WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO RESTART CRUISE SHIPS???

[Doubt It]

Yes. In Canada 71% died over 80+ years, another 25% between 65-80, and 75% in nursing homes (not retirement homes).

 

So, basically, the + 70 crowd has borne the brunt, but then typical of SARS and the flu.

 

For this age group, the travel issue is very significant and crowded venues like planes and cruise ships should be suspect.

[OuiOnboard]

error

Edited May 18, 2020 by OuiOnboard

[Doubt It]

OuiOnboard, so very well said, I hoist a glass to you.

 

With globalization and the very long history of viruses originating from China, this changes my opinion of travel options.

 

Planes and cruise ships are on the negative list, vehicle travel, home rental, golf resorts - are on the positive list.

 

 

[Basketball wife]

ECCruise is correct. You can’t just open up ports and “let people choose”. Despite the fact that there are identified groups most at risk there are still too many unknowns — why are some people asymptomatic, why do some people recover undramatically, why do seemingly healthy young people become ill and die, etc.?

 

While ports can open and allow ships to leave, things change fast and letting them return is a whole ‘nother ball game. Believe me, floating around the ocean for a couple of extra weeks (although this may sound appealing to some), not really knowing for sure when/where/if you will get off is extremely psychologically straining.

 

Took me a while to find this photo. It was taken about six days before the Eclipse was permitted to disembark passengers and the Captain was telling us no one on-board was sick.  They set up a waiting room in the elevator lobby outside the medical facility to accommodate an overflow with people waiting over an hour. This is NOT the norovirus. COVID-19 is difficult for public health agencies to “manage”, so,  is it really possible to expect one or two doctors with a handful of nurses on a cruise ship to do so??

[CGTNORMANDIE]

6 hours ago, MrCoachRentz said:

That's easy, open the ports and let people choose.  Manage possible infections while on the ship, just like they do with nora virus.  If experts say this will never go away, then, might as well start living and managing.  

Opening ports and letting people choose is a recipe for disaster.  In order to start cruising again the ship will have to be tightly controlled...preboarding testing and onboard testing.  When the ship lands at a port, one that has a special agreement, then all pax who disembark will need to be escorted to an isolated location.  The pax must be kept from becoming contaminated.  To expose the pax to a general population at a port defeats the efforts to avoid infection while onboard.

 

So...how do we cruise keeping the ship infection free and avoidIng infection while in port??  So far all I can envision is a long voyage with one port of disembarkation.  How many of you would embark on a 2 week cruise with no ports other than the port of disembarkation??  The ship would be the destination.  

Edited May 18, 2020 by CGTNORMANDIE

[Blackduck59]

4 hours ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

Because Canadians prefer "actual truth," here is some truth:  Nursing homes account for 81% of Canada's deaths from COVID-19, a far greater proportion than in the United States.  The source for this statistic is Canada's chief public health officer, Theresa Tam.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/coronavirus-canada-long-term-care-nursing-homes/2020/05/18/01494ad4-947f-11ea-87a3-22d324235636_story.html

 

Thank you for supplying this information as well as your source. Indeed we do prefer "actual truth", and I have no doubt this is true. My problem is when people pull numbers out of the air and peddel that as truth. Seems to happen a lot these days. It is interesting how you were able to find actual numbers for Canada but others were having trouble quoting sources for their claims. And of course Canada being a vast country with a small population the results vary by region.

British Columbia has 5 health regions and so far Island Health which encompasses Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and part of the mainland has zero cases in elder care facilities. So while we can go on ad infinitum about who is dying where and why. Suffice to say some jurisdictions are doing a better job than others, and some seem to have a plan and others...not so much.

So on the topic at hand "What will it take to restart cruise ships" I would suggest that the first requirement will be for jurisdictions world wide to get a handle on their outbreaks and show that they have flattened the curve of the outbreak. Once that happens hopefully months as opposed to years. Then there needs to be some type of test and boarding protocol for all types of International travel, be it land, sea or air.

