What Criteria Will You Use to Conclude It Is Safe To Cruise Again

[jjs217]

1 hour ago, greykitty said:

Well, IMO, another aspect of 'dying with a smile on my face doing what I love' is whether, beyond taking up medical resources to some extent (even if just needing to be pronounced dead), would I be dying of a easily communicable disease with myriad unknown factors that I could have passed to hundreds of people along the way?  

 

Somewhat different, in my mind, to someone who may have struggled with a chronic non-communicable disease for years, or even of a sudden, unexpected death.

 

One thing to knowingly risk only myself - another to risk everyone around me for what amounts to 'having fun', no?

 

That said, issue may be moot if these European COVID rate increases continue to hold, right?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/08/19/spain-and-italy-post-new-coronavirus-records-since-lockdown/#70fe92af9947

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But this is the wonderful thing - no one is going to make you cruise.  You don't have to cruise again until 2025 if you don't want to.  So when there is a vaccine and a very reliable treatment, why not open up and do some test runs, if there are others who are willing to take that risk.  We don't know how this will "shake out" until cruises start up again.  I know one thing - if we refuse to cruise for years and years, there won't be any cruise lines still operating.  They can't maintain the costs without any income.  

[greykitty]

I think again I agree that once we know there is a useful vaccine and universally available and effective treatment, that's a whole new ball game regarding risk taking for leisure and nonessential activities.  Even I, pending doctors' approval, might be willing to take that risk.  And that might be years and years away.  

 

Just that we're already seeing river and sea cruises out there, without  "a vaccine and a very reliable treatment", and so very many passengers who seem willing to sign any waivers necessary so they can cruise right now, as noted in their statements to the CDC.   But, can I assume we all agree that this is not acceptable risk taking for US residents, at least as regards the safety of others, now?

 

And, as we already saw on MSC, even with the eyes of the world upon you, there are passengers who will scoff at the rules meant to protect themselves and others.   Bravo to MSC for kicking those passengers off - hope it has a salutary effect on others who feel the rules are for other folks, not them.

 

But, who knows - maybe there will be game changing events right around the corner.  Like the talk of the saliva test developed by the U of I.  Although from what I've read you still don't get the instant results that could possibly truly change how we live daily life during the pandemic.

 

 

[Wendy The Wanderer]

2 hours ago, greykitty said:

But, can I assume we all agree that this is not acceptable risk taking for US residents, at least as regards the safety of others, now?

 

Um, why are you specifying U.S. residents?  Not everybody on this board is American, or living in the U.S>

[D C]

On 8/19/2020 at 3:14 PM, cerise638 said:

Yes "stuff happens". What's your degree of acceptance if that causes you to be locked down in your suite because there is an outbreak on board.  No cocktails, no fine dining just a limited room service menu.  Could be like that for weeks until you find a port which will allow you to disembark

 

Then when you do no government rescue just a cattle class charter flight home with others who may or may not be infected

 

Just one scenario that could happen. For me it's nothing to do with being risk averse. It's just that my scenario has a high likelihood at the moment.  Testing can only show you haven't got the virus today not tomorrow so someone will bring it on board.

 

 

Cruising will be very questionable for a lot of people until a point is reached where cases onboard don't result in the disastrous and irrational reaction of stranding a ship at sea.     Such a reaction makes no sense whatsoever given how widespread covid is and the improved treatment. 

[D C]

3 hours ago, greykitty said:

I think again I agree that once we know there is a useful vaccine and universally available and effective treatment, that's a whole new ball game regarding risk taking for leisure and nonessential activities.  Even I, pending doctors' approval, might be willing to take that risk.  And that might be years and years away.  

 

Just that we're already seeing river and sea cruises out there, without  "a vaccine and a very reliable treatment", and so very many passengers who seem willing to sign any waivers necessary so they can cruise right now, as noted in their statements to the CDC.   But, can I assume we all agree that this is not acceptable risk taking for US residents, at least as regards the safety of others, now?

 

 

 

 

 

Should that be "a vaccine OR a very reliable treatment"?  With a reliable treatment that minimizes the likelihood of death, a vaccine isn't necessary.  People would get sick, but if the risk of death is on par with influenza, the vaccine isn't necessary when you look at it on a macro scale.  Especially when considering how many people reject flu shots every year.  

Edited August 20, 2020 by D C

[greykitty]

1 hour ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

 

Um, why are you specifying U.S. residents?  Not everybody on this board is American, or living in the U.S>

 

Very fair point.  I think at least some of the discussion stipulated CDC approval and even a mandated vaccine as a base before cruising, so, yep, I was proceeding along the same paths. Very US-centric, to be sure.

