Some in Congress want the CDC to put back the "no sail" order

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, jhannah said:

IMO reinstating the cruise ban is knee-jerk, and would likely deal a fatal blow to most of the cruise industry ... and scores of support industries.

 

The real reason why cruising has not restarted in the states is that cases and hospitalizations have soared. Hospitalizations at new record 70k as hospitals fill up in several states. Suggest you use a search engine.

 

Thanks to the multitude of of careless and ignorant people. Hope that you are keeping safe.

 

BTW, Taiwan and Singapore are starting a bubble next week. Aussies and Kiwi are negotiating to form a bubble. Salute to the success stories! 👍

[iancal]

I believe that people need to exercise a little common sense and take some responsibility for their own well being and safety. 

 

  We do not need any Government of Health based agency to tell us sailing before an effective vaccine is available is not a particularly good thing.  Willful ignorance is always a very poor excuse.

[voljeep]

4 minutes ago, iancal said:

I believe that people need to exercise a little common sense and take some responsibility for their own well being and safety. 

 

  We do not need any Government of Health based agency to tell us sailing before an effective vaccine is available is not a particularly good thing.  Willful ignorance is always a very poor excuse.

in my not so humble opinion ... that may well be your best post EVAH !!!

 

now for clarification ... do you think a vaccine should be 'mandatory' for cruising ? or just at port testing before boarding and during the cruise ?

[kjg46]

One can create their own bubble or wear a hazmat suit etc. Once you leave such arrangement the sun is still shinning. So how long do you wait until the sun no longer shines? What if a vaccine only lasts for 3 months? Do you re-bubble until you get another shot?  All the Best, Stay Safe.

[Earthworm Jim]

On 11/15/2020 at 7:04 AM, gmjc2 said:

I disagree. The fact that congress wants to restrict cruising it makes sense that they would not approve a change in the Jones/PVSA to open up Alaska.  There is a thread that discusses this idea.

 

That's quite a leap from one of 50 senators and one of 435 house members calling for reinstating the no sail order to assuming that means congress wants to restrict cruising.

 

(Not that I think there will be any modification to the PVSA)

[Earthworm Jim]

On 11/14/2020 at 1:08 PM, iancal said:

Make no difference to us.  Our decision to cruise or not to cruise will not be based on Congress or CDC.

 

It will be based upon when WE feel that it is safe to cruise.

 

It makes a difference to you if the your decision that you want to cruise comes before the CDC's or other authority's decision to allow it. You can decide you'd like to cruise all you want, but if there are no cruises at that point, you aren't going on one.

[WAMarathoner]

On 11/15/2020 at 7:06 AM, Hlitner said:

Funny you mention Measles (the MMR Vaccine) since there was recently (a couple of years ago) another outbreak here in the USA...primarily in NYC.  Why?  Because there are still enough anti-vaxers who have avoided that vaccine for themselves and even their families.  Once (and if) we get some COVID vaccines this is going to be a huge problem.  That is why I have been ranting about the two governors who have done their best to question any future COVID vaccine and thus drive more doubt into the minds of those who already dislike vaccines.   Politicians can use their voice to do a lot of good, but they also have the power to cause lots of bad things including death!  These two Governors have already done a lot of harm (one did try to do some backtracking) which will not be easily fixed.

 

Hank

Hysteria, Hank.   Zero US measles deaths last year -- ZERO.  That's zero since 2015.  Of the fewer than 1500 people nationwide who contracted it in 2019, 75% of those were in two Orthodox Jewish communities where recent travelers had been in third world countries.  Where vaccination status was unknown, they were looped into the unvaccinated category.

 

It's about personal choice, and consequences of those choices.  I choose not to be a guinea pig for the first ever vaccine that introduces animal/laboratory RNA into my body.  Maybe one of the others being developed will have different vectors (like what I've been reading about Sputnik.)  The mRNA seems, to me, that it would carry the risk of autoimmune diseases, since you're injecting a wrapped foreign RNA in order to provoke the immune response.  IANAD, but there is some very interesting stuff on the physicsforum.com.  Everyone needs to make their own decision.  I wouldn't presume to make yours for you.

[caribill]

5 hours ago, WAMarathoner said:

Hysteria, Hank.   Zero US measles deaths last year -- ZERO.  That's zero since 2015.  Of the fewer than 1500 people nationwide who contracted it in 2019, 75% of those were in two Orthodox Jewish communities where recent travelers had been in third world countries.  Where vaccination status was unknown, they were looped into the unvaccinated category.

