Will vaccines now be required?

[nomad098]

2 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

By pro-vaccination people do you mean the scientists, medical experts, doctors and a whole lot of well- read people?  And the WHO, the CDC, and a whole list of agencies and organizations who are devoted to public health?  All as rabid and misleading as the average anti-vaxxer who will not even protect their own children? 

 

Do I have to explain the difference between some and all

 

Some people on these boards have advocated the view that those who don't vaccinate should be excluded from cruising regardless of numerous genuine reasons why they either cannot or will not be vaccinated that have nothing to do with being an anti vaxxer

 

I heard one police officer when talking about vaccine ID's say they would be the first to get a vaccine and would " laugh at the starving masses that have not taken the vaccine and who could not get into supermarkets". She is a friend of mine and her wife will not be eligible for a vaccine on health grounds

 

I have spoken with people who believe that everyone who has not had the vaccine for any reason should be kept in lockdown until they accept the vaccine

 

There has been quite a few post stating something along the lines of I don't care if you choose not to vaccinate but I hope you can live with yourself if you give the disease to a loved one who dies. Which is a strange statement to make when you consider the head of Pfizer and scientists have already stated that it's possible you may transmit the virus even if vaccinated.

 

I have heard medical doctors and politicians state the vaccines are safe and everyone should have it. But let's be honest without the ability to time travel no one really knows the answer to is it safe

 

There are those from all walks of life who at either end of the scales and everywhere in between including scientists, medical experts, doctors, a whole lot of well read people, WHO and CDC. 

 

 

[Threedrones]

7 hours ago, mom says said:

Please just STOP. It is very different than the flu. And it has affected the entire world. It has infected 67 MILLION people (and that's just the cases that have been tested). It has killed  more than 1.5 MILLION people.  And there is no sign that it has stated to wain. It has devastated families, disrupted our way of life, forced businesses into bankruptcy, and has severely damaged many nations economies. When was the last time a disease  came anywhere near that level of world disruption?  That is not paranoia. That's the facts, Jack.

You are as guilty as the person you are criticizing. You are ignoring the fact that Covid is a new virus with no vaccine and comparing it to the flu. The flu kills hundreds of thousands yearly WITH a vaccine in place. It, too, Devi states families. Maybe not yours, but others. Covid did not force businesses to close, or make them file bankruptcy, or severely damage economies. People did that. And that IS paranoia. Nomad098 had a very lucid reaction to your post. You should reflect on his comment.

[Oceangoer2]

1 hour ago, sanger727 said:

 

1. I'm concerned that if masks are still in place it won't be just "masks". It will be the covid testing, the cruise ship shore excursions only, the masks, reduced occupancy in restaurants and bars (potentially leading to longer waits), the quarantined the whole ship if there is one positive case onboard, etc. That whole package is not something I'm willing to sign up for.

 

2. I almost always take the stairs on the cruise ship. And I do notice at work that I get a bit winded taking the stairs at work with my mask on

 

3. My husband hates wearing a mask so he will do it but will complain the whole time. Again would detract from me enjoying my vacation

 

4. fogs up sunglasses

 

5. Get hotter and sweatier more quickly with a mask on

 

6. Don't really want to return home with a bunch of photos of me and my family masked up instead of being able to see out faces

 

7. The frustration I constantly feel going out in public when I am following the mask rules and others aren't - either not wearing one at all, wearing it as a chin strap or hanging off their ear, or with their nose uncovered. I don't think it will be any different on a cruise ship.

 

8. I usually walk around most of the time with some sort of drink in my hand. I get dry mouth and sip water frequently. So would have to be constantly on/off with the mask or forgo my water drinking.

 

9. air coming out of the top of the mouth tends to dry my eyes out a bit. Not a problem for short periods of time but wouldn't want to wear one all day. 

Seems it would definitely be best if you didn't cruise....or travel outside your home during this time.  Just in case you're one of the unlucky ones who contract the disease not wearing a mask or social distancing.  None of us know who will be a victim so I choose to be as careful as possible.  JMO.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Oceangoer2

[sanger727]

2 minutes ago, Oceangoer2 said:

Seems it would definitely be best if you didn't cruise.

 
Of course. And I have no plans to. Was just responding to the person who wondered why someone would choose not to cruise when there's a mask mandate.