 

But the thought of someone with dual citizenship and access to areas where cruises are restarting did enter my mind, if that's a feasible scenario - I have no idea if someone could really pull it off.

 

I think I'd still be looking to the CDC to see where they stood on cruises, even if I could legally board ship otherwhere, but I can see where that might not be a factor for everyone.  Of course, that also assumes eased travel restrictions for US folks - I don't think we're welcome too many places as yet. 

 

 

[greykitty]

21 minutes ago, D C said:

 

Should that be "a vaccine OR a very reliable treatment"?  With a reliable treatment that minimizes the likelihood of death, a vaccine isn't necessary.  People would get sick, but if the risk of death is on par with influenza, the vaccine isn't necessary when you look at it on a macro scale.  Especially when considering how many people reject flu shots every year.  

 

Well, treatment that reliably minimizes either death or serious after affects across all age groups, I would agree.   

 

From what I've read, some of the long term effects of surviving  COVID 19 that we're just really starting to learn seem pretty serious to me. 

 

Even 'brain fog' and the chronic fatigue that seems to follow many cases after recovery for the 'long haulers' seems darn scary to me, let alone all the discussion of inflammatory syndromes. 

 

Aargh, it would be nice if we could just jump ahead and learn  if 2021 would be the year of good news, wouldn't it?

 

 

[D C]

2 hours ago, greykitty said:

 

Well, treatment that reliably minimizes either death or serious after affects across all age groups, I would agree.   

 

From what I've read, some of the long term effects of surviving  COVID 19 that we're just really starting to learn seem pretty serious to me. 

 

Even 'brain fog' and the chronic fatigue that seems to follow many cases after recovery for the 'long haulers' seems darn scary to me, let alone all the discussion of inflammatory syndromes. 

 

Aargh, it would be nice if we could just jump ahead and learn  if 2021 would be the year of good news, wouldn't it?

 

 

Sure.  I think that "long term effects" are too much of an unknown right now.  The best we have for "long term" is about 6 months.  For perspective, I sprained a finger 10 months ago and the doctor told me that 12+ months isn't unusual to heal.   Not to mention that we don't know if early treatments will minimise those effects, or even if those effects are long-lasting.   I suspect permanence of "long term" effects is less significant than many reports suggest right now. 

[latserrof]

1 hour ago, D C said:

Sure.  I think that "long term effects" are too much of an unknown right now.  The best we have for "long term" is about 6 months.  For perspective, I sprained a finger 10 months ago and the doctor told me that 12+ months isn't unusual to heal.   Not to mention that we don't know if early treatments will minimise those effects, or even if those effects are long-lasting.   I suspect permanence of "long term" effects is less significant than many reports suggest right now. 

Why would you "suspect" that?

[D C]

9 minutes ago, latserrof said:

Why would you "suspect" that?

Simple. The body heals itself over time.  While a scratch can heal in a week, and broken bones in 6 weeks (far longer to fully heal), we lack evidence that the "long term" effects of covid are actually long term.   Data is also lacking on how widespread said effects are.  

[latserrof]

24 minutes ago, D C said:

Simple. The body heals itself over time.  While a scratch can heal in a week, and broken bones in 6 weeks (far longer to fully heal), we lack evidence that the "long term" effects of covid are actually long term.   Data is also lacking on how widespread said effects are. 

A scratch or a broken bone? Yikes.

 

[jjs217]

19 hours ago, D C said:

 

Should that be "a vaccine OR a very reliable treatment"?  With a reliable treatment that minimizes the likelihood of death, a vaccine isn't necessary.  People would get sick, but if the risk of death is on par with influenza, the vaccine isn't necessary when you look at it on a macro scale.  Especially when considering how many people reject flu shots every year.  

No, I think we need both - as a vaccine is rarely 100% effective.

[SusieQft]

5 hours ago, jjs217 said:

No, I think we need both - as a vaccine is rarely 100% effective.

I agree that we need both -- that would be the best.  But we don't necessarily need both for life to return much closer to "normal," with nearly everything open including cruises.  The risk level could go down a lot with either.

[D C]

Having considered this topic more, I'm not particularly concerned about contracting covid either on or off a ship.  I'm comfortable with the precautions that I personally take.  Early indications of cruise changes seem to be mitigating some potential risk of transmission. 

