Cruise Lines Begin Developing Future Protocols

[ljones]

11 hours ago, thyme2go said:

"... just get rid of having a medical office, Dr and staff,  and say........you cruise.....you deal with whatever happens!!  Good Luck! "

 

Really?!  I hope that's a joke - it is Not funny.  If it's not a joke - it's pathetic.  

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by ljones

[thyme2go]

4 hours ago, ljones said:

 

It was SARCASM..............  Obviously it's important (to you) that comments get your stamp of approval.............  Lesson #2:  that's sarcasm two!   See what I did there?  : )

Edited April 9, 2020 by thyme2go
wording

[TYinPalmSprings]

On 4/8/2020 at 1:01 PM, KirkNC said:

Plus this is not anything new, expedition ships have used medical screening questionnaires for years.  It’s not discriminatory either if it is done for passenger and crew safety.  I can tell you on the world cruise there were dozens of people completely unable to take care of themselves.  One man wore his pajamas all day, some others were on oxygen and at least one lady could not feed herself.  It’s great that they wanted to see the world but in an emergency they would not even make it to the life boat on their own.

Neither can an infant or small child make it to the lifeboat on their own during an emergency. Say, let's eliminate them from cruises as well. Let's also include the handicapped, people in wheelchairs...and, oh, of course, people who are morbidly obese.

[KirkNC]

36 minutes ago, TYinPalmSprings said:

Neither can an infant or small child make it to the lifeboat on their own during an emergency. Say, let's eliminate them from cruises as well. Let's also include the handicapped, people in wheelchairs...and, oh, of course, people who are morbidly obese.

Viking Ocean already eliminates children, you must be 18 to sail with them.  As for the rest, right or wrong, I see more pressure then ever on the cruise lines to limit them as well.  Health screenings would probably do that.

Edited April 9, 2020 by KirkNC

[RocketMan275]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:06 AM, voyageur9 said:

Smallpox was eradicated in the late 1970s, through vaccination. Many countries, including the United States in some instances, require proof of various vaccinations prior to issuing visas and/or permitting entry. So, domestically, do many school systems. Herd immunity is the single best safeguard against epidemics. Recent lethal outbreaks of measles have resulted from parents declining to protect their children.  There's nothing new nor unusual about nations or other levels of government  requiring vaccines (when available) against new or recurrent viral or other disease. It's basic public health. 

You might be surprised at the number who insist that it's an infringement of their rights to be forced to be vaccinated.  

Nor do they believe their activities can be restricted for a failure to be vaccinated.  

[RocketMan275]

On 4/8/2020 at 12:49 PM, mkkao924 said:

Anybody screaming age discrimination should look at their local DMV and see if the seniors have different requirement of renewing driver license.

Too many on these threads refuse to recognize that treating those of different ages differently is not discrimination as long as there is a rationale reason for the differences.

 

I have had several CC members claim to block my posts because I've pointed that out.

[RocketMan275]

On 4/8/2020 at 1:26 PM, panoramaofthepast said:

So if I am over 70 and in good health because my blood pressure, cholesterol and or diabetes are  controlled by medication [which I bring with me!], does that mean I will not be able to cruise in the future?  

I think it is probable that the cruise lines will modify these possible requirements to more accurately reflect risk.  That said, it is indeed possible that the cruise line will prohibit passengers with certain health issues that would make them a risk to other passengers.  Yes, you might have to prove fitness to cruise but high but controlled blood pressure and cholesterol and diabetes won't be disqualifying.  You may see a lot fewer scooters on board.  And, very possible, fewer animals.

[voyageur9]

1 hour ago, TYinPalmSprings said:

Neither can an infant or small child make it to the lifeboat on their own during an emergency. Say, let's eliminate them from cruises as well. Let's also include the handicapped, people in wheelchairs...and, oh, of course, people who are morbidly obese.

Cruising is not constitutionally protected. So to refuse to sell a ticket or to refuse boarding or to remove from the ship, those who fail to meet medical minimums isn't illegal. Frankly it's no different than roller coaster operators who specify minimum height and maximum weight criteria. If there's a reasonable safety and/or operational reason, then the operator can refuse those who fail to meet requirements. Some cruise operators refuse children. Others require medical certificates. And, I very much doubt that the morbidly obese or or those with chronic and serious diseases would have much luck in the courts trying to force a cruise line to carry them by claiming discrimination.

It's only unlawful discrimination if it's based on a constitutionally protected class. So race, gender, sexual preference etc etc. But for HAL or any other cruise operator to set minimum requirements of health so as to reduce the danger to others would likely pass legal muster. It might be a poor commercial decision (although maybe not) but it's not unlawful.

