Social distancing on a cruise ship

[Newleno]

1 hour ago, Aldeya said:

Well, for all of you who trust and follow recommendations of the World Health Organization.... On March 9 WHO announced the following:

"If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly."

Yeah that organization gets a lot of money, they do some good, but the political stuff is outrageous,  they are sanctimonious and corrupt.

[Newleno]

51 minutes ago, HavenHater55 said:

Yes, the point was that was March. It's almost June. That's 3 months - a LIFETIME when it comes to scientific research.

 

I just don't understand the people that say "Because scientists weren't 100% right about every single thing they said in the process of learning about a new virus that was entirely unknown to the scientific community before a few months ago - they must not know what they're talking about." 

Well Taiwan was doing it right all along and the "WHO" would not even acknowledge them.

[mugtech]

28 minutes ago, Newleno said:

Well Taiwan was doing it right all along and the "WHO" would not even acknowledge them.

So USA no longer paying them to not recognize Taiwan.

[bmwman]

Really enjoyed this reading.

 

It is really simple there are those, like me who will not wear a mask. So out of respect for others I do not go to public places where one should be worn.

 

Over here our  London Mayor has tried to enforce it on public transport  but on our buses not even all the drivers want to wear them and passengers are only abut 20% from what I can see out walking.

 

Cruising (which we love) is no different I would not wear a mask on vacation and therefore I do not book a cruise - its that simple. There is growing evidence that masks are only to a limited extent working but if people want to wear them so be it - It will not protect them but it may stop the spread. 

 

Someone thinks that the rules will be relaxed by August - maybe they will, maybe they will not but if you do not want to comply to what other see as a reasonable request do not risk it and do not go.

 

Unless I am mistaken that all that this thread boils down to.

 

 

[CruzRamirez]

14 hours ago, mugtech said:

So USA no longer paying them to not recognize Taiwan.

USA also blaming WHO for not shutting down sooner. Brazil president sacking two consecutive health ministers for not doing what he wanted. Et cetera, the list is long.  Politics, and the end goals of the politicians, dictate what public policy is carried out globally.

[jsn55]

Most of our problem is the inside knowledge that politics affects everything, and we're rightly skeptical of anything "they" tell us.  How long has the "scientific" debate been going on about eggs and whether they're good for us or harmful?  Twenty years?  If "they" can't even figure that out, why should we trust "them" on any other subject?  Controlling the population has always been a fun past time for "them".  "They" can all run around pontificating and striving to get into the media spotlight; keeps them from having to do any real work.  One thing for sure, the world economy will soon collapse if "they" don't do something to let us get back to our lives. 

[chipmaster]

5 hours ago, CruzRamirez said:

USA also blaming WHO for not shutting down sooner. Brazil president sacking two consecutive health ministers for not doing what he wanted. Et cetera, the list is long.  Politics, and the end goals of the politicians, dictate what public policy is carried out globally.

 

Don't understand your statement USA blaming WHO for not shutting down sooner.

 

US is an independent country with leaders who could have but didn't do anything earlier, why blame someone else?

 

Kind of like the cruise companies blaming someone else for not shutting down, they could always "lead."

 

 

[chipmaster]

11 hours ago, bmwman said:

Really enjoyed this reading.

 

It is really simple there are those, like me who will not wear a mask. So out of respect for others I do not go to public places where one should be worn.

 

Over here our  London Mayor has tried to enforce it on public transport  but on our buses not even all the drivers want to wear them and passengers are only abut 20% from what I can see out walking.

 

Cruising (which we love) is no different I would not wear a mask on vacation and therefore I do not book a cruise - its that simple. There is growing evidence that masks are only to a limited extent working but if people want to wear them so be it - It will not protect them but it may stop the spread. 

 

Someone thinks that the rules will be relaxed by August - maybe they will, maybe they will not but if you do not want to comply to what other see as a reasonable request do not risk it and do not go.

 

Unless I am mistaken that all that this thread boils down to.

 

 

happy to read how out of respect for others you don’t go out, what is the rational against wearing masks? 
 

I can understand if masks are required on planes and cruises you’d just pass on them, but what if recommended for everyday out and about ?

Edited May 31, 2020 by chipmaster

[bmwman]

1 hour ago, chipmaster said:

happy to read how out of respect for others you don’t go out, what is the rational against wearing masks? 
 

