coronavirus

 

This is sure likely to change but it got my attention.

[AF-1]

Ah, don't worry about the small stuff.  Most likely the two websites that state trials my take up to five years;  heck the virus by then will have burned out.  As for privacy;  after 911 the entire United States gave up their privacy with out knowing it. The new mandated drivers license with TSA approved stamp;  the gov't knows more about you than you think. Do you remember when you applied for that at your local motor vehicle office.  You had to bring your passport, a birth certificate; and some sort of bill before they issued you a new license.   Lenquiote66; you mention you don't pay bills online or do online banking.  If you truly believe no one knows where you live you are mistaken.  You posted on this website;  the FBI can track your address by pinging your isp address from this website.  Ok enough of Big Brother watching.  Lets get back to reality.  The main point of this thread is "What are the chances of Fall Cruises being suspended?  As of today 14 Apr;  I say things are looking good for cruises to be back in partial capacity by the fall.  That is my opinion and I base this on nothing concrete.  Gut feeling.  That's all.  

[ducklite]

On 3/30/2020 at 6:06 PM, clo said:

Huh? You're thinking that there will be a test that shows one HAD it but doesn't any more?

Yes, a titre test once fully developed will show this.  The level of antibodies in the blood will indicate if the person is currently ill or shedding the virus, or has had the virus in the past but is not currently able to shed it.  

[navybankerteacher]

2 minutes ago, ducklite said:

Yes, a titre test once fully developed will show this.  The level of antibodies in the blood will indicate if the person is currently ill or shedding the virus, or has had the virus in the past but is not currently able to shed it.  

A lot of the talking heads on TV keep discussing tests and test kits — without covering what their purpose is.  Of course, if someone has symptoms - or has some reason to believe he has been infected - it is important to test them to know how to proceed.

 

But for the need for someone to be tested simply to see if he is clean is less clear.  The test will only establish his/her situation as of the time the test swab is taken.   Unless we are thinking about testing people every day, it is kind of pointless for those without symptoms to be tested.

[clo]

35 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

A lot of the talking heads on TV keep discussing tests and test kits — without covering what their purpose is.  Of course, if someone has symptoms - or has some reason to believe he has been infected - it is important to test them to know how to proceed.

 

But for the need for someone to be tested simply to see if he is clean is less clear.  The test will only establish his/her situation as of the time the test swab is taken.   Unless we are thinking about testing people every day, it is kind of pointless for those without symptoms to be tested.

As I've said before my background in this is decades old but 'back then' you had to show a change in titer to get an accurate diagnosis. For instance a positive at a 1:32 dilution might show that you were once exposed or it could mean the beginning of an infection. If repeated and it had gone to 1: 256 then you could say 'yep, that's a positive.' Again, it may have be really different now. And the little test I see has two different immunoglobulins on the read out. So maybe one shows old and one shows current. I don't know.

[iancal]

No one really knows if cruises will operate in the fall and speculation at this point in time is quite pointless.

 

Our question would be...even if cruises are operating in the fall would we take one?   Our answer would be absolutely NOT.

Edited April 14, 2020 by iancal

[JRG]

8 minutes ago, iancal said:

and speculation at this point in time is quite pointless.

 

........I'm speculating that there will be a run on snugglies this fall.....north of the Mississippi.

 

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, clo said:

As I've said before my background in this is decades old but 'back then' you had to show a change in titer to get an accurate diagnosis. For instance a positive at a 1:32 dilution might show that you were once exposed or it could mean the beginning of an infection. If repeated and it had gone to 1: 256 then you could say 'yep, that's a positive.' Again, it may have be really different now. And the little test I see has two different immunoglobulins on the read out. So maybe one shows old and one shows current. I don't know.

Back to my question:  is there any point in testing people who do not exhibit symptoms (obviously other than those who need to have close interaction with at-risk persons) ? 

 

Why ?   What does it accomplish beyond using labs and personnel  to see if there is non-symptomatic infection?  And, if there is a point to doing it today, there would be the same point tomorrow --- meaning that everybody should be tested every day:  an extraordinary expenditure of resources.

[cruisemom42]

15 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Back to my question:  is there any point in testing people who do not exhibit symptoms (obviously other than those who need to have close interaction with at-risk persons) ? 

 

Why ?   What does it accomplish beyond using labs and personnel  to see if there is non-symptomatic infection?  And, if there is a point to doing it today, there would be the same point tomorrow --- meaning that everybody should be tested every day:  an extraordinary expenditure of resources.