[TeeRick]

17 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

Do I have to explain the difference between some and all

 

Some people on these boards have advocated the view that those who don't vaccinate should be excluded from cruising regardless of numerous genuine reasons why they either cannot or will not be vaccinated that have nothing to do with being an anti vaxxer

 

I heard one police officer when talking about vaccine ID's say they would be the first to get a vaccine and would " laugh at the starving masses that have not taken the vaccine and who could not get into supermarkets". She is a friend of mine and her wife will not be eligible for a vaccine on health grounds

 

I have spoken with people who believe that everyone who has not had the vaccine for any reason should be kept in lockdown until they accept the vaccine

 

There has been quite a few post stating something along the lines of I don't care if you choose not to vaccinate but I hope you can live with yourself if you give the disease to a loved one who dies. Which is a strange statement to make when you consider the head of Pfizer and scientists have already stated that it's possible you may transmit the virus even if vaccinated.

 

I have heard medical doctors and politicians state the vaccines are safe and everyone should have it. But let's be honest without the ability to time travel no one really knows the answer to is it safe

 

There are those from all walks of life who at either end of the scales and everywhere in between including scientists, medical experts, doctors, a whole lot of well read people, WHO and CDC. 

 

 

I am not saying anything about a COVID vaccine being mandatory or even required. I am saying that it is hopefully a well-informed choice that many of us must make in the next year by evaluating our own personal risk vs. the benefit of getting the vaccine once available.

[nomad098]

8 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

" it may not make financial or ethical sense to vaccinate those at the lowest risk"

 

Wow!  Just, wow!

 

So you think the UK professors, scientists and Government involved with the roll out of the vaccine are wrong, this comes from them not me, I'm just taking expert advice and posting it.

 

The FDA and other bodies have had to withdraw drugs in the past because even though they passed all safety requirements when used in the wider society issues arose.

If, when mass vaccination takes place the data shows that over a certain age or with certain health conditions risk benefit is positive great but that does not automatically translate to the risk benefit in lower risk people and if the risk benefit is negative it would be unethical to offer a vaccine. It's not a one size fits all at the moment.

 

Though the NHS in the UK offer free care at point of use that does not mean that the Government can not decide that those at lowest risk should pay for their vaccination. This is the case with the flu vaccine only those at risk are offered a free jab the rest of us have to pay.

[nomad098]

7 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

I am not saying anything about a COVID vaccine being mandatory or even required. I am saying that it is hopefully a well-informed choice that many of us must make in the next year by evaluating our own personal risk vs. the benefit of getting the vaccine once available.

 

I agree

 

Unfortunately the argument has become quite polarised with some extreme views.

 

My opinion is that Governments should not coerce populations into having the vaccines by denial of liberties, what companies choose to do is up to them.

 

I personally will be at the bottom of the list, I jump up to the over 50's come February so I hope the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine or the Johnson & Johnson will be online as I am less risk averse to these vaccines and will take one. I may even take one of the mRNA jabs if scientific information becomes available showing a good risk benefit.  

 

 

[diamondintn]

Ok, I'm confused. I get the vaccine therefore I can't get the virus. If I can't get the virus, I can't spread it. Could someone please tell me why I would need to wear a mask? What is so difficult about it?  Get the shot, get on the ship. Don't want to get the shot? Go home.  That is the new normal.

Edited December 7, 2020 by diamondintn
add on

[markeb]

16 minutes ago, diamondintn said:

Ok, I'm confused. I get the vaccine therefore I can't get the virus. If I can't get the virus, I can't spread it. Could someone please tell me why I would need to wear a mask? What is so difficult about it?  Get the shot, get on the ship. Don't want to get the shot? Go home.  That is the new normal.

 

More complicated than that, unfortunately.

 

The clinical trials show a dramatic reduction in getting the disease if vaccinated; they weren't designed to tell if you can 'get the virus'; i.e., get infected. Likewise, at this point, they don't show if you can transmit if infected, but protected from disease. And after a lot of discussion, most of us have come to the unfortunate conclusion that we really don't know how you'd do that study today. It should reduce transmission just by what it targets, but that's going to be hard to prove. Which is why you're hearing a lot of talk about mask wearing for some time even with vaccination. 

[Gracie115]

3 hours ago, sanger727 said:

 

1. I'm concerned that if masks are still in place it won't be just "masks". It will be the covid testing, the cruise ship shore excursions only, the masks, reduced occupancy in restaurants and bars (potentially leading to longer waits), the quarantined the whole ship if there is one positive case onboard, etc. That whole package is not something I'm willing to sign up for.

