CDC Delays Cruising for a While

[AliceS]

5 hours ago, Lazy Lakes said:

People let not forget the hard working crews whom now have no jobs!!!! No Goverment hand outs. This is not just about a cruise cancelled or your deposit returned. We talking peoples lives.

Amen!  I keep thinking of crew that I was so fond of and wonder what has happened to them.  I would love to give out a virtual hug to those hard working crew members.  

[casavaha]

If anything, this virus might force people on cruise ships to wash their hands after

restroom visits.  I am sure all of us have seen pax leave the bathrooms without washing

hands.

 

 

[Heartgrove]

2 hours ago, npcl said:

Actually there are now a fair number around these days.  My county now has testing sites open to anyone, not just those meeting CDC requirements.  Lots of commercial labs are now open.  A number of new tests have been approved from commercial firms in the US.

 

 Are you saying that with all of their assets, both inside the US and outside the US, they they cannot get their hand on sufficient test kits to test the ill if they really wanted to?  I suspect that if the cruise lines went to CDC and asked for sufficient test kits to test those ill that they could probably get them.

 

Again from  reports they are not even telling the crew on board the number of ill.  As one person put it, the only way we know that someone is ill and quarantined is by seeing the number of food trolleys in the hallway.  

 

There aren't sufficient tests of all types available. Only 0.7% of the entire United States population has actually been tested as of today. Businesses, including Morgan Stanley, are very sceptical of reopening the country without sufficient testing. If the country is reopened too early we stand the chance of a second wave which would be even more catastrophic.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Heartgrove

[fatcat04]

9 minutes ago, AliceS said:

Amen!  I keep thinking of crew that I was so fond of and wonder what has happened to them.  I would love to give out a virtual hug to those hard working crew members.  

Thank you for this. Yes, I have thought of them so many times. They are in such limbo. I remember them in my prayers.

[rkacruiser]

2 hours ago, casavaha said:

If anything, this virus might force people on cruise ships to wash their hands after

restroom visits.  I am sure all of us have seen pax leave the bathrooms without washing

hands.

 

 

 

Of course, I have no idea what observers in the ladies restrooms see, but I have been appalled at the number of my gender who zip up their pants and out the door they go.  

[sheffield]

3 hours ago, fatcat04 said:

The Fates smiled on me. It was near the top of the heap.

Fascinating interview with Dr. Michael Busch of UCSF, his bio here https://pathology.ucsf.edu/about/faculty/michael-p-busch-md-phd

 

article here:

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/unprecedented-nationwide-blood-studies-seek-track-us-coronavirus-spread

 

fta:

Q: What serosurveys are you doing in the United States?

A: We’re developing three large serosurvey studies. We need to do them at regular intervals to detect ongoing incidence, to determine if antibody responses are waning, and to assess herd immunity.

The first one, which will be funded by the National Institutes of Health, is already underway in six metropolitan regions in the U.S. It was started in Seattle when that outbreak happened, then New York City, then we quickly kicked in the San Francisco Bay area, and now we’ve added Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. Colleagues at regional blood centers are each saving 1000 samples from donors each month—often it’s just a few days each month—and they’re demographically defined so we know the age, the gender, and, most important, the zip code of the donor’s residence. Those 6000 samples, collected each month starting in March and for the next 5 months, will be assessed with an antibody testing algorithm, which we’re still finalizing, that will help us monitor how many people develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies over time. That will show us when we’re going from, say, a half a percent to 2% of the donors having antibodies.

That will evolve into a national survey. With support from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], we’ll conduct three national, fully representative serosurveys of the U.S. population using the blood donors. That will be 50,000 donations in September and December of 2020 and November of 2021. We’re going to be estimating overall antibody prevalence to SARS-CoV-2 within each state, but also map it down within the states to regions and metropolitan urban areas, and look at the differences

In Governor Cuomo’s daily address today he said that when they get the antibody tests they will be able to see who can go back to work but they don’t know when they will get them. So obviously New York State is not testing yet.

[npcl]

2 hours ago, Heartgrove said:

 

There aren't sufficient tests of all types available. Only 0.7% of the entire United States population has actually been tested as of today. Businesses, including Morgan Stanley, are very sceptical of reopening the country without sufficient testing. If the country is reopened too early we stand the chance of a second wave which would be even more catastrophic.

 

 

Not for reopening the country, but I am pretty sure if the CLIA and the major cruise lines really wanted to test all crew members showing "flu like symptoms"  they could get enough for that fairly easily.  After all they have both US and non-US resources.

