vaccine required?

[voljeep]

1 minute ago, Pamster said:

the number of passengers and the length of time that they are all mixing with each other, and then that they're all kind of "captive" until they are disembarked, that makes the difference.  And I would sure hope that everyone doesn't have to go somewhere to be quarantined, but who knows.

the potential quarantine is our main concern - that HAS to be addressed somehow by the cruiselines and ports

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Pamster said:

 

From these articles:

Of the 1.7 million people who are fully vaccinated in Michigan, 246 people tested positive for COVID-19 (yahoo.com)

Report: After full vaccination, 246 Michigan residents test positive for coronavirus, 3 die - silive.com

 

Out of 1.7 Million people vaccinated, that's a rate of about .0001%. Well within the 95% efficacy range.  The 3 who died were over 65 and 2 died within 3 weeks of vaccination (antibody response may develop more slowly in some people than others.)  

 

Raises and interesting question though.  In a fully vaccinated cruise, if someone ends up testing positive, what will the cruise line do?  Should be in their go-live plans.  Will they isolate everyone, or just the infected person and their immediate contacts?  Will they remove them from the ship.  Will the ship go on or be forced to return to nearest or starting port?  

 

Lots for the cruiselines and CDC to figure out.

 

 

 

 

The problem with your calculation  is that all 1.7 million vaccinated individuals have not necessarily been exposed to the virus so using that number as a denominator is pretty meaningless.  A better estimate would be to take the percentage of the population of the state that was infected during the same time and assume that the same percentage applied to the vaccinated population and use that number as a denominator.  

 

One of the ways drug efficacy is measured (using normal incidence rate for the population) when a placebo controlled trial can not be used.  Not nearly as good but it is sometimes used.

[nocl]

35 minutes ago, Pamster said:

 

But the thing is that they're not really like the rest of the travel and entertainment sector, I don't think.  You get on an airplane, you're going to get off in a few hours.  Even if you contract covid from the passenger next to you, you're not going to test positive until 3-10 days later, and by then who knows where you got it.  If someone gets on an airplane with covid, and tests positive a couple of days later, they're not going to have to figure out what to do with that entire plane full of people.  And no other sector has the passengers out in the ocean and has to figure out what to do with them.  Where can the offload them, who will accept them?

 

It may be a difference that doesn't matter, but it seems like a difference to me.

 

But I do see his point that zero risk standard is unreasonable.  And if they have mitigation factors for one or two cases, that might be fine, and only an outbreak of more than X cases causes aborting the cruise and offloading passengers as soon as possible.  Don't really know.

Though when someone tests positive, during contact tracing if it is identified that the person was on a plane that information is reported to both the CDC as well as the health departments at both ends of the flight.  In other countries such as Australia any identified flights is identified and available on line.  The data has identified very few cases of transmission compared to the number flying and the incidence rate in the general population.  There have been a couple cases (a flight to Vietnam in the early days of the outbreak, a Ryan air flight going back to the UK, for example, but not many).  On a plane one is probably most at risk during boarding and exiting than during the time actually sitting on the plane according to several studies. The primary reason is unlike in a building or in a cruise ship for that matter where the ventilation system pumps air into a room and air currents are across the room, on an air plane air is injected along the top of the cabin and exhausted at floor level so any virus is pulled down away from the faces of other passengers. Especially if you turn your vent on and position it to direct even more downward air flow.

 

As you mentioned cruise ships are not like other travel and entertainment functions.

These are items included in cruise ships that have been restricted and/or recommended against during the pandemic and all in one package.

 

1. Indoor dining

2. Theaters

3. Bars

4. Long distance travel 

 

In addition for those that feel air travel is a risk, many people use that to get to the cruise.

 

Add to that you have a large group intermixing in relatively small indoor spaces.  By the time one finishes a week long cruise they have probably come into at least passing contact with most of the other passengers on the cruise and in close contact with several hundred.

