If you have to wear a mask while cruising .... would you?

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

I think everyone should accept that going out is a risk.  High risk people should decide whether or not to take the risk and not depend on the behavior of others to protect them because that is unrealistic.  There is no way I would ever depend on the behavior of other people to protect me against a disease that could kill me if I was a very high risk person.  The masks will not protect a high risk person unless it's the right kind, so every time they aren't 6 feet away from another person they are accepting the risk.

I completely agree that isolation can be deadly.  Look at all of the suicides.  That, and also isolation can be deadly to addicts.  My high risk relatives have isolated themselves and have only been out of the house in rare cases because they know that they can't be guaranteed protection even if everyone is wearing a mask.  That's why everyone should decide for themselves if they want to take the risk.  People who aren't high risk have a right to go on with their lives with their jobs, etc. and should wear masks when mandated.  People who are high risk should assess their risk and proceed accordingly.

 

Back in cave man days, leaving the cave was a risk, you might get eaten or attacked or stub your toe and get infection and die.

 

Of course staying in cave you'd starve to death, so you'd go out and risk life to live.     

 

is that the debate today?   Live and risk death, isolate and risk death, don't think so, and nobody should be framing it like this, LOL

[ldubs]

On 8/11/2020 at 6:13 PM, chipmaster said:

 

 

 

 or that success doesn't come with lots of hard work.

 

 

 

 

What?  Wait?   You mean it isn't all luck?  😄

[SPacificbound]

I won't consider cruising until there is a vaccine. I won't consider traveling at all until there is a vaccine. So the short answer is no.

 

I love cruising and have done quite a bit of it, but I am realistic enough to know it is going to take time before pretty much anything is normal again.

[pc_load_letter]

Yes.

 

From what I've seen from cruising youtubers, the implementation sounds fine. My wife and I can sit next to each other on the deck and that is fine with us.

 

No problem wearing one around the ship.

 

Could care less about ports. We really only enjoy Med ports and we won't be there until mid 2021 and we rarely even get off in most Mexico, caribbean etc ports.

Edited August 15, 2020 by pc_load_letter

[navybankerteacher]

On 8/14/2020 at 3:34 PM, chipmaster said:

 

Back in cave man days, leaving the cave was a risk, you might get eaten or attacked or stub your toe and get infection and die.

 

Of course staying in cave you'd starve to death, so you'd go out and risk life to live.     

 

is that the debate today?   Live and risk death, isolate and risk death, don't think so, and nobody should be framing it like this, LOL

You need to think positive- like that line in Jack of Diamonds - “If a tree doesn’t fall on me, I’ll live till I die.”

 

Still - there is no point hanging out with a bunch of louts who don’t understand basic precautions —- if you are going to die, do you want it to be because you made bad choices about who you hung out with?

[GrJ Berkshire]

An irrelevant question as ships are nowhere near sailing again. The load factors 60/70% make the business models problematic, and the large ships over 2000 pax will not return until everybody has been vaccinated,,,,,, that's a way off, mid 2021 at the most optimistic. Multi- national mix of passengers is also a long way off, US citizens can't travel to Europe and Brits not to the States, so this business plan will have to vary? Equally how can you crew the ships, few flights from the Philippines etc ?

Mask wearing if mandatory is a minor issue?  You should be more concerned with the Cruise industry sinking without trace !

[sverigecruiser]

51 minutes ago, GrJ Berkshire said:

Mask wearing if mandatory is a minor issue?  You should be more concerned with the Cruise industry sinking without trace !

 

If mask wearing is mandatory it doesn't matter for me if the cruise industry sinks because I won't cruise anyway.  

[cruisemom42]

8 hours ago, GrJ Berkshire said:

An irrelevant question as ships are nowhere near sailing again. The load factors 60/70% make the business models problematic, and the large ships over 2000 pax will not return until everybody has been vaccinated,,,,,, that's a way off, mid 2021 at the most optimistic.

 

TUI have started operations, and MSC will begin week-long Med cruises on two ships this week.

[iancal]

Not interested in taking a cruise if we have to wear a mask.  Not even 'thinking' about taking a cruise.  Not spending dime one on any travel deposit of any kind. Doubt whether we will even shop for cruises before 2022.

 

Sure, we love to travel.  3-5 months of the year, sometimes more, has been our habit for the past nine years. 

 

No problem with staying at home and observing the precautions recommended by our public health experts.   Why...because we are adults not nursery school children. 

 

We want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.   We are not so selfish that we only care about us.  We are always concerned about passing it on to others should we contract it.

 

We see far too many self absorbed, entitled crybabies out there.  They need a big dose of reality.  Alas, it appears to start at the top.

Edited August 16, 2020 by iancal

[ldubs]

9 hours ago, GrJ Berkshire said:

An irrelevant question as ships are nowhere near sailing again.

