Cruise without a vaccine

[sverigecruiser]

42 minutes ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

Logic does not enter in at all. Random does. Nothing is set in stone.

 

It is logic to say that 150 MAY not be protected because 10% of 1500 is 150. It's not logic to say that 150 are not protected because nothing is set in stone.     

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

So you agree with me that cruising is not one of the reasons why they shut down. If they thought that cruising was a big problem that should be one of the reasons to shut down. 

 

Cruising will be affected by the shut down but not because cruising is a big problem.

Cruising is no more nor no less of a problem than any other activity which is seen as contributing to contagion.  It is being shut down for the same reason other activities are being shut down or severely limited.  Some activities are considered essential, so they are subject to limitation rather than shut down - others - like large public gatherings - essentially those not considered essential are more likely to be shut down than just limited.

[Honolulu Blue]

4 hours ago, Saint Greg said:

I think the cruise lines should want to start by vaccinating all of their crew so they don't have to worry about spreading it amongst themselves. I don't know if they would require all guests to be vaccinated but I would like to see a special logo or something on the S&S cards for those who are vaccinated and they would not be required to wear masks or distance.

 

1.  I think the cruise lines would like to vaccinate their crew ASAP.  But the lines have at least two big problems.  First of all, most crew members on most lines come from countries where vaccines are likely to be scarce - at least in the short run.  Second, most crew members are young and healthy, and they're likely to be a low priority on the vaccine list wherever they get it.  

 

2.  Giving those people with a vaccine special privileges (or, in this case, lack of restrictions) that other people on the same ship without vaccines do not share is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.  I think the best way to do this is to either have EVERYONE vaccinated (with proof) or assume that NO ONE is vaccinated and do the mitigation procedures as they currently are.

[Saint Greg]

28 minutes ago, Honolulu Blue said:

 

1.  I think the cruise lines would like to vaccinate their crew ASAP.  But the lines have at least two big problems.  First of all, most crew members on most lines come from countries where vaccines are likely to be scarce - at least in the short run.  Second, most crew members are young and healthy, and they're likely to be a low priority on the vaccine list wherever they get it.  

 

2.  Giving those people with a vaccine special privileges (or, in this case, lack of restrictions) that other people on the same ship without vaccines do not share is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.  I think the best way to do this is to either have EVERYONE vaccinated (with proof) or assume that NO ONE is vaccinated and do the mitigation procedures as they currently are.

 

I'm about cruise lines providing vaccines for their employees. Just as I get my flu shot at work.

[mom says]

51 minutes ago, Saint Greg said:

 

I'm about cruise lines providing vaccines for their employees. Just as I get my flu shot at work.

And just where are the cruise lines supposed to get the vaccine when it is in short supply? It's not like they can pop into the local Walgreens in their nearest port. Flu vaccine is rarely in short supply (although that has happened). The COVID vaccine(s), at least for the first year or 2, will most likely have limited and tightly controlled access to only designated providers. I don't see ships crews falling into the essential workers category. Especially since cruise ships are not an essential service.

[2wheelin]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

It is logic to say that 150 MAY not be protected because 10% of 1500 is 150. It's not logic to say that 150 are not protected because nothing is set in stone.     

And someone would still have to have it to infect one of those theoretical 150. The likelihood of any of the 150 being infected in a situation where 90% cannot be infectious is really small.

[chipmaster]

Reality suggests that a widely available vaccine where enough of the population get vaccinated won't happen till middle of next year, I think there will be some travel/cruising before that.    

 

Western countries have shown failure to be able to be disciplined as we are seeing with the new spikes everywere, so there will be cruises.

 

No the reality is there will be a very large group of anti vaccinators enough so such that unless there is testing as well as vaccine requirements we most certainly have outbreaks again and again till 2022.

 

Now would  I cruise before getting vaccine, yes.  I've already made a handful of flights, would go to Canada if allowed, and plan to do Hawaii shortly, of course take the test too.

 

But I can see how many the older, obese and unhealthy should be cautious, after all if they catch it their chance of death, pretty high, stay home and wear that mask!

[SelectSys]

2 hours ago, Honolulu Blue said:

 

1.  I think the cruise lines would like to vaccinate their crew ASAP....

 

 I think the best way to do this is to either have EVERYONE vaccinated (with proof) or assume that NO ONE is vaccinated and do the mitigation procedures as they currently are.

 

Cruise lines will most definitely want to have their crews vaccinated as soon as possible.  They also will definitely want to have everyone on board vaccinated as well.  