Edited April 9, 2020 by voyageur9
typo

[HamOp]

17 hours ago, thyme2go said:

      Perhaps the cruise line can just get rid of having a medical office, Dr and staff,  and say........you cruise.....you deal with whatever happens!!  Good Luck!  

The new shipboard medical department - Help yourself!

[TYinPalmSprings]

18 minutes ago, voyageur9 said:

Cruising is not constitutionally protected. So to refuse to sell a ticket or to refuse boarding or to remove from the ship, those who fail to meet medical minimums isn't illegal. Frankly it's no different than roller coaster operators who specify minimum height and maximum weight criteria. If there's a reasonable safety and/or operational reason, then the operator can refuse those who fail to meet requirements. Some cruise operators refuse children. Others require medical certificates. And, I very much doubt that the morbidly obese or or those with chronic and serious diseases would have much luck in the courts trying to force a cruise line to carry them by claiming discrimination.

It's only unlawful discrimination if it's based on a constitutionally protected class. So race, gender, sexual preference etc etc. But for HAL or any other cruise operator to set minimum requirements of health so as to reduce the danger to others would likely pass legal muster. It might be a poor commercial decision (although maybe not) but it's not unlawful.

I understand your point and agree. The issue here is that is comes in direct conflict with their greed. If grandma and grandpa are paying to include the children and grandchildren, and those footing the bill are not allowed to cruise then, whoops, all off,  lost revenue. If a spouse is really fat, then whoops, lost revenue. If the large amount of people over 70 who have diabetes or other ailments, and those under 70 who have a taboo ailment....,then whoops lost revenue. ..and guess who fills their TAs, TPs B2Bs and cruise over 14 days.....yup, the people they do not want on their ships. Greed and survival should change things as greed always wins out. The stockholders and cheerleaders will demand it.  

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

14 minutes ago, TYinPalmSprings said:

I understand your point and agree. The issue here is that is comes in direct conflict with their greed. If grandma and grandpa are paying to include the children and grandchildren, and those footing the bill are not allowed to cruise then, whoops, all off,  lost revenue. If a spouse is really fat, then whoops, lost revenue. If the large amount of people over 70 who have diabetes or other ailments, and those under 70 who have a taboo ailment....,then whoops lost revenue. ..and guess who fills their TAs, TPs B2Bs and cruise over 14 days.....yup, the people they do not want on their ships. Greed and survival should change things as greed always wins out. The stockholders and cheerleaders will demand it.  

All very true in normal times. 

But stockholders' eyes are going to widen when they see the all the lawsuits and governmental investigations get under way from the Coral, Diamond, Grand, Zaandam and Ruby disasters.

 

Meanwhile, there is no reason the think that cruise lines will be allowed to get away with their skirt-the-regulations practices in the future.

Until now it was just the occasional fire/Azipod breakdown/noro outbreak ... but this time, the cruise lines caused a non-stop string of crises all across

the globe.

 

This was more than months' worth of ports, Coast Guards, health agencies, fire services, federal negotiators and police departments scrambling to deal with ships docking (or pleading to dock) with sick,

dying and dead passengers. All during a pandemic when those governmental and private entities needed the resources elsewhere.

 

I just don't see cruise lines being allowed to sail in or out of ports again without providing a lot of costly, documented and paid-up-front provisional plans for dealing with the NEXT shipboard emergency.

 

Reality check: All of that is going to come out of our pockets. We've sailed mass market lines with stunningly affordable fares precisely because the companies didn't meet genuine First World regulations , didn't sail with adequate onboard

medical care for a widespread emergency, didn't have real contingency plans in place for sudden at-sea crises in EVERY spot the itinerary passed through. 
 

When that changes - and it must - the unlimited-growth model of mass-market cruising goes the way of the Titanic.

[Janet76]

Price already up next year. 

[SilvertoGold]

9 minutes ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

All very true in normal times. 

But stockholders' eyes are going to widen when they see the all the lawsuits and governmental investigations get under way from the Coral, Diamond, Grand, Zaandam and Ruby disasters.

 

Meanwhile, there is no reason the think that cruise lines will be allowed to get away with their skirt-the-regulations practices in the future.

Until now it was just the occasional fire/Azipod breakdown/noro outbreak ... but this time, the cruise lines caused a non-stop string of crises all across

the globe.

 

This was more than months' worth of ports, Coast Guards, health agencies, fire services, federal negotiators and police departments scrambling to deal with ships docking (or pleading to dock) with sick,

dying and dead passengers. All during a pandemic when those governmental and private entities needed the resources elsewhere.

 

I just don't see cruise lines being allowed to sail in or out of ports again without providing a lot of costly, documented and paid-up-front provisional plans for dealing with the NEXT shipboard emergency.

