Wearing a mask

[clo]

40 minutes ago, RJB said:

I don't think we would either.  Too many restrictions would ruin our vacation no matter how much they discounted it.

Unless CDC just gives up I'm thinking that restrictions will go WAY beyond just masks. Imagine if they remove half the seating in dining venues. No more than 50 people in any gathering. Bars closed. I'm just trying to imagine translating what's going on in restaurants and other public venues in various states. Why would a cruise ship have fewer requirements? Unless they wait a few years for a vaccine and worldwide vaccinations?

[Roger88]

Masks will be required on all of the cruisers after the operations are officially started. I doubt that there will be a single company that will prohibit such a rule.. at least for this year for sure. Well, the upside is that everyone will have a branded mask of the cruisers. Sounds good to me

[RJB]

30 minutes ago, clo said:

Unless CDC just gives up I'm thinking that restrictions will go WAY beyond just masks. Imagine if they remove half the seating in dining venues. No more than 50 people in any gathering. Bars closed. I'm just trying to imagine translating what's going on in restaurants and other public venues in various states. Why would a cruise ship have fewer requirements? Unless they wait a few years for a vaccine and worldwide vaccinations?

Again I say, why would I want to pay good money to cruise under these conditions?  Wait a few years there will be no cruise ships left.  Between the rock and the hard place. 

[clo]

32 minutes ago, Roger88 said:

Masks will be required on all of the cruisers after the operations are officially started. I doubt that there will be a single company that will prohibit such a rule.. at least for this year for sure. Well, the upside is that everyone will have a branded mask of the cruisers. Sounds good to me

After two months of mask wearing I no long consider it even noteworthy. And some of our local restaurants are asking that you wear your mask to/from your table. I don't consider that a big deal at all.

[LHT28]

34 minutes ago, Roger88 said:

Masks will be required on all of the cruisers after the operations are officially started. I doubt that there will be a single company that will prohibit such a rule.. at least for this year for sure. Well, the upside is that everyone will have a branded mask of the cruisers. Sounds good to me

Where  do you see this  ruling?

 Just speculation  at this point in time

[Ladys Mom]

5 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Where  do you see this  ruling?

 Just speculation  at this point in time

When RCL submits a patent application for a mask to wear on their ships, I would say it is pretty likely that we will all be wearing masks on ships at least for the foreseeable future.  Hopefully the masks they designed are more attractive and provide more protection than the ones I wear now.

[Ladys Mom]

By the way, NCL hired Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA, as a consultant on their Covid response team.  They would not have gone to the effort and expense of having him if they weren't taken their response of the pandemic seriously, and they didn't want to initiate cruises as soon as possible.

[clo]

11 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Where  do you see this  ruling?

 Just speculation  at this point in time

This brings up something that I'm curious about. Would the cruise lines already have been told that they'll be required to do since some of them are making plans to sail relatively soon.

[floridatravelersforlife]

18 hours ago, Ladys Mom said:

By the way, NCL hired Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA, as a consultant on their Covid response team.  They would not have gone to the effort and expense of having him if they weren't taken their response of the pandemic seriously, and they didn't want to initiate cruises as soon as possible.

Dr Gottlieb is off my list of people to pay attention to.  His growing list of clients and media appearances makes me wary about his ultimate goal.   The post Government service consulting business is lucrative and he is striking while the iron is hot.  It's now in his best interest to perpetuate the paranoia.

[Queen of DaNile]

Not a "ruling" but Frank's instincts have often proved true:

 

'Many cruisers have speculated what the onboard experience might look like, in a post-COVID-19 world. Del Rio cautioned that, at least at first, it would look very similar to what's taking place on land.

"My guess is early on there will be masks," he said. "Early on, there will be an emphasis on washing your hands, on social distancing."'

[Dunelm]

On 5/13/2020 at 8:56 AM, Hawaiidan said:

First of all all you have to do is listen to the press release weekly by " the experts"  who keep changing their opinions. 

  In Britain they fired their expert because of his inaccurate and over the top forcasts.   Washington state experts  keep revising their opinions...  This virus has been around for a long time and just keeps morphing   This current  morph  will change too.

While there is a danger it is mainly in high population, medical susceptible/ vulnerable people.  50-80% are in nursing homes..  The numbers keep going down in new cases  but the media who loves bad news loves to paint a different picture.   

   My point is,  that the threat is real  but people are being hyped  politicians and the press.   It is not going to last forever that is just logic  as nothing does.    Masks  will  slowly go away I suspect when the panic subsides

Have many friends in Britain, one of whom is a surgeon.  The number of deaths there are the highest in Europe.  The state in which I live is seeing a surge in cases and deaths almost one month after the governor started to open up non-essential businesses.   Yes !  There is confusion, therefore all the more reason to be cautious.

[Hawaiidan]

On 5/17/2020 at 10:49 AM, Paulchili said:

I had asked you before but you didn't answer.

Whose opinion or advice do you trust (I hope it's not your gut).

I don't trust any one source...I look and listen to many and make my own decisions rather than having someone who is making gross generalizations for regions and persons.....  The assumption   that  is made is people are too stupid to  determine their risk and what precautions and where they should be taken.... and the media promotes this...