 

2. I almost always take the stairs on the cruise ship. And I do notice at work that I get a bit winded taking the stairs at work with my mask on

 

3. My husband hates wearing a mask so he will do it but will complain the whole time. Again would detract from me enjoying my vacation

 

4. fogs up sunglasses

 

5. Get hotter and sweatier more quickly with a mask on

 

6. Don't really want to return home with a bunch of photos of me and my family masked up instead of being able to see out faces

 

7. The frustration I constantly feel going out in public when I am following the mask rules and others aren't - either not wearing one at all, wearing it as a chin strap or hanging off their ear, or with their nose uncovered. I don't think it will be any different on a cruise ship.

 

8. I usually walk around most of the time with some sort of drink in my hand. I get dry mouth and sip water frequently. So would have to be constantly on/off with the mask or forgo my water drinking.

 

9. air coming out of the top of the mouth tends to dry my eyes out a bit. Not a problem for short periods of time but wouldn't want to wear one all day. 

 

Thanks for answereing. I understand and if you feel that way then I'm sure you will wait till things are back to normal(whatever that will be)before you cruise.  For me, aside from the 1st thing you mention I can deal with the rest if I can cruise.  

[TeeRick]

It is just puzzling to me that on these CC threads and in society in general we still have continuous discussions about COVID vs Flu.   A virus competition.  The Super Bowl of Respiratory viruses.  Both are very bad and can infect and kill a lot of people.  Those that think the SARS-CoV-2 is no worse than Influenza virus generally are not paying much attention to the overwhelming data.  But just be patient!  A strain of Influenza could certainly arise at any time that could even be more deadly than COVID.  So best to not justify your actions (or inactions) by trying to prove to everybody that COVID is no worse than Flu.  

 

[markeb]

1 minute ago, TeeRick said:

It is just puzzling to me that on these CC threads and in society in general we still have continuous discussions about COVID vs Flu.   A virus competition.  The Super Bowl of Respiratory viruses.  Both are very bad and can infect and kill a lot of people.  Those that think the SARS-CoV-2 is no worse than Influenza virus generally are not paying much attention to the overwhelming data.  But just be patient!  A strain of Influenza could certainly arise at any time that could even be more deadly than COVID.  So best to not justify your actions (or inactions) by trying to prove to everybody that COVID is no worse than Flu.  

 

 

This is starting to remind me of holiday meals with my mother and her siblings. At some point in the evening, it inevitably devolved into a game of "my diseases are worse than your diseases". Although I kind of miss those discussions now as only one of the four is still with us, and honestly, even though she's survived, her disease is worse than theirs...

[theEvilQueen2]

If wearing a mask is all it takes to get the hell out of this house and go on a cruise or vacation, I will gladly wear it. Being in a few high risk catagories, I'll probably wear it the rest of my life anyway. It's become second nature, like putting on my seatbelt.  We're cruising in August (hopefully) so should be vaccinated by then, but that is no guarantee since at this point we really don't know how effective it will be long term. I've survived a lot of stuff in my life and I'm not going to get taken out because of ignoring sound medical advice. Just wear the damn mask. 

[LGW59]

12 hours ago, sanger727 said:

 

1. I'm concerned that if masks are still in place it won't be just "masks". It will be the covid testing, the cruise ship shore excursions only, the masks, reduced occupancy in restaurants and bars (potentially leading to longer waits), the quarantined the whole ship if there is one positive case onboard, etc. That whole package is not something I'm willing to sign up for.

 

2. I almost always take the stairs on the cruise ship. And I do notice at work that I get a bit winded taking the stairs at work with my mask on

 

3. My husband hates wearing a mask so he will do it but will complain the whole time. Again would detract from me enjoying my vacation

 

4. fogs up sunglasses

 

5. Get hotter and sweatier more quickly with a mask on

 

6. Don't really want to return home with a bunch of photos of me and my family masked up instead of being able to see out faces

 

7. The frustration I constantly feel going out in public when I am following the mask rules and others aren't - either not wearing one at all, wearing it as a chin strap or hanging off their ear, or with their nose uncovered. I don't think it will be any different on a cruise ship.

 

8. I usually walk around most of the time with some sort of drink in my hand. I get dry mouth and sip water frequently. So would have to be constantly on/off with the mask or forgo my water drinking.

