Finally a CEO stands up to the coronabro cdc!

[oteixeira]

17 minutes ago, Tapi said:

Yes, we've ordered our groceries that way as well, both by picking up outside and having them delivered to our front door. Unfortunately, its not something that is available everywhere in this country, specially if you are in more rural areas. For them, going inside a grocery store is a need. You can't then call grocery shopping in a store a "want" if it's something that some have access to but  others don't. 

 

I do travel for a living as well. I'm up on an airplane and I stay at hotels multiple times a week. Many businesses as well as essential workers still need to travel, not to mention people who need to travel for emergency reasons. You can't call air travel a "want" and expect someone to travel from New York to California simply because you can drive between the too. 

So, I am very rural in NC.  Grocery pick up is a thing for most everyone now, every grocery store that is a chain does it.  But sure, I understand a few folks have to go in.  I am saying for the most part.  I have to drive 25 minutes to my closest grocery store, but when I get there, they do load it in my car without me ever going in, and without any contact.

Also, may I ask what you do for a living that you travel so much?  I am just curious.  I do a specialized version of software support for specific customers (I have 2 at this time) and it is all done virtually today.  I cannot think of a meeting that you can't do virtual, short of a doctor going to perform surgery, or something of that level of importance.

[Tapi]

7 minutes ago, macandlucy said:

Air travel is very risky, especially long flights on a full plane 

 

Who is defining "essential" and more importantly, who is enforcing it? Are flyers required to show that they have an essential need, like a dying relative to visit, a child to rescue before they can board a plane, a doctor who is the only person who can provide life-saving surgery? Nope. 

There's no mandate that you need to show proof that you're flying for essential reasons (and I hope we don't get to that). But you can't  build a schedule only to accommodate essential air travelers because you don't know where they need to fly from/to, specially if it's on short notice. That's why the airlines have continued serving most communities domestically but on a reduced schedule. They need to continue offering a service to be utilized by people who need to fly, but without a mandate to show proof of essential travel, anybody can use it. 

 

Data has proven that air travel is not considered very risky. As mentioned before, not a single case of mass infection has occurred on a single flight since the pandemic began. As long as air travel continues being as safe as it has proven to be, we should never see a mandate for proof of essential travel. 

[hapster85]

Wrong, you can pick up groceries at most stores without ever going in (I have been doing it since February), some places (depending on where you live) will deliver it to your darn door.  I travel for a living and we are doing it all with driving and virtual calls, so air travel is also not a "need" unless you have to cross an ocean.

That's fine for staples, but not letting someone else pick my produce.

[oteixeira]

Just now, hapster85 said:

1 hour ago, oteixeira said:

Wrong, you can pick up groceries at most stores without ever going in (I have been doing it since February), some places (depending on where you live) will deliver it to your darn door.  I travel for a living and we are doing it all with driving and virtual calls, so air travel is also not a "need" unless you have to cross an ocean.

That's fine for staples, but not letting someone else pick my produce.

Sure, I get that, it's a personal choice.  I let them pick my produce and 90% of the time it's fine, but everyone has to decide how exposed they want to be and where. (Notice I didn't say the CDC has to tell us how exposed to be or where....that is the entire point of this whole thing).

[Georgie562]

1 hour ago, oteixeira said:

So is air travel, restaurants, amusement parks, going inside a grocery store... the list goes on and on.  I am guessing you are in favor of living in a cave with internet until the virus no longer exists?

If Noro can easily spread on a ship then so can Rona.

 

 

[oteixeira]

2 minutes ago, Georgie562 said:

If Noro can easily spread on a ship then so can Rona.

 

 

What the video I added on page 1.  It explains how many of the noro cases come from ships.  The number is very very low compared to how many happen on land.  That was my point, sickness happens everywhere.  There will be CV19 on ships, as long as it is handled well and the people are able to get off (and we wont cruise if we dont have that nailed down and figured out) then it will be no different then going somewhere on land.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, GA Dave said:

If the CDC was truly all about protecting the public, then they would not have allowed tens of thousands of people to sit in a stadium in KC last night to watch a game.