 

While there have been cruises running in other places most have been with very restricted passenger sources.  They have been limited to in country or in EU passengers only, many have been cruises to nowhere.  Others have been restricted to the same country as their departure port.  Just as the cruises starting up in the UK will be.

[nocl]

30 minutes ago, voljeep said:

the potential quarantine is our main concern - that HAS to be addressed somehow by the cruiselines and ports

Is that not what the CDC's required agreements are supposed to address?  The agreements that the cruise lines seem to be objecting to. 

[voljeep]

7 minutes ago, nocl said:

Is that not what the CDC's required agreements are supposed to address?  The agreements that the cruise lines seem to be objecting to. 

i should have stated 'homeports' -  such as PE/FLL, LA, Seattle, etc - not each individual port on every itinerary

 

we need to know we would be able to disembark at our homeport in the event of an on-ship outbreak

[caribill]

42 minutes ago, Pamster said:

 

Good point.  But even if they do cooperate with contact tracing there's the airport, and the plane, and wherever they were going/came from.  A whole lot of possibilities.  But my point was more of an immediate - by the time the person turns up positive, they are off the plane.  The plane doesn't have a bunch of potentially exposed people on board that it has to figure out where to offload them.  Where the ship does.  

 

 

And that is why possibly rules for air travel should be stricter than those for cruise ship travel. The virus can be spread to many more areas of a country (and the world) by infected air passengers who go on their way not knowing they were exposed to the virus on the flight.

 

That is why anyone doing a foreign flight into the USA must present a recent negative covid-19 test before boarding the flight. That is why a number of countries require those arriving from other countries by air to isolate for up to two weeks in an approved facility at their own expense before being allowed to go where they want, even to their own homes.

[caribill]

19 minutes ago, nocl said:

Is that not what the CDC's required agreements are supposed to address?  The agreements that the cruise lines seem to be objecting to. 

 

I do not think that is the part of the agreements the cruise lines are objecting to.

[nocl]

20 minutes ago, voljeep said:

i should have stated 'homeports' -  such as PE/FLL, LA, Seattle, etc - not each individual port on every itinerary

 

we need to know we would be able to disembark at our homeport in the event of an on-ship outbreak

Actually the CDC agreements are for US ports only and would include home ports.

[nocl]

12 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I do not think that is the part of the agreements the cruise lines are objecting to.

I saw an article with a quote from one of the cruise line CEO's that said the agreement requirements were unreasonable.  I will see if I can find it again.

[Pamster]

13 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I do not think that is the part of the agreements the cruise lines are objecting to.

It was part of the requirements that were circulating early last week, I think it was, but things have shifted twice since then.  But it was something like they had to have agreements with every port that they could disembark passengers that would need medical care or to be quarantined.  Whether that would be the entire ship, I don't know.  I don't think that requirement took into account fully vaccinated passengers and crew.

[caribill]

1 hour ago, Pamster said:

It was part of the requirements that were circulating early last week, I think it was, but things have shifted twice since then.  But it was something like they had to have agreements with every port that they could disembark passengers that would need medical care or to be quarantined.  Whether that would be the entire ship, I don't know.  I don't think that requirement took into account fully vaccinated passengers and crew.

 

I agree it was part of the requirements, I just don't think having a requirement to be able to provide care at the port was what was being objected to by itself.

 

There may have been a requirement that the port would need to be able to provide medical care for all passengers on all ships on a particular day. There is no way that any port could provide that for 30,000+ passengers.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, caribill said:

 

I agree it was part of the requirements, I just don't think having a requirement to be able to provide care at the port was what was being objected to by itself.

 

There may have been a requirement that the port would need to be able to provide medical care for all passengers on all ships on a particular day. There is no way that any port could provide that for 30,000+ passengers.

Since the technical document was focused on the agreements and Arnold Donald, Carnival CEO, said that he was very disappointed in the the CDC guidance, enough so that he indicated that Carnival would pull their ships from US ports.  It would seem that at least he is opposed to the agreements as indicated by the CDC.