 

I think one can make a good argument for testing individuals to determine whether they've had the virus (been infected, with or without symptoms) as part of a strategy to determine how and when people can transition from shelter in place to a return to work.

[TheOldBear]

14 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I think one can make a good argument for testing individuals to determine whether they've had the virus (been infected, with or without symptoms) as part of a strategy to determine how and when people can transition from shelter in place to a return to work.

 

Its how you can gauge the so called 'herd immunity' - its possible when sampling is started [statistical sampling of population] it will be found that lots of asymptomatic folks show antibodies, indicating both exposure and some degree of immunity. 

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I think one can make a good argument for testing individuals to determine whether they've had the virus (been infected, with or without symptoms) as part of a strategy to determine how and when people can transition from shelter in place to a return to work.

This could apply once there is a test which identifies past infection as opposed to existing infection - AND it is known whether or not there is remaining capability to transmit.  At present, the tests only indicate the presence of the virus - and our testing capacity is extremely overtaxed.

[TheOldBear]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

This could apply once there is a test which identifies past infection as opposed to existing infection - AND it is known whether or not there is remaining capability to transmit.  At present, the tests only indicate the presence of the virus - and our testing capacity is extremely overtaxed.

 

Apparently many of the antibody tests distinguish between prompt [IgM] and long term [IgG] antibodies.

Having mostly long term antibodies seems to indicate the infection was some time in the past. [Over 60 days?]

 

I think it will take calibration to see what levels of each type indicate being covered against future infections

[clo]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I think one can make a good argument for testing individuals to determine whether they've had the virus (been infected, with or without symptoms) as part of a strategy to determine how and when people can transition from shelter in place to a return to work.

Also is corporations or countries require some type of certificate. I shared somewhere here that countries may require travelers from certain countries to obtain a visa and that visa may require a certificate re COVID.

[Toofarfromthesea]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

This could apply once there is a test which identifies past infection as opposed to existing infection - AND it is known whether or not there is remaining capability to transmit.  At present, the tests only indicate the presence of the virus - and our testing capacity is extremely overtaxed.

 

I don't think that is correct.  There is a lot of work being done on antibody tests which purport to identify past infection and resulting immunity and cessation of live virus shedding.  They are working to see if they can validate those expectation.  If they can, then a person who tests positive would be safe from re-infection, and could not infect others.  They would have no need for social distancing and could safely be part of re-opening the economy.

But we aren't there yet, and even if we get there we will a different set of hurdles.

Here's a recent article:  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/los-angeles-county-launches-large-scale-covid-19-antibody-study-n1182031

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 minutes ago, clo said:

Also is corporations or countries require some type of certificate. I shared somewhere here that countries may require travelers from certain countries to obtain a visa and that visa may require a certificate re COVID.

 

Yup, that is the different set of hurdles I was just talking about.

[clo]

13 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Yup, that is the different set of hurdles I was just talking about.

In a way I kinda like this idea. It's straightforward, not open to interpretation by cruise lines. It would all be handled, one way or the other, well in advance of travel.

[Aplmac]

5 hours ago, iancal said:

No one really knows if cruises will operate in the fall

and speculation at this point in time is quite pointless.

 

Carnival put this out a day or two ago.

 

No more cruises out of NYC for the rest of 2020!

 

[Aplmac]

- and Marella Cruises put this out recently, too..

but this seems to be more of a short term thang!

 

[cruisemom42]

HAL also just cancelled cruises through June 30 for all sailings and cancelled the entire Alaska cruise season for several ships.

 

https://www.hollandamerica.com/en_US/news/coronavirus-travel-advisory.html

 

Next domino to fall...

 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by cruisemom42

[clo]

8 hours ago, AF-1 said:

What are the chances of Fall Cruises being suspended? 

Truly every time I see this I want to put "not" before "being"?

[sail7seas]

Topic drift,  🙂

 

but   some interesting reading.

 

 

 

 

 

[lenquixote66]

You heard it here first: No cruises till March 2021.

[AF-1]

lenquixote66;   is that just for NY based ships?

[ARandomTraveler]

1 hour ago, Aplmac said:

 

Carnival put this out a day or two ago.

 

No more cruises out of NYC for the rest of 2020!

 

Wow!

[navybankerteacher]

9 hours ago, JRG said:

 

........I'm speculating that there will be a run on snugglies this fall.....north of the Mississippi.

 

Since the Mississippi runs pretty much straight south from its source in northern Minnesota, I guess you see the demand being pretty much in Canada.