 

Having a vaccine and knowing that everyone else has a vaccine will certainly help gain my confidence in cruising as well.  My own timeline for cruising has slipped into 2022 unless things change with increased 

 

34 minutes ago, mom says said:

And just where are the cruise lines supposed to get the vaccine when it is in short supply? It's not like they can pop into the local Walgreens in their nearest port. Flu vaccine is rarely in short supply (although that has happened). The COVID vaccine(s), at least for the first year or 2, will most likely have limited and tightly controlled access to only designated providers. I don't see ships crews falling into the essential workers category. Especially since cruise ships are not an essential service.

 

I would expect that the "golden rule" will influence COVID vaccine availability just as it has done in the testing world.  Those that are willing to pay will somehow get access.   

 

Also, it may be that more vaccines will be available than we think.  Many vaccines are out in advanced testing and thanks to government support have already entered manufacturing at scale.  The link below discusses US efforts.  I am sure other countries have made similar efforts.

 

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-manufacturing-industrial-scale/585850/

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, development and manufacturing has advanced in parallel, a risk that's largely been eased by billions of dollars in funding from the U.S. government. Awards doled out through the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed initiative have totaled more than $11 billion between the six most advanced vaccine makers. "

 

We know the Chinese are certainly interested in filling this market demand as part of their diplomacy and industrial policy efforts.  Same with the Russians and others outside the normal Western pharma industry.

 

Lot of players chasing at $27B in sales and tons of prestige!

https://www.scienceboard.net/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=Drug&pag=dis&ItemID=1649

 

[SelectSys]

17 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

Western countries have shown failure to be able to be disciplined as we are seeing with the new spikes everywere, so there will be cruises.

 

 

Your observation is true where I live.  People have absolutely no sense of discipline.  I went to pick up pizza last weekend.  The tables had been set up to support socially distancing.  People, mostly young, were drifting between tables with beer and pizza and making no attempt at distancing.  

 

The net effect is that San Diego is returning to the most restrictive COVID tier now with the new rounds of business closures, layoffs and business failures coming next! 

 

Funny this is that I expect these same people to party once again at home and it will be a while before we get back out again.  A bleak Holiday Season on the horizon for sure!

[cruisingguy007]

29 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

Cruise lines will most definitely want to have their crews vaccinated as soon as possible.  They also will definitely want to have everyone on board vaccinated as well.  

 

Having a vaccine and knowing that everyone else has a vaccine will certainly help gain my confidence in cruising as well.  My own timeline for cruising has slipped into 2022 unless things change with increased 

 

 

I would expect that the "golden rule" will influence COVID vaccine availability just as it has done in the testing world.  Those that are willing to pay will somehow get access.   

 

Also, it may be that more vaccines will be available than we think.  Many vaccines are out in advanced testing and thanks to government support have already entered manufacturing at scale.  The link below discusses US efforts.  I am sure other countries have made similar efforts.

 

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-manufacturing-industrial-scale/585850/

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, development and manufacturing has advanced in parallel, a risk that's largely been eased by billions of dollars in funding from the U.S. government. Awards doled out through the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed initiative have totaled more than $11 billion between the six most advanced vaccine makers. "

 

We know the Chinese are certainly interested in filling this market demand as part of their diplomacy and industrial policy efforts.  Same with the Russians and others outside the normal Western pharma industry.

 

Lot of players chasing at $27B in sales and tons of prestige!

https://www.scienceboard.net/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=Drug&pag=dis&ItemID=1649

 

 

Actually, the leading vaccine took no US money and their success had zero to do with "Operation warp speed" even though it was described in such a way as to suggest it. These are the two scientist we should thank. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/europe/biontech-pfizer-vaccine-team-couple-intl/index.html

 

More info:

https://fortune.com/2020/11/09/pfizer-vaccine-funding-warp-speed-germany/

Edited November 10, 2020 by cruisingguy007

[SelectSys]

1 minute ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

Actually, the leading vaccine took no US money and their success had zero to do with "Operation warp speed" even though it was described in such a way as to suggest it. These are the two scientist we should thank. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/europe/biontech-pfizer-vaccine-team-couple-intl/index.html

 

Pfizer acknowledges the agreement with the government as being important based on what they post on their IR website.

 

https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2020/Pfizer-and-BioNTech-Announce-an-Agreement-with-U.S.-Government-for-up-to-600-Million-Doses-of-mRNA-based-Vaccine-Candidate-Against-SARS-CoV-2/default.aspx

 

"Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO. “We made the early decision to begin clinical work and large-scale manufacturing at our own risk to ensure that product would be available immediately if our clinical trials prove successful and an Emergency Use Authorization is granted. We are honored to be a part of this effort to provide Americans access to protection from this deadly virus.”

 

 I never think anyone suggests the vaccine itself was developed by any government support - unless you count all the background research funded by NIH and others - providing a foundation.