 

Given that, the most important consideration for me is the assurance that when a covid case is present on-board, that the ship will not be stuck at sea. 

[Wendy The Wanderer]

On 8/20/2020 at 4:41 PM, greykitty said:

But the thought of someone with dual citizenship and access to areas where cruises are restarting did enter my mind, if that's a feasible scenario - I have no idea if someone could really pull it off.

 

Interested to hear some real scenarios.  Might have to be quadruple citizenship, or quintuple perhaps?  My husband has dual US/Canadian citizenship.  All that gives him the right to do is, uh, nothing in this case.  EU citizenship might be a different matter.  Or even just Canadian, since we are allowed to fly to Europe right now, so could do a Med cruise, for instance.

[rallydave]

For all who think signing a waiver protects the cruise line or any other waiver providing business, they are sadly mistaken.  Waivers are rarely done properly to at least try to be effective as all waivers whether properly documented or not are not worth the paper they are printed on.

 

People seem to think that signing a waiver protects the cruise line however that is rarely true.  For example most waivers state that the signer is agreeing that relatives cannot sue the cruise line or other waiver seeking companies but, that is far from the truth in that one person cannot sign away the rights of others.  Companies get signatures on the waivers in hopes that people will believe they signed their rights away but, in almost all cases a good lawyer can get significant money back even with a properly signed and witnessed waiver.  Should the cruise lines get people to sign the waivers, they are hoping that people will give up while knowing that their waivers are almost completely invalid.

[D C]

3 hours ago, rallydave said:

For all who think signing a waiver protects the cruise line or any other waiver providing business, they are sadly mistaken.  Waivers are rarely done properly to at least try to be effective as all waivers whether properly documented or not are not worth the paper they are printed on.

 

People seem to think that signing a waiver protects the cruise line however that is rarely true.  For example most waivers state that the signer is agreeing that relatives cannot sue the cruise line or other waiver seeking companies but, that is far from the truth in that one person cannot sign away the rights of others.  Companies get signatures on the waivers in hopes that people will believe they signed their rights away but, in almost all cases a good lawyer can get significant money back even with a properly signed and witnessed waiver.  Should the cruise lines get people to sign the waivers, they are hoping that people will give up while knowing that their waivers are almost completely invalid.

Where did waivers come up as a thing? I don't recall that being a hot topic. 

[rallydave]

51 minutes ago, D C said:

Where did waivers come up as a thing? I don't recall that being a hot topic. 

It didn't but, was concerned that people didn't understand waivers and how they are virtually worthless.  There were comments about signing waivers would help get us back sailing and would protect the cruise lines but, that is far from the truth as I described.  

 

Simply trying to educate people that waivers are not a positive.

[mrlevin]

Our Crystal River cruise next April has a COVID-19 waiver form we need to sign.  I agree with Rally Dave that it is more for scaring us rather than something enforceable.  They have also modified their T&C.  Both need to be acknowledged online prior to tickets being issued.

[eliana]

We will only cruise again, or for that matter fly again, when there is a reliable vaccine. Otherwise why take a chance? We are very elderly but patient and will sit it out.

[Guerncruising]

@eliana, I couldn’t agree more. I see no urgency in putting myself in the front line for a few days ‘holiday’. We have been Covid free on our little island for 120 days and I wouldn’t want to be the person to bring it back. I ‘m not that selfish and am prepared to wait. 

[pappy1022]

1 hour ago, eliana said:

We will only cruise again, or for that matter fly again, when there is a reliable vaccine. Otherwise why take a chance? We are very elderly but patient and will sit it out.

That is a common sense approach. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it will be safe to cruise once the cruise lines say it is so. I will need proof and that’s where the people who need to cruise play a significant role. They will be our test cases to see how safe it really is to cruise and what the actual travel experience becomes. There is no doubt that things will be different than what we’ve experienced in the past, at least for a while. Will the premium prices we pay for luxury cruises be worth it under the new normal? That’s the question that remains unanswered in my mind.

[Guerncruising]

1 minute ago, pappy1022 said:

That is a common sense approach.

Ah common sense, not so common in today’s world methinks.

[Dolebludger]

Actually, we are more concerned about the rather long flights to get to a cruise than the cruise itself. 

[Guerncruising]

2 minutes ago, Dolebludger said:

Actually, we are more concerned about the rather long flights to get to a cruise than the cruise itself. 

And what would be most disturbing would be if your destination changed status from being safe to not safe during, or, worse still, towards the end of the flight.