[memoak]

27 minutes ago, nocl said:

Since the technical document was focused on the agreements and Arnold Donald, Carnival CEO, said that he was very disappointed in the the CDC guidance, enough so that he indicated that Carnival would pull their ships from US ports.  It would seem that at least he is opposed to the agreements as indicated by the CDC.

Pulling all cruises from the US would not be practical. Are all Alaskan cruises going to sail from Mexico ?

[caribill]

28 minutes ago, memoak said:

Pulling all cruises from the US would not be practical. Are all Alaskan cruises going to sail from Mexico ?

No. Any pulling would be a small number of ships doing new itineraries just like RCI and Celebrity are doing with one ship each in the Caribbean.

[caribill]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

Since the technical document was focused on the agreements and Arnold Donald, Carnival CEO, said that he was very disappointed in the the CDC guidance, enough so that he indicated that Carnival would pull their ships from US ports.  It would seem that at least he is opposed to the agreements as indicated by the CDC.

 

Requirements also use of the same gangways on turnaround day by departing and arriving passengers, vaccines, Covid-19 testing and other topics. Not just on agreements with ports on the itineraries.

 

Some excerpts from the requirements:

 

The agreement must include the total number of ships (including maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew)) permitted to operate, make port, embark, or disembark. The parties to the agreement should jointly consider the number of ships (including maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew)) that can safely operate, make port, embark, or disembark at any one time without exceeding the ability of local public health, port authority, hospital, and other emergency response personnel to respond to an onboard outbreak of COVID-19. The agreement should briefly explain the factors relied upon by all parties in determining these numbers, including the potential for COVID-19 variants, which could undermine vaccine efficacy.

 

The agreement must be specific regarding the following:

• number of ships that will be permitted to make port, embark, and disembark,
• hours of the day, and days of the week, and during which these activities will occur, and
• maximum number of travelers permitted during those hours and on those days.

 

If the port authority intends to allow more than one cruise ship operator to operate at its port facilities, then the port authority and local public health authorities should jointly consider the numbers of ships and maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew) that can safely operate, make port, embark, or disembark at any one time. Specifically, the parties should consider whether allowing multiple cruise ships to operate at any one time would potentially overwhelm necessary medical supplies or the ability of local public health, port authorities, hospital, and other emergency response personnel to respond to an onboard outbreak of COVID-19, particularly if the jurisdiction experiences an unanticipated simultaneous surge of cases.

 

CDC recommends that all eligible port personnel and travelers (passengers and crew) get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available to them.

 

Due to the international representation of cruise travelers, cruise operators must use either U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized vaccines or a vaccine product that has received emergency use listing from the World Health Organization (WHO).

 

The agreement must specify embarkation procedures that the cruise ship operator intends to use during simulated voyages and restricted passenger voyages. These embarkation procedures must be designed insofar as possible to minimize contact between travelers and port personnel.

 

The agreement must specify procedures for day-of-embarkation screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and laboratory testing of travelers, including testing locations and management of individuals who test positive and their close contacts.

 

The agreement must include emergency response plans in the event of a “worst case” scenario of multiple ships experiencing simultaneous outbreaks of COVID-19. If the port authority intends to allow more than one cruise ship operator to operate at its port facilities, then the port authority and local public health authorities should jointly consider emergency response plans involving a “worst case” scenario of multiple ships from multiple cruise ship operators experiencing simultaneous outbreaks of COVID-19.

 

The agreement must include clear protocols that avoid medical evacuations at sea to the greatest extent possible for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related medical reasons. Protocols must rely on commercial resources (e.g., ship tender, chartered standby vessel, chartered airlift) for unavoidable medical evacuation at sea and be designed to minimize the burden to the greatest extent possible on Federal, State, and Local government resources, including U.S. Coast Guard resources. All medical evacuations at sea must be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard.