The CDC doesn't have that power. It was up to local authorities and the NFL. There weren't "tens of thousands" of fans in the stands. Only 17,000 were permitted to attend, and 17,000 in a stadium that holds 76,000 allowed for a lot of empty space. Further it's outdoors, where transmission risks are much lower than indoors.

 

In many NFL cities no fans will be allowed...again, it's a local government decision, not the CDC's.

[Tapi]

1 hour ago, oteixeira said:

Also, may I ask what you do for a living that you travel so much?  I am just curious. 

I'm in Airline Pilot. At the early stage of the pandemic, we were operating nearly empty flights (sometimes 2-3 passengers in a 180 passenger plane. Very depressing to see that, but understandable). Those early passengers were mostly essential workers, traveling solo, going to an assignment in a different state, some military personnel, or someone traveling for a family emergency. Over time, more and more passengers have gradually returned. Out of curiosity, I've spoken to a few business travelers who have mentioned that, while there's a lot that they now do virtually, there are certain aspects of their business that need to be done in person in order to keep their operations and level of performance going and their companies alive. While most if not all air travel was put on hold at the beginning of the pandemic, not everything could be done virtually long term. 

 

Leisure travelers have become more and more frequent as time progresses,  specially over the last holiday weekend when almost 1 million daily passengers passed through TSA checkpoints nationwide. The vast majority of people do comply with the rules and regulations that airports and airlines have in place. I do believe that if we can get the same level of compliance once cruising resumes, it will be successful. But people need to do their part. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Tapi

[david_sobe]

2 hours ago, Tapi said:

The key is to maintain a very strict environment on cruise ships, with no room for this kind of disregard for the rules. Airlines have continued operating during this entire pandemic without a single case of mass infection. But they have also been extremely strict about the rules. You're simply not allowed to remove that mask unless you're taking a sip of your drink or a bite of your snack. Violators are treated harshly. Many will go on a "no fly" list and be banned for life from flying on that specific airline. It seems like MSC has taken a similar approach in the Mediterranean with a zero tolerance policy for anybody who violates the rules.

 

If we can do something similar here in the USA, and if people go cruising fully understanding that they will have to abide by these rules without exception, then this may actually work. 

Absolutely but remember the cruise lines thought they had this under control before.  No one is better prepared to stop the spread of viruses than cruise ships.  They failed miserably which caused people to stay quarantined for weeks on ships and then quarantined on land.  I think they could handle it well but because this is airborne its another beast.  I agree in part that it could work.  But eventually we would have Covid at sea again.  Crews were hit hard too.  I think its a huge gamble.  I also would not enjoy cruising with not being able to do what I wanted to do.  Restaurants would be extremely limited due to spacing and entertainment would be difficult too.  I just think the Covid conditions set up take half the fun out of cruising.  No spa too.

Edited September 11, 2020 by david_sobe

[Aquahound]

37 minutes ago, Tapi said:

I'm in Airline Pilot. At the early stage of the pandemic, we were operating nearly empty flights (sometimes 2-3 passengers in a 180 passenger plane. Very depressing to see that, but understandable). Those early passengers were mostly essential workers, traveling solo, going to an assignment in a different state, some military personnel, or someone traveling for a family emergency. Over time, more and more passengers have gradually returned. Out of curiosity, I've spoken to a few business travelers who have mentioned that, while there's a lot that they now do virtually, there are certain aspects of their business that need to be done in person in order to keep their operations and level of performance going and their companies alive. While most if not all air travel was put on hold at the beginning of the pandemic, not everything could be done virtually long term. 

 

I air travel for work....a lot.  I have no choice because most of my flights are to/from Alaska.  All throughout this pandemic, I was flying all over the country.  Back in March/April, I was one of maybe 10 people on the plane.  Today, planes are filling up, but the airline I fly most (Alaska) still blocks middle seats, and still blocks half of first class.

 

I too had a few of those conversations with pilots.  After all, I need to check in with the pilot on every flight (😉).   

