govt quietly shortens cdc 100 day no sail order

[Roger88]

What do you mean by "quitly shortens"? How do you know? There was no official statement what so ever. All these fake news channels can only post things to post things. The ban has been applied a few weeks ago and I dont see a single reason to put down limitations in the situation where you each and every state of the US has declared an emergency situation

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, seaman11 said:

the whole thing is overblown as far as cruise's and covid.  its a real threat but imo cruises have been vilified here.   with only 3 cases before the lockdown, and after things calm down in a few months. it should not be a big issue. 

Three cases on NCL. Lots of cases on several Princess ships, a couple of Holland America ships, Costa ships...etc. 

[seaman11]

6 minutes ago, Corliss said:

 

Absolutely none!  As the captain said this was the first 3 week cruise he was where there was no disease of any kind.  They sanitized literally nonstop day and night!

 

So far, NCL has only had 3 ships with Covid....1 on each.

as i was saying, this has been overblown, the ships are aware of whats going on , and cleaning extra, as well as extra precautions, like more sanitizing stations, and no self serve on the buffets.  they should allow cruising in a limited capacity in a few months imo. 

[kwokpot]

3 minutes ago, Corliss said:

 

No, not confined to the cabins at all.  Great treatment....only problem was finding an open port.  NCL finally had to charter airplanes to take all passengers to their home countries.

That's what all cruiselines need to deal with BEFORE cruises start up. Even if you're not afraid of catching the virus what are the cruise lines policy going forward to assure that passengers will be able to disembark on the date and time as originally scheduled? There have always been deaths and illnesses on cruiseships but this situation of denying disembarkation has only occured with covi19. Even when you had the worse Norovirus outbreaks ships weren't denied disembarkation. 

[seaman11]

Just now, njhorseman said:

Three cases on NCL. Lots of cases on several Princess ships, a couple of Holland America ships, Costa ships...etc. 

i would not punish  ncl , for an issue on another line.  give that line an extension on a no sail, time to vet out sick staff and what not. But i dont agree with punishing all cruiselines, seems ncl did a great job. 

[seaman11]

1 minute ago, kwokpot said:

That's what all cruiselines need to deal with BEFORE cruises start up. Even if you're not afraid of catching the virus what are the cruise lines policy going forward to assure that passengers will be able to disembark on the date and time as originally scheduled? There have always been deaths and illnesses on cruiseships but this situation of denying disembarkation has only occured with covi19. Even when you had the worse Norovirus outbreaks ships weren't denied disembarkation. 

well if there are no covid cases on board, i would assume a port would not have a problem disembarking them , going foward.  it just so happen that ship was out at sea in the middle of this ordeal. 

[Corliss]

Just now, seaman11 said:

as i was saying, this has been overblown, the ships are aware of whats going on , and cleaning extra, as well as extra precautions, like more sanitizing stations, and no self serve on the buffets.  they should allow cruising in a limited capacity in a few months imo. 

 

Most of the passengers on the ship kept saying how lucky we were to be there instead of at home.  Everyone's temperature was checked before boarding, everyone's passport was checked to make sure no one had been to China recently.  We didn't have to "social distance" because it was already established that no one was sick.  And we didn't have to scramble for toilet paper...:-)

 

[phillyguy31]

To be fair I think it was more the luck of the draw on whether a ship had it or not. I am excluding the Princess ship in Japan because that was a disaster that never should have happened.

[seaman11]

Just now, Corliss said:

 

Most of the passengers on the ship kept saying how lucky we were to be there instead of at home.  Everyone's temperature was checked before boarding, everyone's passport was checked to make sure no one had been to China recently.  We didn't have to "social distance" because it was already established that no one was sick.  And we didn't have to scramble for toilet paper...:-)

 

i went through a similar thing on the liberty of seas, during hurricane harvey, 7 nights , turned into 13.   so many were thinking we were miserable, stuck at sea. i was eating shrimp and playing in the casino at night.  lol 

[Corliss]

5 minutes ago, kwokpot said:

That's what all cruiselines need to deal with BEFORE cruises start up. Even if you're not afraid of catching the virus what are the cruise lines policy going forward to assure that passengers will be able to disembark on the date and time as originally scheduled? There have always been deaths and illnesses on cruiseships but this situation of denying disembarkation has only occured with covi19. Even when you had the worse Norovirus outbreaks ships weren't denied disembarkation. 