 

 

I'm going to disagree.  Wearing masks are a key part of what is being considered by the cruise lines to reopen.   Seems to fit the exact definition of relevant.  I understand that there might be more concern about the survival of the cruise industry.  Most if not all may think it more important.   That doesn't make this question irrelevant.  

 

 

[lenquixote66]

On 8/14/2020 at 3:34 PM, chipmaster said:

 

Back in cave man days, leaving the cave was a risk, you might get eaten or attacked or stub your toe and get infection and die.

 

Of course staying in cave you'd starve to death, so you'd go out and risk life to live.     

 

is that the debate today?   Live and risk death, isolate and risk death, don't think so, and nobody should be framing it like this, LOL

With all due respect to your opinion you were not alive and neither is anyone during the time of the caveman and really have no idea of what life was like at the time.

[kira5]

It is my understanding that with the regular, annual flu medical experts choose which strain will be the virulent one that year at some point in the fall out of several choices.   

 

It is also my understanding that the efficacy of the flu vaccine varies from 40 to 60 percent, varying in different years.

 

Is there reason to believe the covid 19 vaccine, if it is discovered, will be 100% effective?

 

I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable than me.

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, kira5 said:

It is my understanding that with the regular, annual flu medical experts choose which strain will be the virulent one that year at some point in the fall out of several choices.   

 

It is also my understanding that the efficacy of the flu vaccine varies from 40 to 60 percent, varying in different years.

 

Is there reason to believe the covid 19 vaccine, if it is discovered, will be 100% effective?

 

I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable than me.

 

The Flu virus of the year rotates and it's hard to predict which strain and of course some are more virulent than others.   

 

As to SARs-CoV-2 virus and vaccines there are several approaches and candidates and every country and company has pushed all their resources into it.   

 

Of course there will be big business and profits and glory in being the first one.   

 

The reality for all of this is that the amount of testing being done even in Phase3 for the leading candidates is being rushed and with not enough time or people to really evaluate efficacy and downsides till.  The medical community is still learning and driven by WARP speed baby.

 

IMHO we won't have good understanding of the candidates and their efficacy till middle of next year.  You might ask why wouldn't Phase3 tell you, because you need to put out ten's of million of doses across the whole population and then see the numbers and how effective it is, that will take 2-3 months to distribute and inoculate then another 3-6 months to see how effective it is.  

 

I'd say we won't see sailing till 2021 late at the earliest, unless we get a "Miracle and it dissapears"

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, kira5 said:

It is my understanding that with the regular, annual flu medical experts choose which strain will be the virulent one that year at some point in the fall out of several choices.   

 

It is also my understanding that the efficacy of the flu vaccine varies from 40 to 60 percent, varying in different years.

 

Is there reason to believe the covid 19 vaccine, if it is discovered, will be 100% effective?

 

I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable than me.

The issue with the flu vaccine is that we have vaccine strains that work against all the 4 strains (with multiple sub strains).  But it is not possible (at least for now) to put all those vaccines into a single dose.  So every year an international group of experts tried to project the most likely strains that will strike that year and include them in the vaccine.  Sometime they are right and sometimes they are wrong.  But even when they are right, depending on the strains the vaccine is not 100% effective although the efficacy can surpass 60% in some years,  

 

COVID seems to be different.  Most of the vaccines being tested use newer methods (when compared to the flu vaccine) to develop a vaccine.  If they get it right it will not only reap benefits vis-a-vis COVID but might well lead to many new vaccines against all kinds of diseases.  So we should all give them lots of moral support.  

 

But what will be the efficacy of a new COVID vaccine?  Right now nobody knows.  That is what will be learned from Phase 3 trials and subsequent trials.  History tells us that initial vaccine attempts do not usually have a very high degree of efficacy (perhaps 50-60%) which may improve with future vaccines.  But consider that even a vaccine with 50% efficacy against COVID would be huge!  And although 50% may not get immunity they may get partial immunity that would hopefully reduce the morbidity and severity of any COVID infection.  But we must all wait and see because it is also possible that none of the trials will suceed.

 

As to an initial vaccine being 100% effective, history tells us it is unlikely.  Also keep in mind that even a high efficacy vaccine is not effective unless folks are willing to get the shot or shots.  In the USA and Canada we already know (from history) that only about half the population will generally get a vaccine (unless it can somehow be mandated).

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, kira5 said:

It is my understanding that with the regular, annual flu medical experts choose which strain will be the virulent one that year at some point in the fall out of several choices.   

 

It is also my understanding that the efficacy of the flu vaccine varies from 40 to 60 percent, varying in different years.

 

Is there reason to believe the covid 19 vaccine, if it is discovered, will be 100% effective?

 

I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable than me.

To start with, nothing is 100%, but we can reasonably hope that a vaccine aimed at a specific virus will have a better percentage of efficiency than the annual flu shot which must pick which strain is expected to be the biggest danger for the flu season.