 

Unlike cruising, air travel absolutely is essential travel and a "must."  To think otherwise is foolish.  

[Tapi]

1 minute ago, david_sobe said:

Absolutely but remember the cruise lines thought they had this under control before.  No one is better prepared to stop the spread of viruses that cruise ships.  They failed miserably which caused people to stay quarantined for weeks on ships and then quarantined on land.  I think they could handle it well but because this is airborne its another beast.  I agree in part that it could work.  But eventually we would have Covid at sea again.  Crews were hit hard too.  I think its a huge gamble.  I also would not enjoy cruising with not being able to do what I wanted to do.  Restaurants would be extremely limited due to spacing and entertainment would be difficult too.  I just think the Covid conditions set up take half the fun out of cruising.  No spa too.

That's why I'm following closely what's going on in the Med with  MSC and Costa. If they can continue their streak of no infections, then I'll feel more confident about returning to cruising on this side of the Atlantic with procedures that are proven to work. Cruising will definitely not be as fun as it was before. That's for sure. 

[Tapi]

5 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

After all, I need to check in with the pilot on every flight (😉).   

😉 Thanks for stopping by! 

[macandlucy]

2 hours ago, Tapi said:

There's no mandate that you need to show proof that you're flying for essential reasons (and I hope we don't get to that). But you can't  build a schedule only to accommodate essential air travelers because you don't know where they need to fly from/to, specially if it's on short notice. That's why the airlines have continued serving most communities domestically but on a reduced schedule. They need to continue offering a service to be utilized by people who need to fly, but without a mandate to show proof of essential travel, anybody can use it. 

 

Data has proven that air travel is not considered very risky. As mentioned before, not a single case of mass infection has occurred on a single flight since the pandemic began. As long as air travel continues being as safe as it has proven to be, we should never see a mandate for proof of essential travel. 

I don't want to see any such mandate either. Neither do I want to see airline traffic halted. In fact, I'd like to see more flights. I say this though to illustrate the inconsistencies in the arguments against cruising, and the arguments for air travel for which there are risks inherent based on proximity to and length of exposure to other potentially infected people. I know this, would still fly, but not without an effective mask.  I would also not cruise without having an effective mask. (But unlike being on a plane, I would not feel the need to wear that mask the entire time because on a ship there are plenty of times that I can actually distance.)

 

You need to fly for work, so it's essential for you. But maybe Miami-based cruise line employees and ship suppliers need ships to sail to keep their jobs. Operating cruises are essential for them.  No one needs to fly to a Disneyworld vacation, but they can if they choose do. Why should cruising be any different?

 

I get that the argument is we're flying these planes for essential trips and if unessential trips also happens, that's kind of a side issue. Except that it's not. Non-essential travel is making up a good chunk of these flights now, so that argument, that planes are flying for essential travel cannot be true if one of the premises (people are flying for essential needs) is not true. The answer to that is not to cancel flights, or insist on proving need, it's to acknowledge that life contains risk, and these risks are actually not so great that we have to cancel everything. Same for cruising.

 

People who don't want to fly might need an ocean voyage to make an essential trip.

 

It's time to apply reason to this situation. We panicked in the beginning, which was understandable since we knew very little and had wildly unchecked viral transmission happening with many people completely unaware. But the time for panic has passed, imo.

 

 

 

[sanger727]

7 hours ago, oteixeira said:

So is air travel, restaurants, amusement parks, going inside a grocery store... the list goes on and on.  I am guessing you are in favor of living in a cave with internet until the virus no longer exists?

 

16 hours ago, lbt43 said:

I was wondering if or when a cruise line CEO would finally say its time to cruise.  Del Rio finally makes a strong statement against the ban.  We need to cruise, NOW.  The cdc is WRONG.

 

Cruising is absolutely a want and not a need. Which is important to identify because it puts things into perspective. 