[cruisemom42]

Now, even more than when I posted last week, a vaccine would be a minimum requirement but not the only one. Despite the excellent news on the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, there are other prevention measures that would matter to me more than just getting the vaccine myself. Especially given the current situation -- as of Monday there were more than 59,000 Covid-19 patients in hospitals across the US, the country’s highest number ever of in-patients being treated for the disease....

 

15 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

And someone would still have to have it to infect one of those theoretical 150. The likelihood of any of the 150 being infected in a situation where 90% cannot be infectious is really small.

 

Do you think all 1500 people will travel to the ship in a bubble?  None of them will have to navigate airports, sit on planes, stay in hotels the night before, etc. where they could be exposed to infection? 

[ed01106]

I would not be the least bit surprised if many countries make proof of vaccine a requirement for entry, much the way some countries require small pox, yellow fever or hepatitis.  

[Mary229]

15 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

I would not be the least bit surprised if many countries make proof of vaccine a requirement for entry, much the way some countries require small pox, yellow fever or hepatitis.  

I would go further to suspect that the cruise lines will require a vaccination.  I am not worried about my own health but I certainly don't want to be on a plague ship, we don't need to repeat that spectacle again.  

[2wheelin]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

Now, even more than when I posted last week, a vaccine would be a minimum requirement but not the only one. Despite the excellent news on the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, there are other prevention measures that would matter to me more than just getting the vaccine myself. Especially given the current situation -- as of Monday there were more than 59,000 Covid-19 patients in hospitals across the US, the country’s highest number ever of in-patients being treated for the disease....

 

 

Do you think all 1500 people will travel to the ship in a bubble?  None of them will have to navigate airports, sit on planes, stay in hotels the night before, etc. where they could be exposed to infection? 

Not sure I follow your thinking. In this theoretical situation we are discussing, all 1500 would be vaccinated and 90% of them would be protected. Exposure for them would be a moot point. Therefore, travel to the port would be just as disease protective as being on the ship. And, no, I do not believe they would be transporting virus on their clothing which could transfer to another person later in the week.

[iancal]

17 hours ago, chipmaster said:

Reality suggests that a widely available vaccine where enough of the population get vaccinated won't happen till middle of next year, I think there will be some travel/cruising before that.    

 

Western countries have shown failure to be able to be disciplined as we are seeing with the new spikes everywere, so there will be cruises.

 

No the reality is there will be a very large group of anti vaccinators enough so such that unless there is testing as well as vaccine requirements we most certainly have outbreaks again and again till 2022.

 

Now would  I cruise before getting vaccine, yes.  I've already made a handful of flights, would go to Canada if allowed, and plan to do Hawaii shortly, of course take the test too.

 

But I can see how many the older, obese and unhealthy should be cautious, after all if they catch it their chance of death, pretty high, stay home and wear that mask!

Agree completely.  I have the impression that some believe that it will be a few weeks between the recent announcement and when they will actually get the vaccine.  I cannot see this.  We are assuming mid Q2 at the earliest.  Not even thinking about a cruise at the moment.

 

Distribution and control  of this vaccine will not be akin to stocking the shelves with boxes of aspirin.

Edited November 11, 2020 by iancal

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, iancal said:

 I have the impression that some believe that it will be a few weeks between the recent announcement and when they will actually get the vaccine.  I cannot see this.  We are assuming mid Q2 at the earliest...

 

Really?  I wonder what these people are on?  I saw the big movements on stocks (including cruise lines) with the announcement, but this is way different than vaccine availability.

 

A lot of the government money has been spent to help gear up for production and distribution of vaccines and it will like go fast because of the extreme need, but anyone expecting a near term vaccine is likely to be disappointed accept as part of further trials, have real need or are somehow connected/rich.

 

A thought crossed my mind to go to Mexico for quicker availability, but I wouldn't trust what was provided as the potential for fraud seems really high.

[cruisemom42]

22 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

And someone would still have to have it to infect one of those theoretical 150. The likelihood of any of the 150 being infected in a situation where 90% cannot be infectious is really small.

 

4 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

Not sure I follow your thinking. In this theoretical situation we are discussing, all 1500 would be vaccinated and 90% of them would be protected. Exposure for them would be a moot point. Therefore, travel to the port would be just as disease protective as being on the ship. And, no, I do not believe they would be transporting virus on their clothing which could transfer to another person later in the week.

 

First, let's acknowledge that 90% efficacy in a trial may not necessarily equate to 90% efficacy in "real world" conditions. But even if it is accurate, as you say around 150 passengers will not be protected and could well become infected by others while traveling to the port, staying in a hotel for a night or more before cruising, etc.  And if that happens, a test prior to boarding the ship is unlikely to pick it up.

 

Just given general circulation patterns and relatively close quarters aboard ship, anyone infected IS likely to come into contact with at least a few of the remaining "unprotected" passengers, who may then contact yet others...  