 

And the scope of the comment was to get enough tests for the crew on board the ships in or near US ports.

 

Instead the cruise lines just say flu like symptoms and only test one or two. 

[xLibLabLady]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Of course, I have no idea what observers in the ladies restrooms see, but I have been appalled at the number of my gender who zip up their pants and out the door they go.  

It is also appalling the number of ladies who do not wash their hands.   I always think at them, "I wouldn't want to eat at your house!"    I also make it a habit to not touch my face after using hand rails on stairways, for example.

 

 

[bluesea321]

Below is a link to the CLIA's response regarding the new CDC order.  Hmm...  They better get with it if they want to retain access to US ports and waters after the 7 day grace period.

 

"We are, however, concerned about the unintended consequences the No Sail Order issued on April 9 has in singling out the cruise industry, which has been proactive in its escalation of health and sanitation protocols and was one of the first industries to announce a voluntary suspension of operations.  While it’s easy to focus on cruising because of its high profile, the fact is cruising is neither the source or cause of the virus or its spread. What is different about the cruise industry is the very stringent reporting requirements applicable to vessels that do not apply to comparable venues on land where the spread of communicable disease is just as prevalent. It would be a false assumption to connect higher frequency and visibility in reporting to a higher frequency of infection."

 

https://cruising.org/news-and-research/press-room/2020/april/clia-statement-regarding-no-sail-order

[npcl]

3 minutes ago, bluesea321 said:

Below is a link to the CLIA's response regarding the new CDC order.  Hmm...  They better get with it if they want to retain access to US ports and waters after the 7 day grace period.

 

"We are, however, concerned about the unintended consequences the No Sail Order issued on April 9 has in singling out the cruise industry, which has been proactive in its escalation of health and sanitation protocols and was one of the first industries to announce a voluntary suspension of operations.  While it’s easy to focus on cruising because of its high profile, the fact is cruising is neither the source or cause of the virus or its spread. What is different about the cruise industry is the very stringent reporting requirements applicable to vessels that do not apply to comparable venues on land where the spread of communicable disease is just as prevalent. It would be a false assumption to connect higher frequency and visibility in reporting to a higher frequency of infection."

 

https://cruising.org/news-and-research/press-room/2020/april/clia-statement-regarding-no-sail-order

The more I see the cruise lines more focused on PR than actually working to use their resources to actually help their crew and make things safer, the less I feel the desire to book more cruises.

 

 

[fatcat04]

2 hours ago, sheffield said:

In Governor Cuomo’s daily address today he said that when they get the antibody tests they will be able to see who can go back to work but they don’t know when they will get them. So obviously New York State is not testing yet.

And yet this article dated March 19, 2020 says they have been testing at least since March. 

fta: Florian Krammer, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and his colleagues posted a preprint yesterday describing a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test they have developed, and directions for replicating it..... Krammer says he and his colleagues are already using their test in their New York City hospital to better understand how quickly COVID-19 patients start to develop antibodies to the virus. 

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-antibodies-could-show-true-scale-coronavirus-pandemic#

 

Florian Krammer PhD bio here: https://labs.icahn.mssm.edu/krammerlab/dr-krammer/

 

Professor Krammer also has an 19 part Twitter post on March 18th explaining their work. 

Now, this isn't mass testing obviously which may be what Gov. Cuomo who has been very instructive and helpful in many ways in all this may be referring to. But testing has been going on. And now that we have more testing and some populations have this test available to the public without qualification, that is a great benefit and will hopefully give us a much better idea of what we are dealing with. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by fatcat04

[Nymich]

34 minutes ago, npcl said:

The more I see the cruise lines more focused on PR than actually working to use their resources to actually help their crew and make things safer, the less I feel the desire to book more cruises.

 

 

What an excellent point you make.  Imagine what the majority of people (who do not cruise btw) think of this kind of push back.

[bluesea321]

44 minutes ago, npcl said:

The more I see the cruise lines more focused on PR than actually working to use their resources to actually help their crew and make things safer, the less I feel the desire to book more cruises.

 

I knew the CLIA's response would be PR oriented but I was surprised that they focused on the economic impact instead of the health and safety impact of all involved - seems tone deaf to me.

[MarLieb]

35 minutes ago, bluesea321 said:

Below is a link to the CLIA's response regarding the new CDC order.  Hmm...  They better get with it if they want to retain access to US ports and waters after the 7 day grace period.