There has been some mighty bold talk about a Vaccine, this may or may not happen (there never was a vaccine for SARS)

There has been even bolder talk of treatments, some just plain ludicrous. Science is working on many different treatment regimens being tried world wide. Let's hope someone gets it right.

Then once the borders are open and workable protocols are in place, cruisers will have to make the adult decision to go on the cruise with the protocols that are in place. Then even more important is the need for those who have made the Adult decision to cruise to act like adults and follow the protocols...wash your hands, use the supplied hand sanitizer and take responsibility for your actions.

[Pushka]

6 hours ago, MrCoachRentz said:

That's easy, open the ports and let people choose.  Manage possible infections while on the ship, just like they do with nora virus.  If experts say this will never go away, then, might as well start living and managing.  

Clean ports won't want any potentially infected tourists coming ashore. 

[Blackduck59]

58 minutes ago, Pushka said:

Clean ports won't want any potentially infected tourists coming ashore. 

 

While the solution of the post that you quoted was rather unsophisticated. I'm not sure that there will ever be any guarantee anywhere in the world that won't hold some risk of exposure (except maybe Antarctica, and I'm sure human kind will find a way to screw that up). Once there is some "Reasonable" methods to mitigate the risk of outbreaks, then ports will have to choose if they are "open for business" just as cruisers will have to make the adult decision of whether those "Reasonable" mitigations are acceptable to them.

What may be acceptable to the vast majority may not be acceptable to you or me or some of the residents of the ports involved but there comes a time to fish or cut bait.

[phoenix_dream]

6 hours ago, npcl said:

Keep in mind one of the major impacts of COVID-19 is its impact on hospital resources. Depending upon the study the median length of time of a hospital stay is 14-19 days.  

That is actually one of the key factors evaluated (or should have been) when determining when to shelter in place and when to lift the shelter order.  Until there is a vaccine and/or very effective treatment drugs, the primary objective was to limit the number of hospitalizations so that areas wouldn't be inundated with patients such that they had to turn people away or provide less than desirable treatment.   Anyone who thinks about it realizes that until that happens, the main idea was not to prevent people from getting sick - the main idea was to keep everyone from getting sick all at the same time.  Along with that, of course, is the hope that by keeping the curve lower over time there is more and more hope that a vaccine will be developed and the point will become mute.    In all likelihood there will be an effective vaccine, based on predictions from true experts in that field.  But there is the possibility there might never be one effective enough.   Keeping the curve flatter allows for better hospital and treatment capacity.  

 

[2chiefs]

On 5/10/2020 at 7:48 AM, Georgia_Peaches said:

<<<SNIP>>>

What will it take?  An act of Congress, perhaps...

This will be a long, long time....

[Pushka]

1 hour ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

While the solution of the post that you quoted was rather unsophisticated. I'm not sure that there will ever be any guarantee anywhere in the world that won't hold some risk of exposure (except maybe Antarctica, and I'm sure human kind will find a way to screw that up). Once there is some "Reasonable" methods to mitigate the risk of outbreaks, then ports will have to choose if they are "open for business" just as cruisers will have to make the adult decision of whether those "Reasonable" mitigations are acceptable to them.

What may be acceptable to the vast majority may not be acceptable to you or me or some of the residents of the ports involved but there comes a time to fish or cut bait.

Yes, we need to find the right spot. I don't know where that is right now. Well, none of us does. 

[2chiefs]

On 5/10/2020 at 2:19 PM, cruise kitty said:

 

How are they allowing people inside buildings without masks?  Distancing? Absolute madness, things are definitely not like that here.  

And yet it's worse in LA than Arkansas ....  What does that say about the so-called experts?

Madness is staying locked up in the house and letting the economy die on the vine.

Madness is sending infected people "home" to their senior centers....

Madness is the watching the talking heads telling us to stay home when they seem to be enjoying their salaries ....

Madness is allowing the big box stores to thrive and leaving the small business owners to sacrifice

Madness is allowing me to buy a shrub from the Home Depot Garden center while letting our local nursery file bankruptcy

Madness is being able to buy an oven from Lowes but not Best Buy.