 

It's about personal choice, and consequences of those choices. 

 

For medical reasons, some people just cannot get a vaccine. Those people would be vulnerable if exposed to the disease and depend on almost all of the general population getting a vaccine to achieve "herd immunity."

 

When you say "It's about personal choice, and consequences of those choices. " you are saying a person who chooses not to receive a vaccine does not mind the consequence of someone else who cannot medically get the vaccine contracting the disease.

 

One's personal choice can mean the illness and possible death of someone else.

 

It's like saying "I do not mind the consequences of driving while drunk" and then having an accident that kills someone else. You survive the result of your personal choice, but someone else does not.

[Hlitner]

11 hours ago, WAMarathoner said:

Hysteria, Hank.   Zero US measles deaths last year -- ZERO.  That's zero since 2015.  Of the fewer than 1500 people nationwide who contracted it in 2019, 75% of those were in two Orthodox Jewish communities where recent travelers had been in third world countries.  Where vaccination status was unknown, they were looped into the unvaccinated category.

 

It's about personal choice, and consequences of those choices.  I choose not to be a guinea pig for the first ever vaccine that introduces animal/laboratory RNA into my body.  Maybe one of the others being developed will have different vectors (like what I've been reading about Sputnik.)  The mRNA seems, to me, that it would carry the risk of autoimmune diseases, since you're injecting a wrapped foreign RNA in order to provoke the immune response.  IANAD, but there is some very interesting stuff on the physicsforum.com.  Everyone needs to make their own decision.  I wouldn't presume to make yours for you.

I am so glad that you posted since it speaks to the issue of the anti-vaxers.  As you said, measles did not kill anyone in the USA last year (although the WHO says it killed 142,000 worldwide).  Why?  Because the MMR vaccine is one of our most officious vaccines and there is a very high level of vaccination in the USA because pediatricians routinely give the MMR and many schools around the country require it for entry.   That is why most public health experts tend to look at the flu vaccine as the best measure of overall compliance and that has stayed around 50% for many years here in the USA.  Many other Western countries (where they have national healthcare and the flu vaccine is free) also get about 50% compliance.   I had also cited a recent poll (we all know how accurate polling is) where only about 1/3 of Americans say they will get a COVID vaccine.  Ironically the lowest poll numbers (based on a single poll) was in the Los Angeles Black Community.  This population has among the highest death rates from COVID and they also have the least trust of a vaccine.  When I worked for PA Medical Assistance (Medicaid) we tried all kinds of outreach to get the Black Community to accept free flu shots but it was an uphill battle.  Our cost for flu related medical care (including hospitalization) was through the roof and getting more folks to accept flu shots is a very good investment.  COVID will obviously be similar.   Without a high degree of vaccine compliance it will be near impossible to achieve anything close to herd immunity (some say it will take more then 85% vaccine compliance to get to herd immunity).  The likely outcome is that we will have an ongoing COVID problem for years.   Dr. Fauci (who many on these boards like to quote) just said this week that even after we have plenty of vaccine we would still need to wear masks!  That is because the risk of COVID will still be pretty high in light of poor vaccine compliance.

 

Speaking of the Jewish (in this case primarily Hassidic) Community in Brooklyn this has been a strange issue.  There is nothing in Jewish Law or tradition that goes to rejecting vaccines.  In the NYC Hassidic Community the most influential Rebbe urged the community to vaccines (both MMR and DTap) but many still refuse.  This seems to be a matter of "Hassidic tradition" in a community that takes tradition to a high level.  Our grandchildren's Nanny lives in Brooklyn (fortunately she is some distance from the primary Hassidic neighborhood) so we have a horse in this race.  Not far from where we live there is a large Amish Community and there is similar concern that many of them will resist any COVID vaccine for the same reason.....tradition.

 

Since this is Cruise Critic my prediction (which I have previously posted) is that the cruise lines will definitely require proof of a COVID vaccination (or an antibody test) for everyone boarding a ship.  Those of you who are anti-vaxers will simply have to find alternatives to cruising for the next few years.  This may or may not be a CDC requirement but the cruise lines are not going to gamble on another COVID fiasco to please anti-vaxers.  

 

Hank

 

 

[HappyInVan]

What about the anti-maskers? 🙄

[jhannah]

On 11/16/2020 at 10:05 AM, ontheweb said:

And now we have had the Sea Breeze with only 53 passengers sailing from Barbados, and ending up being cut short as Covid showed up.