 

"We are, however, concerned about the unintended consequences the No Sail Order issued on April 9 has in singling out the cruise industry, which has been proactive in its escalation of health and sanitation protocols and was one of the first industries to announce a voluntary suspension of operations.  While it’s easy to focus on cruising because of its high profile, the fact is cruising is neither the source or cause of the virus or its spread. What is different about the cruise industry is the very stringent reporting requirements applicable to vessels that do not apply to comparable venues on land where the spread of communicable disease is just as prevalent. It would be a false assumption to connect higher frequency and visibility in reporting to a higher frequency of infection."

 

https://cruising.org/news-and-research/press-room/2020/april/clia-statement-regarding-no-sail-order

Omg - I totally agree with you.  I honestly can't believe CLIA's statement.  Do they really have any leverage here?!  What would a "comparable venue on land" even be?  Maybe a theme park?  Even then, you aren't stuck in a theme park, days on end, moving around and going to different world ports.  But, really, not responsible for its spread?  Perhaps not solely responsible, but are they really arguing there was no virus spread on and from cruise ships?!  I don't understand CLIA's m.o. here.  I don't think the US government cares if cruise ships sail in and out of US ports.  Given how much US aid was required to disembark ships in the past few weeks and the fact that crew members still require needed medical help, I think the US gov't might actually be happy if the cruise ships simply sail away.  The order is definitely a line in the sand and, honestly, if the cruise industry could step up to the plate and actually come up with a plan that would satisfy the order, guests on the ships would be better off for it, IMHO.  The CDC is obviously saying enough is enough and the lines want to keep sailing, they need to become more self-sufficient.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  And, what are the "unintended consequences"?  That cruise lines are going to be cast in a bad light through all of this?  Well, that ships has sailed.

[CorgiCruzr]

48 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

Omg - I totally agree with you.  I honestly can't believe CLIA's statement.  Do they really have any leverage here?!  What would a "comparable venue on land" even be?  Maybe a theme park?  Even then, you aren't stuck in a theme park, days on end, moving around and going to different world ports.  But, really, not responsible for its spread?  Perhaps not solely responsible, but are they really arguing there was no virus spread on and from cruise ships?!  I don't understand CLIA's m.o. here.  I don't think the US government cares if cruise ships sail in and out of US ports.  Given how much US aid was required to disembark ships in the past few weeks and the fact that crew members still require needed medical help, I think the US gov't might actually be happy if the cruise ships simply sail away.  The order is definitely a line in the sand and, honestly, if the cruise industry could step up to the plate and actually come up with a plan that would satisfy the order, guests on the ships would be better off for it, IMHO.  The CDC is obviously saying enough is enough and the lines want to keep sailing, they need to become more self-sufficient.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  And, what are the "unintended consequences"?  That cruise lines are going to be cast in a bad light through all of this?  Well, that ships has sailed.

From an epidemiological standpoint, Assisted Living & Nursing facilities, and prisons are probably good representatives.  That’s not encouraging based on experience to date in such facilities. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by CorgiCruzr

[MarLieb]

13 minutes ago, CorgiCruzr said:

From an epidemiological standpoint, Assisted Living & Nursing facilities, and prisons are probably good representatives.  That’s not encouraging based on experience to date in such facilities. 

Oh yes!  Thank you.  Those are excellent points.  So many very sad stories of outbreaks in many of these facilities right now.  

[Fredric22]

All-inclusive resorts and casinos are a few comparable land-based destinations that come to mind.  There is just as much interaction at some of these resorts as there are on cruise ships.  I have to agree with CLIA in that the cruise industry is most definitely being singled out.  The ironic thing is, the airline industry is actually responsible for transporting COVID-19 to all corners of the planet.  In fact, right now, someone living in NYC (the hottest of hot zones in the world) can take a flight to another city in the USA with no problem and they will not get tested upon boarding the aircraft nor upon landing at their US destination.  It amazes me that the CDC is so fixated on cruise ships.  Lastly, Florida is quite happy to enjoy all of the economic benefits that come with millions of tourists coming through ports each year, but in a crisis, it is like "Oh, sorry, have we met?"  Clearly, this is a global crisis and cruise ships all over the world have crews on board that cannot go back to their home countries due to travel restrictions that were implemented almost overnight.  I really don't think it is too much to ask to treat a few crew members who are in critical need of care, especially if cruise lines are footing the bill.  I'm not sure if politics are in play here, but something about the way that the CDC has been handling this seems strange to me.  It seems clear to me that the cruise industry and the CDC are not friends right now.  Even more bizarre is that Trump is friends with Micky Arison.  