 

Reality check: All of that is going to come out of our pockets. We've sailed mass market lines with stunningly affordable fares precisely because the companies didn't meet genuine First World regulations , didn't sail with adequate onboard

medical care for a widespread emergency, didn't have real contingency plans in place for sudden at-sea crises in EVERY spot the itinerary passed through. 
 

When that changes - and it must - the unlimited-growth model of mass-market cruising goes the way of the Titanic.

 

I can only ask:

 

"skirt the regulations practices":   could you expand on this, please?  Examples of first world regulations not being met?

 

All that has happened with the cruise lines is because of the pandemic.  No pandemic, no big problems, as you note.   

[TYinPalmSprings]

1 hour ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

All very true in normal times. 

But stockholders' eyes are going to widen when they see the all the lawsuits and governmental investigations get under way from the Coral, Diamond, Grand, Zaandam and Ruby disasters.

 

Meanwhile, there is no reason the think that cruise lines will be allowed to get away with their skirt-the-regulations practices in the future.

Until now it was just the occasional fire/Azipod breakdown/noro outbreak ... but this time, the cruise lines caused a non-stop string of crises all across

the globe.

 

This was more than months' worth of ports, Coast Guards, health agencies, fire services, federal negotiators and police departments scrambling to deal with ships docking (or pleading to dock) with sick,

dying and dead passengers. All during a pandemic when those governmental and private entities needed the resources elsewhere.

 

I just don't see cruise lines being allowed to sail in or out of ports again without providing a lot of costly, documented and paid-up-front provisional plans for dealing with the NEXT shipboard emergency.

 

Reality check: All of that is going to come out of our pockets. We've sailed mass market lines with stunningly affordable fares precisely because the companies didn't meet genuine First World regulations , didn't sail with adequate onboard

medical care for a widespread emergency, didn't have real contingency plans in place for sudden at-sea crises in EVERY spot the itinerary passed through. 
 

When that changes - and it must - the unlimited-growth model of mass-market cruising goes the way of the Titanic.

 

Well said. I believe the coronavirus brough this to a head. Long overdue.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by TYinPalmSprings

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

We've sailed mass market lines with stunningly affordable fares precisely because the companies didn't meet genuine First World regulations

Gee, let's see.  The US and all of the EU (which I think meet your definition of "first world countries") are all members of the IMO, and have all signed off on the regulations that are internationally accepted by these countries as a minimum.  So, these "first world" countries have set these regulations, and the cruise lines have all met them.  Only a very few countries have enacted any more stringent regulations, and these can only apply to the ships that fly the flag of that nation.  So, cruise ships flagged in Panama and the Bahamas meet the same regulations as those flagged in Holland (HAL), Germany (Aida), Hurtigruten and Viking (Norway), P&O (UK and Australia), or are these not "first world" in your mind?  I guess only the US is "first world"?

 

1 hour ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

Until now it was just the occasional fire/Azipod breakdown/noro outbreak ... but this time, the cruise lines caused a non-stop string of crises all across

the globe.

How did the cruise lines cause this crisis?  While cruises may not be allowed to start up quickly, and while there may be some changes in local regulations regarding public health, I don't foresee the chicken little scenario that you do, and I don't foresee the massive changes in the basic protocols of the cruise lines.  While the Asian demographic may find it acceptable for their vacation providers to wear surgical masks all the time, I don't foresee that being agreeable to most Westerners.

[kazu]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

I think it is probable that the cruise lines will modify these possible requirements to more accurately reflect risk.  That said, it is indeed possible that the cruise line will prohibit passengers with certain health issues that would make them a risk to other passengers.  Yes, you might have to prove fitness to cruise but high but controlled blood pressure and cholesterol and diabetes won't be disqualifying.  You may see a lot fewer scooters on board.  And, very possible, fewer animals.

 

You can dream.  The cruise lines need to fill their ships and I can remember when I started on my first TA on NCL - I saw far more private nurses for cruisers, oxygen, wheel chairs and scooters than I have ever seen on HAL.

 

On HAL, I’ve seen plenty of 70+ somethings that can keep up with the best of us and probably outdo some of the younger ones.

So you can’t judge everyone by their age.

But, If the cruise lines make it too difficult, they won’t be able to fill their ships.  Who will go on the longer itineraries which can be pricey?

I suspect those at risk are already rethinking cruising but that should apply to all ages and not just seniors.  And, the service dogs I’ve seen haven’t belonged to seniors but to a younger generation. 😉 

 

Let’s all stay safe and well and hopefully this gets rectified in a way that makes sense.  I am not 70 but I certainly wouldn’t want to try to finagle a doctor’s appointment one week before a cruise to get a form signed.  Crazy.