 

The agreement must specify procedures:

• to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,
• to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and
• to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned shoreside housing facilities) in sufficient quantities to meet the shoreside housing needs of travelers (passengers and crew) for isolation and quarantine identified from the day of embarkation through disembarkation for each voyage. In determining sufficient quantities of shoreside housing for isolation and quarantine, the parties should consider the potential for COVID-19 variants, which could undermine vaccine efficacy.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned shoreside housing facilities) in sufficient quantities as determined by the local health authorities to meet the housing needs of travelers until they meet CDC criteria to discontinue isolation or for the CDC-recommended quarantine period.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned vehicles) in sufficient quantities to meet the transportation needs of all travelers from the ship to the shoreside housing facilities and from the shoreside housing facility to the contractual medical facilities or healthcare systems if needed with precautions in place to avoid exposure of vehicle operators.

 

Shoreside housing must meet CDC guidelines for isolation or quarantine including separate bedrooms, separate bathrooms, no shared living spaces for individuals who are not part of the same household, and the ability to separate infected persons within households from those not known to be infected.

[nocl]

12 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

Requirements also use of the same gangways on turnaround day by departing and arriving passengers, vaccines, Covid-19 testing and other topics. Not just on agreements with ports on the itineraries.

 

Some excerpts from the requirements:

 

The agreement must include the total number of ships (including maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew)) permitted to operate, make port, embark, or disembark. The parties to the agreement should jointly consider the number of ships (including maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew)) that can safely operate, make port, embark, or disembark at any one time without exceeding the ability of local public health, port authority, hospital, and other emergency response personnel to respond to an onboard outbreak of COVID-19. The agreement should briefly explain the factors relied upon by all parties in determining these numbers, including the potential for COVID-19 variants, which could undermine vaccine efficacy.

 

The agreement must be specific regarding the following:

• number of ships that will be permitted to make port, embark, and disembark,
• hours of the day, and days of the week, and during which these activities will occur, and
• maximum number of travelers permitted during those hours and on those days.

 

If the port authority intends to allow more than one cruise ship operator to operate at its port facilities, then the port authority and local public health authorities should jointly consider the numbers of ships and maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew) that can safely operate, make port, embark, or disembark at any one time. Specifically, the parties should consider whether allowing multiple cruise ships to operate at any one time would potentially overwhelm necessary medical supplies or the ability of local public health, port authorities, hospital, and other emergency response personnel to respond to an onboard outbreak of COVID-19, particularly if the jurisdiction experiences an unanticipated simultaneous surge of cases.

 

CDC recommends that all eligible port personnel and travelers (passengers and crew) get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available to them.

 

Due to the international representation of cruise travelers, cruise operators must use either U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized vaccines or a vaccine product that has received emergency use listing from the World Health Organization (WHO).

 

The agreement must specify embarkation procedures that the cruise ship operator intends to use during simulated voyages and restricted passenger voyages. These embarkation procedures must be designed insofar as possible to minimize contact between travelers and port personnel.

 

The agreement must specify procedures for day-of-embarkation screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and laboratory testing of travelers, including testing locations and management of individuals who test positive and their close contacts.

 

The agreement must include emergency response plans in the event of a “worst case” scenario of multiple ships experiencing simultaneous outbreaks of COVID-19. If the port authority intends to allow more than one cruise ship operator to operate at its port facilities, then the port authority and local public health authorities should jointly consider emergency response plans involving a “worst case” scenario of multiple ships from multiple cruise ship operators experiencing simultaneous outbreaks of COVID-19.

 

The agreement must include clear protocols that avoid medical evacuations at sea to the greatest extent possible for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related medical reasons. Protocols must rely on commercial resources (e.g., ship tender, chartered standby vessel, chartered airlift) for unavoidable medical evacuation at sea and be designed to minimize the burden to the greatest extent possible on Federal, State, and Local government resources, including U.S. Coast Guard resources. All medical evacuations at sea must be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard.