 

Cruising, restaurants, amusement parks are all wants

 

Having access to groceries, going to work, getting gas to go to work are needs

 

Nobody in the history of mankind has ever "needed" to go on a leisure closed loop cruise. Not saying that people who want to do these things are wrong for wanting it. And the things they have re-opened they are free to do. But demanding a want sounds like a toddler throwing a tantrum. 

[oteixeira]

8 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

 

Cruising is absolutely a want and not a need. Which is important to identify because it puts things into perspective. 

 

Cruising, restaurants, amusement parks are all wants

 

Having access to groceries, going to work, getting gas to go to work are needs

 

Nobody in the history of mankind has ever "needed" to go on a leisure closed loop cruise. Not saying that people who want to do these things are wrong for wanting it. And the things they have re-opened they are free to do. But demanding a want sounds like a toddler throwing a tantrum. 

OK, the how about this.  Allow cruises today, just like all the other things that are open, and let people decide if they want to take a risk to go on the ship or not.  Seems to be fine for all these other "wants" like restaurants, bars, parks, etc, etc.  Let us decide.  There is no more risk there then doing a lot of these other things.  That is our main complaint, the government is getting in the way of just this one segment. Also, keep in mind for many many people, it is their way of life, and I don't just mean workers on the ships, so those folks would argue it is a need for them (since it is their livelihood).  

[sanger727]

1 minute ago, oteixeira said:

OK, the how about this.  Allow cruises today, just like all the other things that are open, and let people decide if they want to take a risk to go on the ship or not.  Seems to be fine for all these other "wants" like restaurants, bars, parks, etc, etc.  Let us decide.  There is no more risk there then doing a lot of these other things.  That is our main complaint, the government is getting in the way of just this one segment. Also, keep in mind for many many people, it is their way of life, and I don't just mean workers on the ships, so those folks would argue it is a need for them (since it is their livelihood).  

 

But it's not even close to similar to those activities. There is never an "outbreak" of covid at a restaurant where everyone is confined for days infecting each other and now needs to unload everyone in a US city. When you go to a restaurant you don't have to negotiate entry terms with another country like they do for cruise ports (yes, it's one thing for the CDC to allow it, it's something else to find ports willing to waive their pre-entry covid test that they require for tourists). If you get sick with covid at a restaurant you don't have to deal with seeking medical treatment at the restaurant that could lead to needing intensive care while stuck at sea. They are dealing with a whole host of issues that affect a whole lot more people than just the cruisers that are willing to take the risk.

[Formula280SS]

7 minutes ago, oteixeira said:

OK, the how about this.  Allow cruises today, just like all the other things that are open, and let people decide if they want to take a risk to go on the ship or not.  Seems to be fine for all these other "wants" like restaurants, bars, parks, etc, etc.  Let us decide.  There is no more risk there then doing a lot of these other things.  That is our main complaint, the government is getting in the way of just this one segment. Also, keep in mind for many many people, it is their way of life, and I don't just mean workers on the ships, so those folks would argue it is a need for them (since it is their livelihood).  

 

Nice plan.

 

Notice (1) how those who don't want to cruise also don't want to allow others who want to cruise to cruise (i.e., make their own decision), yet (2) those who choose to decide that they want to cruise have no objection to those who do not want to cruise to not have to cruise.

 

😲🙄

 

Thankfully, we each get to decide how we live our life and what we choose to do.  At least for now.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Formula280SS

[oteixeira]

13 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

But it's not even close to similar to those activities. There is never an "outbreak" of covid at a restaurant where everyone is confined for days infecting each other and now needs to unload everyone in a US city. When you go to a restaurant you don't have to negotiate entry terms with another country like they do for cruise ports (yes, it's one thing for the CDC to allow it, it's something else to find ports willing to waive their pre-entry covid test that they require for tourists). If you get sick with covid at a restaurant you don't have to deal with seeking medical treatment at the restaurant that could lead to needing intensive care while stuck at sea. They are dealing with a whole host of issues that affect a whole lot more people than just the cruisers that are willing to take the risk.