 

While I may or may not feel confident that I am one of the 90% protected by the vaccine, I also do not see any point to cruising given the relatively good chance that I could end up confined to my stateroom along with everyone else and headed for an early end of the cruise and departure (best case) or quarantine onboard for a longer period while arrangements are made...

 

Just look at what has just happened with SeaDream's start-up, apparently despite at least two separate pre-boarding COVID tests:

 

"Passengers were required to take a COVID-19 test at home before flying to the island and test negative within 72 hours of travel. They then were given another PCR test by the cruise line's ship doctor at the dock before boarding."

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5727/

 

And yet today, with yet another round of COVID testing required by Barbados, a passenger tested positive AND is symptomatic (so unlikely it is a false positive).

 

[Hlitner]

Here is what bugs me.  When there was all the talk of the Moderna vaccine (most of the talk was via Moderna press conferences) I posted how the top management of Moderna had made a small fortune by selling stock that had risen from a low of $17.68 to over $95 a share (in less then a year)!  Moderna has never brought any drug/vaccine to market, but their senior executives have all made a lot of money by simply holding press conferences.  So now we hear that Pfizer's CEO sold a large block of stock on Monday right after they released the positive info regarding their Phase 3 testing of their COVID vaccine.  Again, we have top executives making a small fortune by simply having a press conference and issuing press releases.  This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling although I truly pray that both Moderna and Pfizer quickly bring excellent COVID vaccines to market.  But for the top managment of both companies it probably does no make a lot of difference since they have already cashed out a substantial amount of their stock options.  Just this evening (on the news) they mentioned that Moderna has expressed optimisim about their drug.  Go figure.

 

And then there is another thought.  Why cash out now?  If they do bring a good vaccine to market their is potential to sell billions of doses.  Why not wait?  

 

Hank

[Mary229]

I doubt the vaccine is a big money maker except the government grants.   

[c-boy]

" And then there is another thought.  Why cash out now?  If they do bring a good vaccine to market their is potential to sell billions of doses.  Why not wait?  "

His stock sale was carried out through a routine Rule 10b5-1, a predetermined trading plan that allows company staff members to sell their stock in line with insider-trading laws. Bourla's sale was part of a plan adopted August 19, the filing showed. He continues to own 81,812 Pfizer shares.

Pfizer confirmed that Bourla's stock sales were part of a plan that allows major shareholders and insiders of exchange-listed corporations to trade a predetermined number of shares at an agreed time. 

"Through our stock plan administrator, Dr. Bourla authorized the sale of these shares on August 19, 2020, provided the stock was at least at a certain price," a Pfizer spokesperson told Business Insider.

[broberts]

12 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I doubt the vaccine is a big money maker except the government grants.   

 

Even at $1 / vaccination profit, I don't think anyone would consider $7,000,000,000 small money. And if the virus behaves like the flu this would be an annual amount.

[Mary229]

3 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Even at $1 / vaccination profit, I don't think anyone would consider $7,000,000,000 small money. And if the virus behaves like the flu this would be an annual amount.

They have had huge research, development and production costs and by no means are they going to supply the world.  The Chinese and Russians already have their vaccines in production and if some reports are to believed in distribution. Then there are the other western pharmaceutical companies.  They have pledged free vaccines also.   The race was for status not money 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Mary229

[Mary229]

6 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Even at $1 / vaccination profit, I don't think anyone would consider $7,000,000,000 small money. And if the virus behaves like the flu this would be an annual amount.

Deleted

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Mary229

[Hlitner]

14 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

They have had huge research, development and production costs and by no means are they going to supply the world.  The Chinese and Russians already have their vaccines in production and if some reports are to believed in distribution. Then there are the other western pharmaceutical companies.  They have pledged free vaccines also.   The race was for status not money 

When we used to meet with Pharm reps at my job (I worked as a State regulator and payor of healthcare) we would always hear the "research" word when we would ask why they charged a lot less for the same drugs sold to Canada.  While research is expensive lets assume there was $50 million spent by a firm on the COVID vaccine (that is a generous amount).  Now consider that they sell the vaccine for about $7.00 a dose (wholesale) and only sell a half billion doses (enough for 250 million folks) because of competition.  That would be about 3.5 Billion dollars revenue.  Take out that $50 million in research and you have $3.45 Billion left!  There is a reason why Moderna stock went from $17.68 to over $95 per share (over 500 percent increase) in 2020.  And there is a reason why nearly all the top folks at Moderna have pocketed a small fortune before they have received approval of even 1 gram (or milliliter) of an approved vaccine.

 

If you choose to believe the press about "status" then I have a bridge between the earth and moon I can sell you cheap :).

 

Hank