[npcl]

31 minutes ago, Fredric22 said:

All-inclusive resorts and casinos are a few comparable land-based destinations that come to mind.  There is just as much interaction at some of these resorts as there are on cruise ships.  I have to agree with CLIA in that the cruise industry is most definitely being singled out.  The ironic thing is, the airline industry is actually responsible for transporting COVID-19 to all corners of the planet.  In fact, right now, someone living in NYC (the hottest of hot zones in the world) can take a flight to another city in the USA with no problem and they will not get tested upon boarding the aircraft nor upon landing at their US destination.  It amazes me that the CDC is so fixated on cruise ships.  Lastly, Florida is quite happy to enjoy all of the economic benefits that come with millions of tourists coming through ports each year, but in a crisis, it is like "Oh, sorry, have we met?"  Clearly, this is a global crisis and cruise ships all over the world have crews on board that cannot go back to their home countries due to travel restrictions that were implemented almost overnight.  I really don't think it is too much to ask to treat a few crew members who are in critical need of care, especially if cruise lines are footing the bill.  I'm not sure if politics are in play here, but something about the way that the CDC has been handling this seems strange to me.  It seems clear to me that the cruise industry and the CDC are not friends right now.  Even more bizarre is that Trump is friends with Micky Arison.  

Much of what the CDC asking for are things that the CLIA already committed to, yet has failed to deliver yet,

 

This is the section from the document that talks about the CLIA drafting their response plan first on March 13 and stated that they could implement in 7 days.  It also talks about how on April 3 they produced a framework for how to care for crew while ships remain idle.  It seems like a lot of this document is asking CLIA to actually deliver what they had previously promised. A large portion is dealing with crew on the ships sitting off shore, not for starting cruising back up.

 

Critical Need for Further Cooperation and Response Planning

 

CDC and other Federal agencies engaged with CLIA representatives in early March. On March 13, 2020, CLIA and their associated members announced that all member cruise lines would voluntarily suspend cruise ship operations from U.S. ports of call for 30 days as public health officials and the Federal government continue to address COVID-19. Several cruise lines followed CLIA’s example and similarly voluntarily suspended operations.

 

CLIA also drafted a response plan, “On Course: Cruise Industry COVID-19 Response and Protocols” (hereinafter, “On Course”). The plan proposed “industry management of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 without burden on the U.S. government.”⁷ CLIA stated that it could implement this plan within 7 days.⁸ In response to a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19, “industry would be responsible for transporting the [exposed or infected] individuals in appropriate buses, cars, or ambulances.”⁹ Furthermore, CLIA averred that, “contracts for predesignated facilities though Global Rescue [a firm with purported experience and expertise in mass medical incidents] [would] receive COVID-19 patients, including arrangements [that] will be executed following plan approval.”¹⁰ CLIA further stated that it had planned for “multiple redundancies” in its response efforts. Specifically, “CLIA commits to making five ships available for temporary housing purposes. They would be tasked with sailing to any affected ship and taking affected guests and crew aboard for the self-isolation period.”¹¹

 

On April 3, 2020, CLIA drafted a new response plan, “Framework: For Cruise Industry Care of Crew and other Persons on Board while Ships Remain Idle during the Global COVID-19 Pandemic” (hereinafter, “Framework”). The Framework plan must go further to reduce industry reliance on government and shoreside hospital resources. For example, while the Framework states that a ship will maintain its medical staff, it must provide further details of how the industry will provide for the acute care needs of the critically ill. The Framework must also address industry assistance to COVID-19 affected cruise ships by deploying additional ships for cohort separation of those who are exposed, infected, and in need of hospitalization.

Furthermore, laboratory sampling and testing, onboard mitigation and prevention strategies, disinfection protocols, personal protective equipment, repatriation of foreign nationals, and onshore transportation, including through contract medivac helicopter, must be addressed in further detail, including how the industry proposes to acquire, staff, and operationalize this plan, with minimal burden on Federal, State, or local government entities or the healthcare system.

[Nymich]

7 minutes ago, npcl said:

Much of what the CDC asking for are things that the CLIA already committed to, yet has failed to deliver yet,

 

This is the section from the document that talks about the CLIA drafting their response plan first on March 13 and stated that they could implement in 7 days.  It also talks about how on April 3 they produced a framework for how to care for crew while ships remain idle.  It seems like a lot of this document is asking CLIA to actually deliver what they had previously promised. A large portion is dealing with crew on the ships sitting off shore, not for starting cruising back up.