 

That's because there has been an absolute worldwide panic about this.  Scientists had projected that 1.2-2.4 MILLION Americans would die.  Fortunately they were wrong; but it is easy to understand why countries reacted the way they did.  Particularly since the world was watching what was happening on the Diamond Princess.

[njhorseman]

9 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

i would not punish  ncl , for an issue on another line.  give that line an extension on a no sail, time to vet out sick staff and what not. But i dont agree with punishing all cruiselines, seems ncl did a great job. 

NCL got lucky because it happened to not get many passengers boarding who were infected and capable of spreading the virus. It was only just after cruising was halted that the number of cases exploded.

[seaman11]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

NCL got lucky because it happened to not get many passengers boarding who were infected and capable of spreading the virus. It was only just after cruising was halted that the number of cases exploded.

listen i know you are doom and gloom, im banking on ppl like this to get amazing deals, if you excuse me i need to finish my oct booking with $200 on board credit. 🤩

[njhorseman]

5 minutes ago, Corliss said:

 

That's because there has been an absolute worldwide panic about this.  Scientists had projected that 1.2-2.4 MILLION Americans would die.  Fortunately they were wrong; but it is easy to understand why countries reacted the way they did.  Particularly since the world was watching what was happening on the Diamond Princess.

The "would die"...or more accurately could die was based on what may have happened had none of the various mitigation actions been taken. The projections weren't wrong...when various state governments and later the federal government imposed the mitigation actions the assumptions underlying the mathematical epidemiology models changed.

[Mercury]

59 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

 Cruises to nowhere have been illegal for several years so they can't run them either.

 Precisely!😜 

[njhorseman]

3 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

listen i know you are doom and gloom, im banking on ppl like this to get amazing deals, if you excuse me i need to finish my oct booking with $200 on board credit. 🤩

I don't think waiting until a vaccine is available or until somehow the virus slips into the background and ceases to be  a major health threat before cruising again is "doom and gloom". It's simple common sense. 

 

I love cruising but I'll be damned if I'm going to risk my well being and the well being of my fellow cruise passengers (after all I could be the person who unknowingly brings the infection on board) just to take a cruise vacation.

[Corliss]

5 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

The "would die"...or more accurately could die was based on what may have happened had none of the various mitigation actions been taken. The projections weren't wrong...when various state governments and later the federal government imposed the mitigation actions the assumptions underlying the mathematical epidemiology models changed.

 

Sorry the projections were wrong and the scientist himself revised them down dramatically before the mitigation.  And even those numbers were way too high and have been further revised down by the IMHE first to the 100,000 - 240,000 range and then again to the 60,000 range.  We are at 26,000 currently so even those latest numbers are likely to be too high.  The models have been a failure which induced widespread panic.

[seaman11]

7 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I don't think waiting until a vaccine is available or until somehow the virus slips into the background and ceases to be  a major health threat before cruising again is "doom and gloom". It's simple common sense. 

 

I love cruising but I'll be damned if I'm going to risk my well being and the well being of my fellow cruise passengers (after all I could be the person who unknowingly brings the infection on board) just to take a cruise vacation.

i hear you, it is a real threat. but i wouldnt bank on a real working vaccine, myself. i will just take extra precautions around ppl and touching things. wash my hands more and use purel when i can. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by seaman11

[Mercury]

5 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I don't think waiting until a vaccine is available or until somehow the virus slips into the background and ceases to be  a major health threat before cruising again is "doom and gloom". It's simple common sense. 

 

I love cruising but I'll be damned if I'm going to risk my well being and the well being of my fellow cruise passengers (after all I could be the person who unknowingly brings the infection on board) just to take a cruise vacation.

 

I agree with you 100%

Common sense is not doom and gloom.

 

[Corliss]

No one should do anything they feel is unduly risky.  But, as far as waiting for a vaccine is concerned, vaccines are by no means sure things.  There may never be one.  The following is from a news clip from February of this year.  They have been working for decades for an HIV vaccine.

Promising HIV Vaccine Comes Up Short As Study Finds It Was No More Effective Than Placebo

“It’s disappointing, but I’m not overly surprised by it,” said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which funded the $121 million research effort with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “It did not, essentially, bring it over the goal line.”

 

 

[roger001]

40 minutes ago, pinkie60 said:

Who is your Governor?

Tennessee.   And....Harvard medical research just published projections yesterday that our present social distancing and many other procedures we are using now very likely will be required into mid 2021, using modeling containing some reasonable assumptions.  True...just an "opinion" like mine.  But...they do get the big bucks to back their "opinions" with pretty advanced medical research.  