 

[iancal]

Agree.  Cruise lines will be focussed on revenue and profit.  Filling those cabins.  Everything else will be second fiddle.   

 

As long as the fare is paid and the cruiser can fog a mirror it will be welcome aboard and don't forget to sign up for a beverage package and a few excursions.

Edited April 10, 2020 by iancal

[InDaPast]

8 minutes ago, iancal said:

s long as the fare is paid and the cruiser can fog a mirror it will be welcome aboard

 

Brilliant!

[SilvertoGold]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Gee, let's see.  The US and all of the EU (which I think meet your definition of "first world countries") are all members of the IMO, and have all signed off on the regulations that are internationally accepted by these countries as a minimum.  So, these "first world" countries have set these regulations, and the cruise lines have all met them.  Only a very few countries have enacted any more stringent regulations, and these can only apply to the ships that fly the flag of that nation.  So, cruise ships flagged in Panama and the Bahamas meet the same regulations as those flagged in Holland (HAL), Germany (Aida), Hurtigruten and Viking (Norway), P&O (UK and Australia), or are these not "first world" in your mind?  I guess only the US is "first world"?

 

How did the cruise lines cause this crisis?  While cruises may not be allowed to start up quickly, and while there may be some changes in local regulations regarding public health, I don't foresee the chicken little scenario that you do, and I don't foresee the massive changes in the basic protocols of the cruise lines.  While the Asian demographic may find it acceptable for their vacation providers to wear surgical masks all the time, I don't foresee that being agreeable to most Westerners.

 

 

This is excellent!  Thank you for pointing out these facts.  You provide a very important contribution to this board, as usual!

[bluesea321]

To add to the subject of this thread, new protocols for future cruising, please look at the new order the CDC issued today (April 9) for cruise ships to remain in US ports/waters.  It is quite demanding of the industry.  Attached is the order, a 9 page PDF, and I cannot do it justice if I tried to summarize it.  It is a must read IMO.

No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships.pdf

[DaveSJ711]

7 minutes ago, bluesea321 said:

To add to the subject of this thread, new protocols for future cruising, please look at the new order the CDC issued today (April 9) for cruise ships to remain in US ports/waters.  It is quite demanding of the industry.  Attached is the order, a 9 page PDF, and I cannot do it justice if I tried to summarize it.  It is a must read IMO.

No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships.pdf 107.47 kB · 0 downloads

 

Wow.  That is a damning order.

[npcl]

39 minutes ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

Wow.  That is a damning order.

 

39 minutes ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

Wow.  That is a damning order.

It is basically just saying use your own resources to manage your problem, at your expense and not impact local medical or incur any local government expense.  More like since we cannot count on you to do this on your own, we are requiring you to put forth a plan for our approval.

 

A key element is it requires the ships to accurately report the number of cases of illness on board.

 

Another important is that it overrides any agreements/requirements with state and local government.

 

It really sounds like CDC has gotten fed up.

Edited April 10, 2020 by npcl

[boze9999]

The key moving forward will be the plans the cruise lines set forth, which speaks to the beginning of this thread. The US, and most world wide countries, will have demands the like have never been seen before by cruise lines and passengers. 

 

[DaveSJ711]

7 minutes ago, npcl said:

 

It is basically just saying use your own resources to manage your problem, at your expense and not impact local medical or incur any local government expense.  More like since we cannot count on you to do this on your own, we are requiring you to put forth a plan for our approval.

 

A key element is it requires the ships to accurately report the number of cases of illness on board.

 

The order does a lot more than "basically just saying."  It makes significant findings about how cruise ship travel exacerbates the global spread of COVID, and how cruise ships in general are or may be infected or contaminated with the virus.  Read page 5.

Edited April 10, 2020 by DaveSJ711

[npcl]

24 minutes ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

The order does a lot more than "basically just saying."  It makes significant findings about how cruise ship travel exacerbates the global spread of COVID, and how cruise ships in general are or may be infected or contaminated with the virus.  Read page 5.

Thats a given. That is the back ground and logic for the order. They have to include a reason and logic for the order otherwise the cruise line attorneys would have a field day.  That info is to justify the CDC taking control in accordance with law.

 

The action requirements are that the cruise lines have to develop a plan for how they are going to manage their problem, using their resources, without impacting local medical, as well as state/local government. Any agreements and requirements between the cruise lines and state and local government are now over ridden.

 

The primary tool to force them, is that ALL operations in the US by such ships have to be approved by HHS/CDC.

 

This is a response to any hint that cruise lines were going to start up soon, as well as indicating that CDC is fed up with the lack of transparency and cooperation from the cruise lines.