 

The agreement must specify procedures:

• to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,
• to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and
• to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned shoreside housing facilities) in sufficient quantities to meet the shoreside housing needs of travelers (passengers and crew) for isolation and quarantine identified from the day of embarkation through disembarkation for each voyage. In determining sufficient quantities of shoreside housing for isolation and quarantine, the parties should consider the potential for COVID-19 variants, which could undermine vaccine efficacy.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned shoreside housing facilities) in sufficient quantities as determined by the local health authorities to meet the housing needs of travelers until they meet CDC criteria to discontinue isolation or for the CDC-recommended quarantine period.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned vehicles) in sufficient quantities to meet the transportation needs of all travelers from the ship to the shoreside housing facilities and from the shoreside housing facility to the contractual medical facilities or healthcare systems if needed with precautions in place to avoid exposure of vehicle operators.

 

Shoreside housing must meet CDC guidelines for isolation or quarantine including separate bedrooms, separate bathrooms, no shared living spaces for individuals who are not part of the same household, and the ability to separate infected persons within households from those not known to be infected.

 

 

I have gone through this and it all seems pretty reasonable, with the possible exception of the 12 hour delay between using areas for embarkation and disembarkation.  What exactly do you feel is so unreasonable?

 

Lets take a look at the sections

 

This first paragraph simply indicates that the port determines what capacity it has and makes sure those limits are reflected in the agreement and indicates the basis that that capacity determination. Seems reasonable to identify the capacity and set appropriate limits.

 

The agreement must include the total number of ships (including maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew)) permitted to operate, make port, embark, or disembark. The parties to the agreement should jointly consider the number of ships (including maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew)) that can safely operate, make port, embark, or disembark at any one time without exceeding the ability of local public health, port authority, hospital, and other emergency response personnel to respond to an onboard outbreak of COVID-19. The agreement should briefly explain the factors relied upon by all parties in determining these numbers, including the potential for COVID-19 variants, which could undermine vaccine efficacy.

 

This also represents an agreement with the port nothing unreasonable here.  Again defines the number of ships and when activities will occur.

 

The agreement must be specific regarding the following:

• number of ships that will be permitted to make port, embark, and disembark,
• hours of the day, and days of the week, and during which these activities will occur, and
• maximum number of travelers permitted during those hours and on those days.

This also seems reasonable for the port to look at capacity across all of the cruise lines visiting the port.  This seems reasonable.

 

If the port authority intends to allow more than one cruise ship operator to operate at its port facilities, then the port authority and local public health authorities should jointly consider the numbers of ships and maximum number of travelers (passengers and crew) that can safely operate, make port, embark, or disembark at any one time. Specifically, the parties should consider whether allowing multiple cruise ships to operate at any one time would potentially overwhelm necessary medical supplies or the ability of local public health, port authorities, hospital, and other emergency response personnel to respond to an onboard outbreak of COVID-19, particularly if the jurisdiction experiences an unanticipated simultaneous surge of cases.

 

The next sections are recommending  that port personnel and travelers be vaccinated and by a vaccine authorized by the FDA or WHO. Do not see a problem with this next section

 

CDC recommends that all eligible port personnel and travelers (passengers and crew) get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available to them.

 

Due to the international representation of cruise travelers, cruise operators must use either U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized vaccines or a vaccine product that has received emergency use listing from the World Health Organization (WHO).

 

The agreement must define procedures to minimize contact.  Seems in line with what hotels are doing. Nothing unreasonable here.

 

 

The agreement must specify embarkation procedures that the cruise ship operator intends to use during simulated voyages and restricted passenger voyages. These embarkation procedures must be designed insofar as possible to minimize contact between travelers and port personnel.

 

The agreement must specify the procedures for screening and testing.  This puts the responsibility for testing on the cruise line not the passengers.  Seems fine.  Certainly in line with what is being done in Europe.

 

The agreement must specify procedures for day-of-embarkation screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and laboratory testing of travelers, including testing locations and management of individuals who test positive and their close contacts.

 

This section indicates that they must have an emergency response plan.  Again I would certainly hope that they would have an emergency response plan and the details worked out with the port.