[sanger727]

37 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

as i was saying, this has been overblown, the ships are aware of whats going on , and cleaning extra, as well as extra precautions, like more sanitizing stations, and no self serve on the buffets.  they should allow cruising in a limited capacity in a few months imo. 

 

Certainly within the totality of the number of people with Covid the number who got it on a cruise ship is minimal... But that isn't what the problem is. the problem is that how you can justify a governor opening up a port for embarkation and debarkation where thousands of people get crammed in like sardines when all public gatherings of more than 10-100 people are banned? yes, the economy will be opening up. Very slowly, in waves, with new social distancing standards. We currently have gatherings of more than 10 banned but the  governor has indicated he might loosen that up to 50 as we re-open. Still can't have sports with spectators, still can't have amusement parks, still can't have any public festivals. I'm not sure what cruising in a "limited capacity" would be but I think that's the point of this 100 days, for them to try and figure it out. I don't see that ending early. And if they don't figure it out, that could easily be extended. 

 

33 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

well if there are no covid cases on board, i would assume a port would not have a problem disembarking them , going foward.  it just so happen that ship was out at sea in the middle of this ordeal. 

 

Except for all those ships that were floating around begging ports and naval yards to let them in to disembark. this was a big deal finding a port to let people off, even with no cases. If the trump administration gets cruising re-opened early that doesn't mean that any of the scheduled ports will be confident enough to let cruise ship passengers disembark. And what if there is a case of covid. Good luck finding any port that will let ANYONE disembark. The princess debacle will start all over again.

 

I'm not trying to be a hater. I would like to take a trip next February and I am hoping very much that all these issues can get sorted out by then so we can take our trip. I truly don't know what the answer will be to re-opening the economy and restarting leisure trips and even cruising. But, I don't think it will be as fast and simple as you would like to believe. 

[Charles4515]

what about to their private island in the bahamas? 

That is up to the Bahamas.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[njhorseman]

8 minutes ago, Corliss said:

 

Sorry the projections were wrong and the scientist himself revised them down dramatically before the mitigation.  And even those numbers were way too high and have been further revised down by the IMHE first to the 100,000 - 240,000 range and then again to the 60,000 range.  We are at 26,000 currently so even those latest numbers are likely to be too high.  The models have been a failure which induced widespread panic.

By their nature models are estimates and are based on assumptions that may later be found to be inaccurate. In  particular when dealing with a situation like this where we had essentially no knowledge of how the virus was going to behave there's even greater risk of inaccuracy. 

 

As a mathematician and retired actuary I know full well how difficult it can be to model accurately . Sometimes you have to take your best shot and "guesstimate"  based on what you've observed in the past. As you learn where your models are inaccurate you revise the assumptions underlying them.

 

To say something like you did, "The models have been a failure which induced widespread panic" is insulting to the professionals who are doing their best under difficult circumstances . The tone sounds like it could be politically  motivated.

[gmbhardy]

8 minutes ago, Corliss said:

No one should do anything they feel is unduly risky.  But, as far as waiting for a vaccine is concerned, vaccines are by no means sure things.  There may never be one.  The following is from a news clip from February of this year.  They have been working for decades for an HIV vaccine.

Promising HIV Vaccine Comes Up Short As Study Finds It Was No More Effective Than Placebo

“It’s disappointing, but I’m not overly surprised by it,” said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which funded the $121 million research effort with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “It did not, essentially, bring it over the goal line.”

 

 

On the contrary, there are a number of Covid 19 vaccine development projects that are showing encouraging results. Only time will tell.

[Corliss]

4 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

By their nature models are estimates and are based on assumptions that may later be found to be inaccurate. In  particular when dealing with a situation like this where we had essentially no knowledge of how the virus was going to behave there's even greater risk of inaccuracy. 

 

As a mathematician and retired actuary I know full well how difficult it can be to model accurately . Sometimes you have to take your best shot and "guesstimate"  based on what you've observed in the past. As you learn where your models are inaccurate you revise the assumptions underlying them.

 

To say something like you did, "The models have been a failure which induced widespread panic" is insulting to the professionals who are doing their best under difficult circumstances . The tone sounds like it could be politically  motivated.

 

I said "The models have been a failure which induced widespread panic" because that is accurate.  And it explained correctly to the poster who wondered why the ship couldn't find a port to dock in.