 

9. air coming out of the top of the mouth tends to dry my eyes out a bit. Not a problem for short periods of time but wouldn't want to wear one all day. 

Pretty easy solution to the horrendous suffering you and your DH would endure on a cruise, DON'T!!

[sanger727]

7 hours ago, LGW59 said:

Pretty easy solution to the horrendous suffering you and your DH would endure on a cruise, DON'T!!

huh? I stated this by saying that we have no intention of cruising right now. 
 

I understand there are many cruisers that are fine with mask wearing and the other Covid requirements that may come along with it. But some aren’t. And there’s nothing wrong with that. As the vaccine approaches I am still holding out hope that the old normal could return by 2022. If by 2022 it appears that the old normal isn’t going to return I may re-evaluate this.  But not cruising for 2 years isn’t a major issue for me. We went to Mexico last month and had a wonderful time. Only needed to wear masks on the plane and everything in the resort was ‘back to normal.’ There are plenty of vacation options besides cruising to hold us over a couple years...

Edited December 8, 2020 by sanger727

[ipeeinthepool]

21 hours ago, sanger727 said:

1. I'm concerned that if masks are still in place it won't be just "masks". It will be the covid testing, the cruise ship shore excursions only, the masks, reduced occupancy in restaurants and bars (potentially leading to longer waits), the quarantined the whole ship if there is one positive case onboard, etc. That whole package is not something I'm willing to sign up for.

 

I really don't find the rest of you concerns to be a problem for me, but you do identify one of my concerns.  Personally, I won't cruise until I'm vaccinated.  I judge the risk to be too great for me at this point  in the crisis.  However I am concerned about what happens if unvaccinated people are allowed to cruise and get infected during the cruise and I am concerned about those people potentially infecting others at the ports we visit.  I don't see any way we will be allowed to roam about the port cities freely unless the cruise lines can assure those countries we won't infect the destinations.  I think the best course of action will be for cruise lines to require people to be vaccinated and continue with pre-boarding Covid testing until the virus really subsides.

[zanderblue]

@nomad098 I can’t say that I agree with much of your postings. I will say this however.............

It is a fundamental obligation of a government in a democracy to serve and protect its citizens. When such a government receives advice from its public health medical professionals, it needs to pay heed to that advice. All the information I have read or heard to date is to the effect that the medical advice being offered is that the vaccine is safe and effective and needs to be administered to as much of the adult population as is possible.

I guess that gets us to how the government implements that advice.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the government offering inducements to increase the uptake. I certainly don’t see that as being coercive, but rather as inducive.

I guess, what I’m trying to say is that the matter is very subjective and what I see as reasonable, then another will see as unreasonable.

I would also go further and say the any government that disregards the advice from its public health medical professionals is likely to find itself in opposition before too long.

[nomad098]

1 hour ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Personally, I won't cruise until I'm vaccinated.  I judge the risk to be too great for me at this point  in the crisis.  However I am concerned about what happens if unvaccinated people are allowed to cruise and get infected during the cruise and I am concerned about those people potentially infecting others at the ports we visit.  I don't see any way we will be allowed to roam about the port cities freely unless the cruise lines can assure those countries we won't infect the destinations.  I think the best course of action will be for cruise lines to require people to be vaccinated and continue with pre-boarding Covid testing until the virus really subsides.

 

I would agree with your concerns in regards to others if it is proved that the vaccine stops transmission, until that can be proved and it probably will be one way or another during the mass vaccine rollout over the next few months.

 

If a vaccinated person can catch and transmit the disease even in a reduced capacity they still pose a risk to those who can not be vaccinated or live in places a vaccine has not been rolled out. At this point it's about the vaccines ability to reduce harm in you and not so much about protecting others. Even with a negative test because of the inaccuracies false negatives around 30 to 50 percent the last report showed you could still be a risk to others

 

If a vaccinated person can not transmit the disease then the vaccine is not only about protecting you but also about protecting everyone else. Even with a positive test you would not be a risk to anyone.

 

The problem with mass testing it has been proven to not be as good as we wish it would be.

 

[ipeeinthepool]

36 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

I would agree with your concerns in regards to others if it is proved that the vaccine stops transmission, until that can be proved and it probably will be one way or another during the mass vaccine rollout over the next few months.