I can understand if masks are required on planes and cruises you’d just pass on them, but what if recommended for everyday out and about ?

Outside I find them oppressive uncomfortable and a nuisance. I will not wear one unless a legal requirement.  Indeed if you touch them it renders most masks useless.

 

A doctor has said to me that a mask will not protect myself but may protect others. 

 

It has not been suggested yet other for public transport, but from my observation it is very few people wearing them on busses and trains. The mayor of London knows  that it would be unenforceable due to widespread non compliance. Just look at  number of fines for breaking lockdown alone

 

It may also be partially ( and I generalise here) a British thing. We do not like being told what to do and I would suggest this is supported by the following from todays papers 

Ryanair boss: Most Brits will ignore quarantine rules and write 'Mickey Mouse, Walt Disney Street' on arrival card

 

[NutsAboutGolf]

2 minutes ago, bmwman said:

I will not wear one unless a legal requirement.  Indeed if you touch them it renders most masks useless.

 

A doctor has said to me that a mask will not protect myself but may protect others.

 

🤧 I'm sending positive vibes here, because what's the harm in potentially protecting others especially those with compromised immune systems?  The most positive thing about a covering/mask is you're being proactive.  The second you have an random unexpected cough or sneeze, whether or not you sub-conscientiously cough or sneeze into your hands, your potentially contaminated droplets won't travel as far.

[SeaShark]

6 minutes ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

🤧 I'm sending positive vibes here, because what's the harm in potentially protecting others especially those with compromised immune systems?  The most positive thing about a covering/mask is you're being proactive.  The second you have an random unexpected cough or sneeze, whether or not you sub-conscientiously cough or sneeze into your hands, your potentially contaminated droplets won't travel as far.

 

 

Well, if that is your logic, then why not just have everybody wear a full biohazard suit all day every day? What is the harm when you could protentionally protect others, right?

 

Proactive is not always a good thing when it comes to medicine. Should I take medications for illnesses that I don;t have...just to be proactive and get ahead of it?

 

Latest WHO guideance for masks:

          If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

 

So if I'm healthy, and I'm not taking care of a COVID-19 patient, I need not wear a mask. Notice that the WHO mentions nothing about "whats the harm".

[billyu]

On 5/30/2020 at 5:25 PM, npcl said:

Conde Nast Traveler has an article about the Caribbean opening up to travel.

 

Caribbean Islands Will Begin Reopening to Americans in June

 

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/caribbean-islands-will-begin-reopening-to-americans-in-june?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=cnt&utm_mailing=CNT_Daily_PM_053020&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5c33a8a02ddf9c392a7bfd11&cndid=39364381&hasha=d8359802d8ee567de47d91f267a5dfd0&hashb=db39cee632e779ece00c60a3474958b38bcf99a3&hashc=a12efa037dadc8173d919a271c135fb9d7c79a2b489037fc80770ecb439d4fb8&esrc=AUTO_OTHER&utm_content=Final&utm_term=CNT_Daily

 

However it appears that the reopening will involve fairly substantial restrictions

 

Travelers to the Caribbean will either be tested on arrival or have to present proof of a negative virus test taken 48 hours before boarding. St. Lucia and Antigua fall into the latter camp

 

 

Once there, visitors will be expected to wear masks and practice distancing in public places across the region.

 

Talks about travellers arriving via air. No mention of cruise ships.

[NutsAboutGolf]

7 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

 

Well, if that is your logic, then why not just have everybody wear a full biohazard suit all day every day? What is the harm when you could protentionally protect others, right?

 

Proactive is not always a good thing when it comes to medicine. Should I take medications for illnesses that I don;t have...just to be proactive and get ahead of it?

 

Latest WHO guideance for masks:

          If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

 

So if I'm healthy, and I'm not taking care of a COVID-19 patient, I need not wear a mask. Notice that the WHO mentions nothing about "whats the harm".

 

There are many reasons to fault the CDC but none more than not making the clear distinction between a "mask" and a "facial covering".  My best guess is cruise ships will not requires covering/masks for passengers and even if they did, they wouldn't strongly enforce it.   On a cruise, you're welcome to wear nothing more than board shorts and join the many others who didn't, I will wear a covering and if there's outbreak on my sailing, will feel far less guilty than if I didn't wear one.