 

The agreement must include emergency response plans in the event of a “worst case” scenario of multiple ships experiencing simultaneous outbreaks of COVID-19. If the port authority intends to allow more than one cruise ship operator to operate at its port facilities, then the port authority and local public health authorities should jointly consider emergency response plans involving a “worst case” scenario of multiple ships from multiple cruise ship operators experiencing simultaneous outbreaks of COVID-19.

 

This section merely says that the cruise line has to avoid medical evacuations at sea as much as possible and to establish protocols that depend upon commercial resources.  Does not seem unreasonable to require them to plan for evacuations using their resources and not Coast Guard.

 

The agreement must include clear protocols that avoid medical evacuations at sea to the greatest extent possible for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related medical reasons. Protocols must rely on commercial resources (e.g., ship tender, chartered standby vessel, chartered airlift) for unavoidable medical evacuation at sea and be designed to minimize the burden to the greatest extent possible on Federal, State, and Local government resources, including U.S. Coast Guard resources. All medical evacuations at sea must be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard.

 

For this section you certainly do not want to have passengers congregating and you do not want to have embarking and disembarking passengers intermingling.  So you must be upset about the 12 hour rule.  The impact of which would mean offloading one day loading the next cruise the next day.  Certainly less efficient than the old days, but better than not cruising.

 

The agreement must specify procedures:

• to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,
• to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and
• to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period.

This paragraph simply requires to have arrangements for shoreside housing needs with the number of units based upon projected requirements for isolation and quarantine.  If everyone is vaccinated these numbers should be pretty low.  Nothing unreasonable here

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned shoreside housing facilities) in sufficient quantities to meet the shoreside housing needs of travelers (passengers and crew) for isolation and quarantine identified from the day of embarkation through disembarkation for each voyage. In determining sufficient quantities of shoreside housing for isolation and quarantine, the parties should consider the potential for COVID-19 variants, which could undermine vaccine efficacy.

 

This simply says that the cruiseline has to document the arrangements for housing with the numbers determined by the local health authorities in the port.  Nothing unreasonable about that

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned shoreside housing facilities) in sufficient quantities as determined by the local health authorities to meet the housing needs of travelers until they meet CDC criteria to discontinue isolation or for the CDC-recommended quarantine period.

 

This simply says that they must provide proper transportation for anyone in their isolation/quarantine quarters described in the previous two paragraphs.  Again seems reasonable.

 

The cruise ship operator must document that it has made contractual arrangements (or has corporate-owned vehicles) in sufficient quantities to meet the transportation needs of all travelers from the ship to the shoreside housing facilities and from the shoreside housing facility to the contractual medical facilities or healthcare systems if needed with precautions in place to avoid exposure of vehicle operators.

 

And finally the quarters contracted for isolation /quarantine must meet CDC requirements.  Nothing unreasonable there

 

Shoreside housing must meet CDC guidelines for isolation or quarantine including separate bedrooms, separate bathrooms, no shared living spaces for individuals who are not part of the same household, and the ability to separate infected persons within households from those not known to be infected.

 

Ok I have gone through this and everything seems reasonable.  The only thing that seems to be out of line is the 12 hour requirement.

 

For the rest everything seems quite reasonable.  What exactly do you feel is not?

[caribill]

26 minutes ago, nocl said:

 

For the rest everything seems quite reasonable.  What exactly do you feel is not?

 

I did not pass judgement on reasonableness. The CCL Corp. execs did.

 

However I did question why the same gangway could not be used by departing and incoming passengers since that seems to be OK at all airports with the airplane gangways.

 

Of course shoreside requirements such as guareanteed availability of quarantine quarters for 100% of passengers on all ships in port that day might be hard to meet, especially at a port such as Miami or Port Everglades.

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I did not pass judgement on reasonableness. The CCL Corp. execs did.

 

However I did question why the same gangway could not be used by departing and incoming passengers since that seems to be OK at all airports with the airplane gangways.