 

If a vaccinated person can catch and transmit the disease even in a reduced capacity they still pose a risk to those who can not be vaccinated or live in places a vaccine has not been rolled out. At this point it's about the vaccines ability to reduce harm in you and not so much about protecting others. Even with a negative test because of the inaccuracies false negatives around 30 to 50 percent the last report showed you could still be a risk to others

 

If a vaccinated person can not transmit the disease then the vaccine is not only about protecting you but also about protecting everyone else. Even with a positive test you would not be a risk to anyone.

 

The problem with mass testing it has been proven to not be as good as we wish it would be.

 

 

I understand your concern and although it is theoretically possible for the vaccinated person to transmit the virus, I'm not sure that I hear a lot of concern about that question.    I thought that the viral load of the vaccinated person will be so low that transmission will likely be ineffective.  But you are correct we'll know more in the coming months.

 

However that does not reduce the desire to have the entire ship be vaccinated.  Having everyone vaccinated will nearly eliminate the possibility that a Covid positive passenger would disrupt the cruise.  So, cruises could still resume with all passengers and crew being vaccinated but still require escorted excursions.  The question will then move to all of ports as to what level of risk that they are willing to accept.  There will likely be some risk of Covid infection for years to come.

[nomad098]

35 minutes ago, zanderblue said:

@nomad098 I can’t say that I agree with much of your postings. I will say this however.............

It is a fundamental obligation of a government in a democracy to serve and protect its citizens. When such a government receives advice from its public health medical professionals, it needs to pay heed to that advice. All the information I have read or heard to date is to the effect that the medical advice being offered is that the vaccine is safe and effective and needs to be administered to as much of the adult population as is possible.

I guess that gets us to how the government implements that advice.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the government offering inducements to increase the uptake. I certainly don’t see that as being coercive, but rather as inducive.

I guess, what I’m trying to say is that the matter is very subjective and what I see as reasonable, then another will see as unreasonable.

I would also go further and say the any government that disregards the advice from its public health medical professionals is likely to find itself in opposition before too long.

 

I don't agree with some posts on here but a accept that some have validity even if I disagree and others have changed my view 

 

The problem as I see it at the moment, Government takes the advice of the public health professionals great, however if other scientists or public health professionals propose a different view they are automatically shouted down with no chance of discourse. Even the really bad information should be held up to scrutiny and shown to be wrong not just dismissed.  

 

There is one singular narrative and if the Government deviate from that narrative set by SAGE and public health professionals they have been quick to release information that undermines the UK Government, this has not been the case in Scotland or Wales where Government and public health  professionals have been on the same page, however they have introduced policies that many have questioned and in Wales they have failed to produce coherent scientific evidence.

 

SAGE have been very shy about releasing the information they base their decisions on to outside scientists but some of the information they have released was proven to be wildly inaccurate.

 

There have been quite a few drugs, treatments and vaccines that have had to be recalled after phase III trials after being confirmed as safe and effective by regulatory bodies. Even safe vaccines have had to recalled due to manufacturing and quality errors. Look at the situation now in South Korea with the flu jab no concrete evidence but there are concerns especially when you consider they threw millions of jabs away due to issues with temperature storage.  

 

Professor Van Tam a top public health professional stated in an interview that until data was in for phase 1 rollout a decision has not been made about phase 2 rollout to the under 50's this is a sound scientific principle in a population study, how many people are being told they are part of a population study?

 

No scientist or public health medical professionals will truly know how safe and effective a vaccine will be until a population size study is underway.

 

How do you think the Government of Scotland would feel if the UK Government offered them £10,000 to vote no in a Scottish referendum after all it's only inducive to a more harmonious UK. This is why I don't agree with coercion and inducements. Facts are the answer to prove to the Scottish people they are better in the UK than out of it.

 

If governments want to increase the uptake of the vaccine they should use proven facts and evidence to encourage people. 

 

  

[diamondintn]

5 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

I really don't find the rest of you concerns to be a problem for me, but you do identify one of my concerns.  Personally, I won't cruise until I'm vaccinated.  I judge the risk to be too great for me at this point  in the crisis.  However I am concerned about what happens if unvaccinated people are allowed to cruise and get infected during the cruise and I am concerned about those people potentially infecting others at the ports we visit.  I don't see any way we will be allowed to roam about the port cities freely unless the cruise lines can assure those countries we won't infect the destinations.  I think the best course of action will be for cruise lines to require people to be vaccinated and continue with pre-boarding Covid testing until the virus really subsides.