 

A potential problem will be how many will refuse the shot either from those who do not believe in vaccines and/or those who will feel this vaccine was rushed and worry about unknown side effects. 

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, kira5 said:

It is my understanding that with the regular, annual flu medical experts choose which strain will be the virulent one that year at some point in the fall out of several choices.   

 

It is also my understanding that the efficacy of the flu vaccine varies from 40 to 60 percent, varying in different years.

 

Is there reason to believe the covid 19 vaccine, if it is discovered, will be 100% effective?

 

I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable than me.

 

I've seen estimates of 50-60%, which seem high to me.  There is no such thing as a 100% effective vaccine.

[cruisemom42]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:41 AM, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I've seen estimates of 50-60%, which seem high to me.  There is no such thing as a 100% effective vaccine.

 

Not 100%, but the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella) is pretty close: 97% effective when both shots are received.

[navybankerteacher]

Before getting  too dismissive about a vaccine that is “only 50% effective” - consider the 100,000 US residents who would be alive today if a 50% effective vaccine  had been available to them,  then also think about how much better things would be if half of the people now exposing others to COVID were not doing so.

 

 

[Sue Do-Over]

We are booked on a cruise in December, 2020.

Regardless of cruise line requirements, or lack thereof, we plan to wear masks any time we are not actively eating/drinking. 

 

To do so, we are taking SEVERAL comfortable, washable masks that fit well, and running them through ships laundry along with other clothing. This way, we can change to a fresh, dry mask several times each day.  Clothes dryers are hot enough to kill virus, bacteria and other yuckies like head lice and bed bugs, so using the laundry service is an appropriate and effective way to sanitize *fabric* masks. 

 

BUT, we also suspect that too many will be wearing the same single cheap paper mask that they've been wearing for weeks, pulled crumpled from pockets and purses, handled with 'dirty' hands, and so tattered they barely fit. You might as well lick the poker chips, IMHO. 

 

Gloves are similarly counter-productive, since they simply carry yuck from surface to surface, and most people still touch their faces.  Better is regular and thorough hand washing and sanitizing. 

 

Ultimately, passing by people not wearing masks isn't the risk, it's spending time while shoulder to shoulder at the bar or shows, and waiting in line for processing.  I believe it's like cigarette/cigar smoke... passing through a group of smokers doesn't instantly contaminate your hair and clothing, but lingering amidst a group builds up the exposure.

[chipmaster]

11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Before getting  too dismissive about a vaccine that is “only 50% effective” - consider the 100,000 US residents who would be alive today if a 50% effective vaccine  had been available to them,  then also think about how much better things would be if half of the people now exposing others to COVID were not doing so.

 

 

 

You can't have a vaccine if a country or a society is in denial that there is even a problem.

 

Then now you got tacit assumption things are terrible, but open it all up and WARP speed and all is going to be well, seems as much reality distortion as no problem view in February and March.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

You can't have a vaccine if a country or a society is in denial that there is even a problem.

 

Then now you got tacit assumption things are terrible, but open it all up and WARP speed and all is going to be well, seems as much reality distortion as no problem view in February and March.

Obviously, you can have a vaccine. And in fact there are many companies working hard to hope to produce an effective one. What I think you are asking is will people who deny the reality of what is happening take the vaccine.

 

There is the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.". 

 

It will be interesting to see what will occur when hopefully there is one or more successful vaccines.

[Pyrate13]

On 8/16/2020 at 3:36 AM, sverigecruiser said:

 

If mask wearing is mandatory it doesn't matter for me if the cruise industry sinks because I won't cruise anyway.  

Bingo!

[mnocket]

Face Shields Replace Masks at MSC??

 

Over on the MSC board there is a post about the current MSC Grandiosa cruise that includes a number of videos from someone onboard.  Throughout, including waiters in the MDR, we see crew members wearing clear face shields - some wear face masks underneath and some do not.  My understanding is that face shields offer supplementary  protection and are not meant to replace face masks.  Apparently, MSC either approves of face shields without masks or doesn't enforce a face mask requirement for their crew.   

 

Should this be acceptable?  Is MSC cutting corners with safety?  If it's OK for crew members, shouldn't it be OK for passengers as well.  For many, wearing a face shield is much more comfortable than wearing a face mask.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by mnocket

[mnocket]

Image of waiters not wearing face masks under their face shields.

 

 

Yet MSC promises their customers .... "All crew will wear protective equipment, such as face masks and gloves".

 

At a minimum, shouldn't cruise lines be expected to live up to the COVID safety precautions they promise their customers?

[smalltimecruiser100]

Yes of course I would wear one. I wear one in public right now. The thing is I would rather cruise after a vaccine comes out. I can't imagine what it was like on the Diamond Princess especially if you had an inside room.