So in the entire rest of what you posted is there anything that you would consider to be unreasonable?

[Steelers36]

2 hours ago, nocl said:

So in the entire rest of what you posted is there anything that you would consider to be unreasonable?

You had stated in your long post above that virtually all things were reasonable and seemed simple in documenting them. 

 

Well, what we don't know is if they document all the ships and lines that utilize PE or Miami on a winter weekend, the CDC might come back and say "no way" and not allow all those ships and people coming and going at once.  But, I gather first step is to try and document that.  In this example, IDK how they will come up with a number of ships and people unless all cruise line schedules are known.  It is going to change as well, so I am thinking all they could do is give a min/max range by day of week.  Presumably the max would be every pier with a ship.

[caribill]

4 hours ago, nocl said:

For the rest everything seems quite reasonable.  What exactly do you feel is not?

 

The items I posted are only a summary of some of the requirements. One needs to look at the entire official document to see all the conditions that must be met.

[Redwing55]

23 hours ago, caribill said:

It depends on if that other vaccinated passenger is in the 5% for whom the vaccination is not effective.

I suppose, but IMO, that's a very conservative, or risk averse perspective.  Consider that the vast percentage of people will not be infected.  So, on a ship, how many will be carrying the virus?  Then, an infected party would need to expose that vaccinated passenger.  If one is concerned about that, I'm in the camp that maybe they shouldn't be cruising.  Heck how could they get off the ship to explore a port?   Everyone has their own risk levels though.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Redwing55

[Esprit]

5 hours ago, Redwing55 said:

I suppose, but IMO, that's a very conservative, or risk averse perspective.  Consider that the vast percentage of people will not be infected.  So, on a ship, how many will be carrying the virus?  Then, an infected party would need to expose that vaccinated passenger.  If one is concerned about that, I'm in the camp that maybe they shouldn't be cruising.  Heck how could they get off the ship to explore a port?   Everyone has their own risk levels though.

I guess with age I get more risk adverse, but at my age I have the same chance of dying from Covid as dying from falling out of my bed! That was before I had my first jab too, so I will happily get on a cruise ship regardless of who has been vaccinated or not.

[Daniel A]

According to the CDC:  

"The agreement must specify procedures:

to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,

 

to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and

 

to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period."

 

So, CDC is happy if the agreements state the same gangways and terminals won't be used by embarking and disembarking PAX "within the same 12 hour period"

 

So, on embarkation/disembarkation day a cruise line could identify a 12 hour period for disembarkation to be between 10PM and 10AM the next day.  The 12 hour period for embarkation could commence at 11AM and run until 11PM.  Those would be two completely different 12 hour periods, much like a factory shift would be.  If the ship required all passenger be disembarked by 9AM and wouldn't open up embarkation until noon, that would be in compliance with the wording of the agreements.

[beg3yrs]

13 hours ago, nocl said:

So in the entire rest of what you posted is there anything that you would consider to be unreasonable?

I for one think the 12 hour separation between embarking and disembarking passengers is unreasonable as it isn't based on the science we now understand and have understood for quite a while now. Surface contact is not a primary means of transmission and even if it was, a quick spray down with anti-viral cleaners would take care of that. Air transmission is the primary vector and the airlines have shown this is reasonably simple to control.

[Steelers36]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

According to the CDC:  

"The agreement must specify procedures:

to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,

 

to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and

 

to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period."

 

So, CDC is happy if the agreements state the same gangways and terminals won't be used by embarking and disembarking PAX "within the same 12 hour period"

 

So, on embarkation/disembarkation day a cruise line could identify a 12 hour period for disembarkation to be between 10PM and 10AM the next day.  The 12 hour period for embarkation could commence at 11AM and run until 11PM.  Those would be two completely different 12 hour periods, much like a factory shift would be.  If the ship required all passenger be disembarked by 9AM and wouldn't open up embarkation until noon, that would be in compliance with the wording of the agreements.

Ah ha!!!  I like your thinking.  Out of the box for sure.