You are assuming that they wont let people off the ships once diagnosed, that is a thing of the past.  If someone get's CV19, they will be allowed off the ship to get treatment, that HAS to be part of the plan back.  If you allow people off as soon as they are sick, the spread would be less.  Also when we had the big spread it was before people knew what to do.  Notice there was also huge spreads on land in Feb and March??  Well, now we know how to mitigate it, so let us try and succeed (or just see that the cruises for the most part are doing just that).  Many lines are sailing in Europe, and so far only 2 have had outbreaks, and I am including one that happened today, and both allowed people off to be treated quickly.  Also, a point is that one was lax in enforcing the rules, and I wait to hear if the other was as well.  What I am saying is if we follow the guidelines, on land or sea, they seem to work pretty darn well, so give us a chance to prove it.  
 

[sanger727]

6 minutes ago, oteixeira said:

You are assuming that they wont let people off the ships once diagnosed, that is a thing of the past.  If someone get's CV19, they will be allowed off the ship to get treatment, that HAS to be part of the plan back.  If you allow people off as soon as they are sick, the spread would be less.  Also when we had the big spread it was before people knew what to do.  Notice there was also huge spreads on land in Feb and March??  Well, now we know how to mitigate it, so let us try and succeed (or just see that the cruises for the most part are doing just that).  Many lines are sailing in Europe, and so far only 2 have had outbreaks, and I am including one that happened today, and both allowed people off to be treated quickly.  Also, a point is that one was lax in enforcing the rules, and I wait to hear if the other was as well.  What I am saying is if we follow the guidelines, on land or sea, they seem to work pretty darn well, so give us a chance to prove it.  
 

 

I think they could work. Just pointing out comparing cruises to restaurant dining is apples to oranges. You are also assuming that passengers will do the right thing of reporting if they feel sick instead of taking dayquil to continue their vacation; I'm not assuming that. As far as being off the ship to get treatment, that is something that the cruise lines still have to negotiate with the countries they are going to. As far as I know, all the cruises that have successfully commenced did not leave and port in different countries - they boarded in Italy and all ports were in Italy; they boarded in Germany and all ports were in Germany. Negotiating with all these countries represented by the Caribbean islands is an entirely different challenge.

[oteixeira]

I will stop, we will not agree, I am happy to counter all your points but I have seen a bunch of posts get deleted when two people just go back and forth.  Have a great night, please stay safe, and I hope we are all cruising soon.

[lbt43]

25 minutes ago, oteixeira said:

I will stop, we will not agree, I am happy to counter all your points but I have seen a bunch of posts get deleted when two people just go back and forth.  Have a great night, please stay safe, and I hope we are all cruising soon.

Yep, its pointless to argue with a coronabro.  Its a religion now.

[macandlucy]

It’s also untrue that there have been no outbreaks associated with restaurants. One of the first outbreaks on record occurred in a restaurant in Asia and the person to person transmission in that restaurant became a bit of a case study in how covid is spread indoors. 
And that happened early on before people were aware and while there were no mitigation efforts in place. Just like cruises.

Edited September 11, 2020 by macandlucy

[cabincop]

13 hours ago, RD64 said:

A cruise is a “want”, not a “NEED”.

So those who want to cruise can. Those who don’t won’t. Simple. Life has to go on

[RD64]

But how many of those of you that NEED to cruise will be willing to cruise given the current restrictions on cruising that MSC and Costa passengers are now subject to? Cruising as it was pre March 13th will not return for a long, long time. Just follow the threads regarding buffets, and mandatory shore excursions to leave the ship... North Americans are not exactly willing to put up with these and the many other restrictions.

[RD64]

One other thing - FDR doesn’t want the veteran - I have been on so many cruises I can’t even count type of passenger. He wants the newbies - those who will spend spend spend on shore excursions, pictures, specialty dining etc. All of the FCCs and OBC will fo absolutely nothing to help his bottom line. He doesn’t want the people that NEED to cruise - he wants those that WANT to cruise because it is a novelty to them and they are willing to spend $$$$$$.

Edited September 12, 2020 by RD64
Spelling