[CruzRamirez]

2 hours ago, bmwman said:

Outside I find them oppressive uncomfortable and a nuisance. I will not wear one unless a legal requirement.  Indeed if you touch them it renders most masks useless.

 

A doctor has said to me that a mask will not protect myself but may protect others. 

 

It has not been suggested yet other for public transport, but from my observation it is very few people wearing them on busses and trains. The mayor of London knows  that it would be unenforceable due to widespread non compliance. Just look at  number of fines for breaking lockdown alone

 

It may also be partially ( and I generalise here) a British thing. We do not like being told what to do and I would suggest this is supported by the following from todays papers 

Ryanair boss: Most Brits will ignore quarantine rules and write 'Mickey Mouse, Walt Disney Street' on arrival card

 

Not just a British thing. Americans also do not like to be told what to do.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/packed-in-shoulder-to-shoulder-hugging-in-spokane-is-america-too-rebellious-to-beat-the-coronavirus/

[HavenHater55]

2 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

 

Well, if that is your logic, then why not just have everybody wear a full biohazard suit all day every day? What is the harm when you could protentionally protect others, right?

 

Proactive is not always a good thing when it comes to medicine. Should I take medications for illnesses that I don;t have...just to be proactive and get ahead of it?

 

Latest WHO guideance for masks:

          If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.

 

So if I'm healthy, and I'm not taking care of a COVID-19 patient, I need not wear a mask. Notice that the WHO mentions nothing about "whats the harm".

Because wearing a biohazard suit isn't practical. Wearing a mask, which takes almost no effort, is. 

 

Wearing a mask significantly reduces the risk that an asymptomatic carrier transits the virus to someone else. Refusing to wear a mask is simply saying "I don't care if my actions hurt other people." If someone truly thinks that, they are a terrible person. 

 

"So if I'm healthy" - that's the whole point. You can FEEL perfectly healthy, no symptoms whatsoever, and still be highly contagious to the people around you. 

 

Also that WHO mask guidance is outdated. Try something current, after far more research and an increased scientific understanding. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html

 

Ironically, most of the same "people" (and I use that term lightly) who refuse to wear a mask believe the conspiracy theory that the WHO is some kind of evil fraudulent organization, yet here you are trotting them out to support your point. 

 

If the basic morality of that isn't enough to make you wear a mask, then I truly pity your lack of humanity. 

Edited June 1, 2020 by HavenHater55

[HavenHater55]

20 minutes ago, CruzRamirez said:

Not just a British thing. Americans also do not like to be told what to do.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/packed-in-shoulder-to-shoulder-hugging-in-spokane-is-america-too-rebellious-to-beat-the-coronavirus/

Yeah, and look at how the virus worked in in good ole' USA versus countries with mature, responsible populations that actually care about their fellow citizens like South Korea and New Zealand. 

[SeaShark]

3 hours ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

There are many reasons to fault the CDC but none more than not making the clear distinction between a "mask" and a "facial covering".  My best guess is cruise ships will not requires covering/masks for passengers and even if they did, they wouldn't strongly enforce it.   On a cruise, you're welcome to wear nothing more than board shorts and join the many others who didn't, I will wear a covering and if there's outbreak on my sailing, will feel far less guilty than if I didn't wear one.

 

Why worry about a clear distinction between a "mask" and a "facial covering" when we're not even bothering to be clear about the distinction between the "CDC" and the "WHO"?

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, HavenHater55 said:

Because wearing a biohazard suit isn't practical. Wearing a mask, which takes almost no effort, is. 

 

Wearing a mask significantly reduces the risk that an asymptomatic carrier transits the virus to someone else. Refusing to wear a mask is simply saying "I don't care if my actions hurt other people." If someone truly thinks that, they are a terrible person. 

 

"So if I'm healthy" - that's the whole point. You can FEEL perfectly healthy, no symptoms whatsoever, and still be highly contagious to the people around you. 

 

Also that WHO mask guidance is outdated. Try something current, after far more research and an increased scientific understanding. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html

 

Ironically, most of the same "people" (and I use that term lightly) who refuse to wear a mask believe the conspiracy theory that the WHO is some kind of evil fraudulent organization, yet here you are trotting them out to support your point. 

 

If the basic morality of that isn't enough to make you wear a mask, then I truly pity your lack of humanity. 

 

Sorry, but the post I was addressing didn't mention what was practical, the argument was solely based on the logic of "whats the harm". And nowhere in your reply did you do anything but skirt that very issue.