Yep, seems like madness is more contagious that Covid 19.

Just sayin'

 

[cruise kitty]

@2chiefs  I'm sorry things are difficult for you right now.   Hope they get better. :)  I do understand.  My husband went out of business.  

[TeeRick]

22 hours ago, ch175 said:

There are currently 1.52 million confirmed cases in the US. The US population is approximately 328 million. That’s about 0.46% of the population.

 

There are some actual numbers to think about.

My guess is that if every one of the 328 million people in the US was tested today (which is not possible) the virus positive population would be higher than 0.46%.  But probably not much higher perhaps in the 1% range based on other population studies done in places like Iceland (0.8%).  And at least half of these would be asymptomatic.   If interested I have attached a link to a NE J of Medicine article.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100

Edited May 19, 2020 by TeeRick

[Ride-The-Waves]

On 5/18/2020 at 11:07 AM, ch175 said:

There are currently 1.52 million confirmed cases in the US. The US population is approximately 328 million. That’s about 0.46% of the population.

 

There are some actual numbers to think about.

 

Agree with markeb - meaningless.  

 

Maybe better would be the numbers of people infected while on cruise ships...and the resulting deaths.

 

And speaking of numbers, just reported that the person managing the "dashboard" for Florida's COVID-19 website was fired two weeks ago for refusing to post fake numbers of infections and deaths.  Hre website had been praised for its accuracy and readability.  The GOP governor wanted to show fewer cases and deaths than actually occurring.  Even then, medical experts are saying that in the US we are under reporting COVID-19 related deaths by at least 50 percent.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Ride-The-Waves

[markeb]

1 hour ago, TeeRick said:

My guess is that if every one of the 328 million people in the US was tested today (which is not possible) the virus positive population would be higher than 0.46%.  But probably not much higher perhaps in the 1% range based on other population studies done in places like Iceland (0.8%).  And at least half of these would be asymptomatic.   If interested I have attached a link to a NE J of Medicine article.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100

That would be 1% prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 on PCR? That makes sense. If it were crazy high, you’d never flatten the curve. 

 

I think I’m most curious of a “real” serosurvey with a good, quantitative test. That would give a lot of insight to what’s actually happened. And if we can ultimately correlate that to protection...

[ch175]

1 hour ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

 

Agree with markeb - meaningless.  

 

I am deleting what I wrote as it is way off the topic of this.

 

Hopefully we will all be able to cruise some day soon.

Edited May 19, 2020 by ch175

[CGTNORMANDIE]

2 hours ago, ch175 said:

I am deleting what I wrote as it is way off the topic of this.

 

Hopefully we will all be able to cruise some day soon.

Thank you CH.  I wish there were more posters with ideas on “What will it take to restart cruise ships”.  We need ideas.

[cangelmd]

52 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

My guess is that if every one of the 328 million people in the US was tested today (which is not possible) the virus positive population would be higher than 0.46%.  But probably not much higher perhaps in the 1% range based on other population studies done in places like Iceland (0.8%).  And at least half of these would be asymptomatic.   If interested I have attached a link to a NE J of Medicine article.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100

Based on pre-op testing in my area, which NOT truly random, but is a selected population of non-symptomatic people, I think this is about right. We are testing for active disease, not antibodies and are seeing a little less than 1 percent. Our state R value is just under 1, but I live in the county/city with the most cases and deaths - so I would describe us as a hard hit area in a not as hard hit state. I think a population study in our county would be between 0.8 and 3%, and much closer to that 0.8%. The highest I’ve heard was a study in NYC and pockets outside NYC and Boston where the Ab rate was 15-20%.