 

 

They did not have the proper protocols in place. They didn't think masks were necessary. The protocols for cruising to/from U.S. ports are quite strenuous and thorough.

[voljeep]

hopefully all cruise lines can learn from these early cruises and develop accordingly 

[Hlitner]

18 minutes ago, jhannah said:

They did not have the proper protocols in place. They didn't think masks were necessary. The protocols for cruising to/from U.S. ports are quite strenuous and thorough.

Perhaps masks might have made the spread on the vessel less of a problem.  But the reality is that one passenger tested negative (at least twice) and still brought that virus aboard.  How?   We keep pointing out the biggest problem with any testing protocol in that folks will not test positive for 3-5 days after they are exposed to COVID.  Combine that fact with the heightened risk just traveling to get to a cruise and you are going to have constant problems.  This has happened with most of the European cruises with over 160 confirmed cases tied to the European cruises but even more cases on the River Cruises.

 

The only sure fire way to keep COVID off a ship is to quarantine all the cruisers for at least 5 days prior to letting them board a vessel (after testing).  Obviously that is not going to happen.  And anytime anyone left the ship at a port they would again need to quarantine at least 5 days and again get tested.  All these other ideas that have been tried and tossed about just help to minimize the risk..but cases are all but guaranteed to slip through.

 

Hank

[voljeep]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

minimize the risk..but cases are all but guaranteed to slip through.

and mitigate the damages - both on the ship ( medical facilities ) and at the disembarkation port

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, caribill said:

 

For medical reasons, some people just cannot get a vaccine. Those people would be vulnerable if exposed to the disease and depend on almost all of the general population getting a vaccine to achieve "herd immunity."

 

When you say "It's about personal choice, and consequences of those choices. " you are saying a person who chooses not to receive a vaccine does not mind the consequence of someone else who cannot medically get the vaccine contracting the disease.

 

One's personal choice can mean the illness and possible death of someone else.

 

It's like saying "I do not mind the consequences of driving while drunk" and then having an accident that kills someone else. You survive the result of your personal choice, but someone else does not.

YES!!!!! We know of a young child who is our son's Godchild in all but name. His parents could have legitimately refused a measles shot for him because he has a compromised immunity system. However, when measles started spiking in his area because of the anti-vaxxers, they decided without herd immunity not getting the shot was more of a risk than getting the shot.

 

Now they will not have to make that choice since NY state has taken the religious exemption away for children attending school. The medical exemption remains,

[caribill]

2 hours ago, voljeep said:

hopefully all cruise lines can learn from these early cruises and develop accordingly 

 

The main lesson is that someone who has undetectable levels of the virus can come aboard infected and then reach detectable levels during the cruise.

 

I have no idea how to prevent this.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, caribill said:

 

The main lesson is that someone who has undetectable levels of the virus can come aboard infected and then reach detectable levels during the cruise.

 

I have no idea how to prevent this.

And it's a fair statement to say no one knows.

[caribill]

What the CDC has stated about past checking for symptoms with airline passengers:

 

"SARS-CoV-2 presents a formidable control challenge because asymptomatic (i.e., never symptomatic) and presymptomatic (i.e., contagious infections before symptom onset) infections can result in substantial transmission, which was unknown early in the pandemic. The proxy for infectiousness, viral shedding in the upper respiratory tract, is greatest early in the course of infection, before prominent symptoms are apparent, suggesting peak infectiousness at or before symptom onset."

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945a4.htm?for-guid=6e3b0242-45e5-11ea-88fe-12ccee11deff&utm

[nocl]

21 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps masks might have made the spread on the vessel less of a problem.  But the reality is that one passenger tested negative (at least twice) and still brought that virus aboard.  How?   We keep pointing out the biggest problem with any testing protocol in that folks will not test positive for 3-5 days after they are exposed to COVID.  Combine that fact with the heightened risk just traveling to get to a cruise and you are going to have constant problems.  This has happened with most of the European cruises with over 160 confirmed cases tied to the European cruises but even more cases on the River Cruises.

 

The only sure fire way to keep COVID off a ship is to quarantine all the cruisers for at least 5 days prior to letting them board a vessel (after testing).  Obviously that is not going to happen.  And anytime anyone left the ship at a port they would again need to quarantine at least 5 days and again get tested.  All these other ideas that have been tried and tossed about just help to minimize the risk..but cases are all but guaranteed to slip through.