 

Why do you feel that the WHO guidance is outdated? It is the current guidance they are putting out there right now...today. And I wasn't using them to support my point, I'm using theirs to address the point of the person I was responding to.

 

Based on your morality comment, then perhaps you should just advocate that everyone wear that full biohazard suit and stay locked in their homes forever...thats the most humanity you could have.

 

Now I'm going to go unroll my eyes.

[HavenHater55]

13 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Sorry, but the post I was addressing didn't mention what was practical, the argument was solely based on the logic of "whats the harm". And nowhere in your reply did you do anything but skirt that very issue.

 

Why do you feel that the WHO guidance is outdated? It is the current guidance they are putting out there right now...today. And I wasn't using them to support my point, I'm using theirs to address the point of the person I was responding to.

 

Based on your morality comment, then perhaps you should just advocate that everyone wear that full biohazard suit and stay locked in their homes forever...thats the most humanity you could have.

 

Now I'm going to go unroll my eyes.

Someone who compares wearing a mask to a biohazard suit in the current COVID-19 context isn't worth taking seriously or engaging with further. 

Edited June 1, 2020 by HavenHater55

[NutsAboutGolf]

23 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Why worry about a clear distinction between a "mask" and a "facial covering" when we're not even bothering to be clear about the distinction between the "CDC" and the "WHO"?

 

Ah, I'll quote Archer, "classic deflection!".  RCL for some reason decided to trademark their "seaface" coverings, you won't see any crew/staff on the ship without a covering except for the entertainers.  There will be Plexiglas dividers anywhere the crew/staff will interact with the guests, guest services, dining hostess stands and bars are going to have dividers.  More important than the "CDC" and "WHO" are the ports, they're dictating the rules and some are not letting any cruise ships in even with mask for the rest of the year unfortunately. 

[slavetoabunny]

I have 3 cruises booked.  One is in December 2020, the second in March 2021, and the last not until March 2023.  I am not overly concerned about the 2023 cruise yet, but if NCL is going to require a mask for the 2020 or 2021 cruise, I will simply choose to cancel.  I am not paying $5,000 and $8,000 for the respective cruises and wearing a mask for my vacation. 

[Newleno]

8 hours ago, HavenHater55 said:

Yeah, and look at how the virus worked in in good ole' USA versus countries with mature, responsible populations that actually care about their fellow citizens like South Korea and New Zealand. 

Maybe New Zealand is not a major airline transportation hub and the virus was not already seeded in their country to the extent of the USA.

[SeaShark]

11 hours ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Ah, I'll quote Archer, "classic deflection!".  RCL for some reason decided to trademark their "seaface" coverings, you won't see any crew/staff on the ship without a covering except for the entertainers.  There will be Plexiglas dividers anywhere the crew/staff will interact with the guests, guest services, dining hostess stands and bars are going to have dividers.  More important than the "CDC" and "WHO" are the ports, they're dictating the rules and some are not letting any cruise ships in even with mask for the rest of the year unfortunately. 

 

"For some reason"...seriously? You trademark something to protect your financial interest in it. Obviously RCL is concerned with their profit from the mask. Sad that they are looking at the profitability of a means of personal protection, but hey, profit before lives right?

 

Glad to hear about Plexiglas dividers since there are a fullproof method of disease prevention.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32405162/

[HavenHater55]

8 hours ago, Newleno said:

Maybe New Zealand is not a major airline transportation hub and the virus was not already seeded in their country to the extent of the USA.

Cool now do South Korea. 

[seaman11]

8 hours ago, slavetoabunny said:

I have 3 cruises booked.  One is in December 2020, the second in March 2021, and the last not until March 2023.  I am not overly concerned about the 2023 cruise yet, but if NCL is going to require a mask for the 2020 or 2021 cruise, I will simply choose to cancel.  I am not paying $5,000 and $8,000 for the respective cruises and wearing a mask for my vacation. 

I wouldn't worry about it for 2021 and beyond.  

 

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/114304/coronavirus-austria-partial-lifting-of-the-obligation-to-wear-masks/

 

this is out of the country but could give us an idea of the future here once this virus dies down. 

 

The first cruises to go this summer and maybe fall,  yeah we may have to wear masks in public areas. im hoping in a few months those restrictions are lifted. 

Edited June 1, 2020 by seaman11