 

Yes but let's not let the facts get in the way!

 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, bluesea321 said:

 

I knew the CLIA's response would be PR oriented but I was surprised that they focused on the economic impact instead of the health and safety impact of all involved - seems tone deaf to me.

Their response looks like one they would send out when  they were dealing with Noro not Covid-19

[TiogaCruiser]

18 hours ago, npcl said:

Actually there are now a fair number around these days.  My county now has testing sites open to anyone, not just those meeting CDC requirements.  Lots of commercial labs are now open.  A number of new tests have been approved from commercial firms in the US.

 

 Are you saying that with all of their assets, both inside the US and outside the US, they they cannot get their hand on sufficient test kits to test the ill if they really wanted to?  I suspect that if the cruise lines went to CDC and asked for sufficient test kits to test those ill that they could probably get them.

There may be several test options now, but for where I am located there are still shortages of swabs and PPE, there is finite lab capacity and many providers have closed their doors and are not testing.

[cbr663]

11 hours ago, bluesea321 said:

Below is a link to the CLIA's response regarding the new CDC order.  Hmm...  They better get with it if they want to retain access to US ports and waters after the 7 day grace period.

....

 

Thanks so much for posting this.  And I agree with you, this position does not build confidence at all for anyone who wants to cruise.  Such a continued poor response for an industry in crisis.

[cruisemom42]

10 hours ago, Nymich said:

What an excellent point you make.  Imagine what the majority of people (who do not cruise btw) think of this kind of push back.

 

This is exactly the point I was making in the post about comments to the New York Times article on cruising and COVID-19.  I feel the cruise industry sometimes pokes itself in the eye. Even if they feel that what they're saying is the truth, it is a tone-deaf approach right now and I'm not sure it's doing them any favors.

[SilvertoGold]

10 hours ago, Fredric22 said:

All-inclusive resorts and casinos are a few comparable land-based destinations that come to mind.  There is just as much interaction at some of these resorts as there are on cruise ships.  I have to agree with CLIA in that the cruise industry is most definitely being singled out.  The ironic thing is, the airline industry is actually responsible for transporting COVID-19 to all corners of the planet.  In fact, right now, someone living in NYC (the hottest of hot zones in the world) can take a flight to another city in the USA with no problem and they will not get tested upon boarding the aircraft nor upon landing at their US destination.  It amazes me that the CDC is so fixated on cruise ships.  Lastly, Florida is quite happy to enjoy all of the economic benefits that come with millions of tourists coming through ports each year, but in a crisis, it is like "Oh, sorry, have we met?"  Clearly, this is a global crisis and cruise ships all over the world have crews on board that cannot go back to their home countries due to travel restrictions that were implemented almost overnight.  I really don't think it is too much to ask to treat a few crew members who are in critical need of care, especially if cruise lines are footing the bill.  I'm not sure if politics are in play here, but something about the way that the CDC has been handling this seems strange to me.  It seems clear to me that the cruise industry and the CDC are not friends right now.  Even more bizarre is that Trump is friends with Micky Arison.  

 

 

WOW!! This is an EXCELLENT post.  Thank you :)

 

A few thoughts: Let's not lump cruise ships into care homes and prisons. Cruises are entertainment, like casinos, sporting events and resorts: non-essential.  Airplanes are a form of transportation, and I guess, for that reason, are not getting much blame, as they should be.

 

Leadership is need to stop all this bizarre behaviour before it becomes irrational panic which will only serve to make things worse for the cruise industry.

[cbr663]

Of the 14 elements that the CDC identified as a minimum that cruise ships need to consider in their plans, this is most concerning for me as a cruise traveler:

 

"j.A medical care plan addressing onboard care versus evacuation to on-shore hospitals for critically ill individuals, specifying how availability of beds for critically ill at local hospitals will be determined in advance and how the cruise ship operator will ensure acceptance at local medical facilities to treat the critically ill in a manner that limits the burden on Federal, State, and local resources and avoids, to the greatest extent possible, medivac situations. If medical evacuation is necessary arrangements for evacuation must be made with commercial resources (e.g., ship tender, chartered standby vessel, chartered airlift) and arrangements made with a designated medical facility that has agreed to accept such evacuees. All medical evacuation plans must be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard;"

 

There are other elements noted that build on this, and for the sake of brevity, I did not want to copy all of them.  The intent, as I read it, is that critically ill passengers should expect that they will have to remain on board of ships and be cared for on board.  If evacuation is needed, it will be done using commercial sources and not government funded sources.