 

Hank

actually people may have the virus even longer, may have developed symptoms, and still test negative. According to studies the best result with PCR is on day 8 and it still has a 20 percent false negative rate.

[Hlitner]

46 minutes ago, nocl said:

actually people may have the virus even longer, may have developed symptoms, and still test negative. According to studies the best result with PCR is on day 8 and it still has a 20 percent false negative rate.

So this goes to my question of why there is such an emphasis on testing as though it is a cure-all.  Testing certainly helps feed statistics but does very little in terms of prevention.  As one who spent many years having to deal with statistics as part of his job, I have a huge problem with this so-called "positivity rate" which is used by many politicians like it is meaningful.  The denominator in that calculation is simply based on overall test results.  In very rural States of the Midwest very few folks get tested (unless they are ill) because it can be a long drive (sometimes hours) for them to even get to a testing center.  Healthy families on the farm do not drag themselves an hour into town just to get a test.   But if you live in NYC it is often a matter of walking a couple of blocks so many more folks, with no symptoms, get tested.  In States where there is less testing the denominator is much smaller so the positivity rate is through the roof.   In many places this positivity rate is used as the gold standard for government dictators to make decisions on closing schools, restaurants, etc.  

 

I would add that, to the best of my knowledge, we have never used a positivity rate in public health.  So, for example, when you hear about the flu (during an epidemic) they simply give you a raw number of their estimate of flu cases (which is a crap shoot since most who think they have the flu are never tested).  You will never hear something like, "if the positivity rate for the flu hits 3% we will close the schools."  What you do hear is that "because 10% of our students our out sick we are closing the schools."   Bottom line is that authorities (dictators) are making up COVID standards as it suits their own agendas.

 

Hank

[nocl]

51 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

So this goes to my question of why there is such an emphasis on testing as though it is a cure-all.  Testing certainly helps feed statistics but does very little in terms of prevention.  As one who spent many years having to deal with statistics as part of his job, I have a huge problem with this so-called "positivity rate" which is used by many politicians like it is meaningful.  The denominator in that calculation is simply based on overall test results.  In very rural States of the Midwest very few folks get tested (unless they are ill) because it can be a long drive (sometimes hours) for them to even get to a testing center.  Healthy families on the farm do not drag themselves an hour into town just to get a test.   But if you live in NYC it is often a matter of walking a couple of blocks so many more folks, with no symptoms, get tested.  In States where there is less testing the denominator is much smaller so the positivity rate is through the roof.   In many places this positivity rate is used as the gold standard for government dictators to make decisions on closing schools, restaurants, etc.  

 

I would add that, to the best of my knowledge, we have never used a positivity rate in public health.  So, for example, when you hear about the flu (during an epidemic) they simply give you a raw number of their estimate of flu cases (which is a crap shoot since most who think they have the flu are never tested).  You will never hear something like, "if the positivity rate for the flu hits 3% we will close the schools."  What you do hear is that "because 10% of our students our out sick we are closing the schools."   Bottom line is that authorities (dictators) are making up COVID standards as it suits their own agendas.

 

Hank

Like the old saying if the only tool you have is a hammer than every problem is a nail.

 

Tests like these are really designed to confirm clinical diagnosis.  They are not designed to screen for disease, though they are the best tool for screening that we have at the moment.  Unfortunately most people do not realize that a negative test does not mean with absolute certainty that one is not infected.  Only the the virus was not present in detectable levels in the sample taken.

 

It is really the same issue as to why the clinical trails used symptoms, confirmed by test, instead of infection.  We really need a validated biomarker to test for infection for both screening purposes as well as for clinical trials.

[mcrcruiser]

Nov 18 news release from Investor relations :

 

https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/carnival-cruise-line-cancels-additional-cruises-it-works-meet

[amajaa]

My Neighbours Daughter cannot have the Flu Vaccine as she has an egg allergy because of the ovalbumin content. So I assume there will probably be a small minority of people who have an allergy to any vaccine. 

[mcrcruiser]

59 minutes ago, amajaa said:

My Neighbours Daughter cannot have the Flu Vaccine as she has an egg allergy because of the ovalbumin content. So I assume there will probably be a small minority of people who have an allergy to any vaccine. 

Yes True & they must be very careful

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

Yes True & they must be very careful

And they have to count on others to do the right thing so that herd immunity comes into play.