The encouraging thing I’m seeing from our public health is the new cases slowly skewing younger and the rate of increase is steady (R value under 1), but it will be another 10 days before we really know.
This is pure speculation on my part, but I think as more and more people come to know someon personally  who has gotten sick, especially severely sick, the rate of mask wearing will go up and that will help tremendously 

[SeaHunt]

Here's an article with a CLIA exec about restarting (he mostly talks about what's "on the table" 😉😞

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/clia-crafting-curb-curb-framework-safe-cruising-covid-19-era

[npcl]

20 hours ago, 2chiefs said:

And yet it's worse in LA than Arkansas ....  What does that say about the so-called experts?

Madness is staying locked up in the house and letting the economy die on the vine.

Madness is sending infected people "home" to their senior centers....

Madness is the watching the talking heads telling us to stay home when they seem to be enjoying their salaries ....

Madness is allowing the big box stores to thrive and leaving the small business owners to sacrifice

Madness is allowing me to buy a shrub from the Home Depot Garden center while letting our local nursery file bankruptcy

Madness is being able to buy an oven from Lowes but not Best Buy.

Yep, seems like madness is more contagious that Covid 19.

Just sayin'

 

It says that population density,(more people in the City of LA than in the state of Arkansas) travel flows into and out of an area (including international travel) have a large impact on which areas got hit, how hard and how soon.  The spread in LA got a good head start before restrictions due to it being a major international travel hub.

 

Having lived in Arkansas when I worked at the National Center for Toxicological Research  Little Rock is not exactly a hub of international travel.

 

One of the best ways to control an outbreak is to limit travel into and out of an area.

Edited May 19, 2020 by npcl

[ECCruise]

18 minutes ago, SeaHunt said:

Here's an article with a CLIA exec about restarting (he mostly talks about what's "on the table" 😉😞

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/clia-crafting-curb-curb-framework-safe-cruising-covid-19-era

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

Simply reinforces our decision to play wait-and-see with this situation.   No way I am boarding a cruse ship on a long cruise with only a temperature check.  Totally ignores asymptomatic which can infect dozens.  Onboard isolation areas for quarantine?  Perhaps returning to barring age/pre-existing condition and doctor's notices.

Not the way we want to spend our dough.

[Georgia_Peaches]

5 minutes ago, ECCruise said:

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

Simply reinforces our decision to play wait-and-see with this situation.   No way I am boarding a cruse ship on a long cruise with only a temperature check.  Totally ignores asymptomatic which can infect dozens.  Onboard isolation areas for quarantine?  Perhaps returning to barring age/pre-existing condition and doctor's notices.

Not the way we want to spend our dough.

Agree.  An excellent article and it's been a while since I've seen one that said anything new.  The social distancing thing is among many of the deal breakers for us.  I understand that some people are ready to get back to cruising no matter what, but I'm not one of them.  I will wait it out because cruising under those circumstances just doesn't sound fun to me.

[TeeRick]

15 hours ago, SeaHunt said:

Here's an article with a CLIA exec about restarting (he mostly talks about what's "on the table" 😉😞

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/clia-crafting-curb-curb-framework-safe-cruising-covid-19-era

Thanks for posting this article.  It shows behind the curtain a bit about what the cruise lines are thinking and doing.  But the CLIA draft is likely an opening set of operational principles to be discussed and revised.  CLIA represents the cruise industry and presents their view.  I would then expect a negotiation phase from the CDC and other health authorities worldwide.  So their opening salvo might actually turn out to be a lot more restrictive in the end.  And likely a phased approach just like openings on land. So if you disagree with even their opening principles in this document then you will not be cruising soon.

[ECCruise]

16 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Thanks for posting this article.  It shows behind the curtain a bit about what the cruise lines are thinking and doing.  But the CLIA draft is likely an opening set of operational principles to be discussed and revised.  CLIA represents the cruise industry and presents their view.  I would then expect a negotiation phase from the CDC and other health authorities worldwide.  So their opening salvo might actually turn out to be a lot more restrictive in the end.  And likely a phased approach just like openings on land. So if you disagree with even their opening principles in this document then you will not be cruising soon.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.  If this represents the most restrictive posture the CLIA is offering, I can't see the CDC just blindly going along.  Likely to be more restrictive when the final agreement(s) are determined.