The average person if standing on  a railroad track, and seeing a train coming can figure out when to step back......no different with this problem

Edited June 13, 2020 by Hawaiidan

[Dunelm]

5 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

I don't trust any one source...I look and listen to many and make my own decisions rather than having someone who is making gross generalizations for regions and persons.....  The assumption   that  is made is people are too stupid to  determine their risk and what precautions and where they should be taken.... and the media promotes this...

I am glad that you use several sources when making a decision.  I do not think people are stupid--some obviously--however, I do think there is a part of our population, including some leaders, who think they know better than our scientists and doctors.  Also, I am thankful for the many journalists and people on the front line who are putting their lives at risk to help save us from ourselves.

[clo]

1 hour ago, Hawaiidan said:

.I look and listen to many

Please give some examples of the sources you go to. Cause they're clearly not the ones I use.

[Paulchili]

2 hours ago, Hawaiidan said:

I don't trust any one source...I look and listen to many and make my own decisions rather than having someone who is making gross generalizations for regions and persons..

That sounds like good and sound advice.

However, listening to many sources and making up your own mind is not that easy.

To take an extreme example - if you watch MSNBC , CNN and F&F you are listening to several different sources but you couldn't possibly come up with an answer as their take is 180* different.

Hence the question - specifically whose opinions do you trust?

[Hawaiidan]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Please give some examples of the sources you go to. Cause they're clearly not the ones I use.

Here in California we have numerous TV and Radio channels as well as newspapers and Internet.... and each gives daily reports to gleen from   Also checking with other out of California regions specific to travel/activity.. .......   

[clo]

10 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

Here in California we have numerous TV and Radio channels as well as newspapers and Internet.... and each gives daily reports to gleen from   Also checking with other out of California regions specific to travel/activity.. .......   

So in other words, you're unwilling to say. That's kinda what I figured.

[Hawaiidan]

11 minutes ago, Paulchili said:

That sounds like good and sound advice.

However, listening to many sources and making up your own mind is not that easy.

To take an extreme example - if you watch MSNBC , CNN and F&F you are listening to several different sources but you couldn't possibly come up with an answer as their take is 180* different.

Hence the question - specifically whose opinions do you trust?

In the final analysis  I trust my judgment because no one knows the risk and situation better than myself ( I will say I avoid CNN MSNBC and have no idea what FF is)   

  In  emergency management and operations you learn to gather all the facts, determine which are valid and which ones  are not.  From these facts  you can reasonably surmise the probability or un known's  to determine your plan of action..

It is impossible to and impractical to only include the same ones in all cases.... also un wise as things can change.  It is a synergy of multiple sources that produce  results which  have been shown to produce results far more positive than a sole source experts can produce.

  You make  a judgment call and  monitor the situation  to your decision and  be prepared to revise your decision if new  valid facts appear.   

 That seemed to work for 30+ years in countless life and death situations far worse than this current one... I trust my decisions maybe more than others might theirs..      Call it experience if you will Paul.

 

[Hawaiidan]

10 minutes ago, clo said:

So in other words, you're unwilling to say. That's kinda what I figured.

No  your un willing to accept that it is maybe dozens of sources that can change with the time and place...and that that changes too depending on what I am planning. to do..You have to do your own research ... 

[Hawaiidan]

5 hours ago, Dunelm said:

I am glad that you use several sources when making a decision.  I do not think people are stupid--some obviously--however, I do think there is a part of our population, including some leaders, who think they know better than our scientists and doctors.  Also, I am thankful for the many journalists and people on the front line who are putting their lives at risk to help save us from ourselves.

Most of the journalists are the larger problem.....

They need sensation to sell stories  that fit their own political agenda.....  All they  put at risk is  their moral and personal integrity

[Ride-The-Waves]

Going unmasked is politics, not science.  USMA West Point graduation today graduates walked masked onto the large field two at a time separate by 6 feet after having isolated themselves for 14 days.  Took their assigned chairs on the grass then were ordered to unmask to listen to POTUS speak.  They re-masked after he left the podium.  Science is still indicating masking helps stem the contagion.  

 

Its a duty and an obligation to fellow citizens in your country to work together to reduce exposure and transmission of COVID-19.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Ride-The-Waves

[clo]

44 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Going unmasked is politics, not science.

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ToxM]

If nothing else, you ill be singing this the rest of the day. 

[DaveSJ711]

2 hours ago, ToxM said:

If nothing else, you ill be singing this the rest of the day. 

 

Freddie!

[DrHemlock]

Good one, ToxM!!!  There's a frequent poster on this board who likes to go on about deciding for himself how much risk he's willing to take, then acting upon it -- which, in his case, means no mask because he's willing to take the risk of getting COVID.

 

Well, sir, you may not be worried about the risk to yourself, but that's really not the issue, is it?  If you refuse to wear a mask in close quarters in public, then you are the risk.  Masks (except for the fancy ones we ordinary civilians can't obtain) don't really do much to protect you from others; their purpose is to protect others from you.  

 

Just like when the surgeon operates on your knee or shoulder: his/her mask isn't protection against your knee germs; they're protection against his/her germs getting into your open wound.  Is that so difficult to understand, and is consideration for the health of others such a disagreeable concept?

 

I repeat:  Good one, ToxM!!!