Totally agree! Get the vaccine, Get tested, Get on the ship, Get in line behind me at the bar. I'll be the one bootlegging plastic straws (kidding).

[ipeeinthepool]

1 hour ago, diamondintn said:

Totally agree! Get the vaccine, Get tested, Get on the ship, Get in line behind me at the bar. I'll be the one bootlegging plastic straws (kidding).

 

You don't need to bring the plastic straws, I'll have enough for both of us.

[cl.klink]

8 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

So, cruises could still resume with all passengers and crew being vaccinated but still require escorted excursions.  The question will then move to all of ports as to what level of risk that they are willing to accept.  There will likely be some risk of Covid infection for years to come.

 

Right .. so .. gut check:  Even granting the uncertainties and the pros and cons and fears and upsets ... and granting that there will remain some non-zero risk of getting coronavirus infection and getting COVID for a while (as you note) ... what's a seat of the pants prediction as to when we can expect not just some cruises but some amount of free port time and some opening up the cruise experience?  If the vaccines start rolling out now / soonish, with all the issues that some have already taken the time to spell out, do we think that there will be not just some cruises, but a liberalization of the cruising experience some, starting in 6 months (probably too soon), 5 years (probably too late), 1 year (possible but perhaps still too optimistic)?  What are some non-herperbolic, non-pollyana-ish, non-doomsday-ish, sober predictions?

 

- Joel

[phoenix_dream]

13 hours ago, sanger727 said:

huh? I stated this by saying that we have no intention of cruising right now. 
 

I understand there are many cruisers that are fine with mask wearing and the other Covid requirements that may come along with it. But some aren’t. And there’s nothing wrong with that. As the vaccine approaches I am still holding out hope that the old normal could return by 2022. If by 2022 it appears that the old normal isn’t going to return I may re-evaluate this.  But not cruising for 2 years isn’t a major issue for me. We went to Mexico last month and had a wonderful time. Only needed to wear masks on the plane and everything in the resort was ‘back to normal.’ There are plenty of vacation options besides cruising to hold us over a couple years...

Your life; your decisions.  But I have to say that in Mexico everything is anything but normal.  They may have acted like normal, in the sense of no Covid precautions, but Mexico itself is a very dangerous place, Covid-wise.  To think they disregarded protective practices is even more disturbing.  I'm glad for you that you came back healthy.  For me, I would rather go on a cruise taking a lot of precautions than stay at a resort where they are apparently taking none.

 

COVID-19 in Mexico - COVID-19 Very High - Level 4: COVID-19 Very High - Travel Health Notices | Travelers' Health | CDC

[ipeeinthepool]

43 minutes ago, cl.klink said:

 

Right .. so .. gut check:  Even granting the uncertainties and the pros and cons and fears and upsets ... and granting that there will remain some non-zero risk of getting coronavirus infection and getting COVID for a while (as you note) ... what's a seat of the pants prediction as to when we can expect not just some cruises but some amount of free port time and some opening up the cruise experience?  If the vaccines start rolling out now / soonish, with all the issues that some have already taken the time to spell out, do we think that there will be not just some cruises, but a liberalization of the cruising experience some, starting in 6 months (probably too soon), 5 years (probably too late), 1 year (possible but perhaps still too optimistic)?  What are some non-herperbolic, non-pollyana-ish, non-doomsday-ish, sober predictions?

 

- Joel

 

Ok, here's my perspective. I'm assuming that I will be vaccinated by Spring 2021.  This will be from the perspective of a US passenger.  I don't see  Northern European, Mediterranean.  Asian,  South American or South Pacific in the reasonable range of options for me in 2021.  If I'm going on any of these cruises I will spend some time pre-cruise or post cruise in these regions and I don't see these areas being anything close to back to normal in 2021.  I think there will still be lockdowns, quarantines and restricted travel in these regions.  I want to get off the ship and explore on my own and I think international travel will be restricted through 2021.  I do see the Caribbean opening up in 2021 and even if the region doesn't open in 2021 for unescorted tours, I'm ok just staying on the ship in the Caribbean.  I may take a shorter 7-day cruise before  November 2021, but I'll be booking a longer 10 -12 day cruise in November.

 

So that's my plan. 🙂

Edited December 8, 2020 by ipeeinthepool