CURRENT HOLLAND AMERIC's COVID PROTOCOLS

[Tampa Girl]

2 hours ago, idiebabe said:

I agree and when I checked the Protocols that the other Cruise Lines have on their Websites they all seem to be on the same page.  MSC demonstrated their seriousness when they refused the Family to re-board the Ship when they broke away from the Ship's Excursion and went off on their own.

 

If a Cruiser doesn't agree with the Protocols they put in place that they believe are necessary to ensure their Ships are safe until things get back to normal, they aren't going to risk it and  give into someone's demands, etc.   They have too much at stake. 

  

 

 

 

This sounds like no going ashore period unless it is a ship's or an approved, managed excursion.  Is this what others understand?  If so, it would be a no-go for us because we prefer to walk around.

[KirkNC]

13 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

This sounds like no going ashore period unless it is a ship's or an approved, managed excursion.  Is this what others understand?  If so, it would be a no-go for us because we prefer to walk around.

That is my understanding.

[Daniel A]

On 4/14/2021 at 7:14 PM, USN59-79 said:

I am not sure what is the technical or legal definition of a "shore excursion". . . But if I walk off the ship or take a tender to the port and walk into town or use the local transportation, am I on a "shore excursion"? 

NO

 

On 4/14/2021 at 9:07 PM, ontheweb said:

A shore excursion is sold to you. It could be by the cruise line or a private vendor. If you just walk off the ship, that is independent travel.

Agreed, and they are not permitting anything other than approved shore excursions.  (See text below)

 

15 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

This sounds like no going ashore period unless it is a ship's or an approved, managed excursion.  

 

HAL's statement on this is : "Only shore excursions that comply with our prescribed protocols will be permitted, with strict adherence required of all guests and denial of re-boarding for any guests who do not comply."

 

So, again, only shore excursions will be permitted.

 

If shore excursions in a 'bubble' are a non starter for anyone, they would be well advised to wait until the dust settles before committing oneself.  I am afraid it will take some time for the industry and governments to be satisfied it is safe to return to pre-Covid policies and procedures.

[VMax1700]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

So, again, only shore excursions will be permitted.

 

I disagree with your interpretation.

 

Only shore excursions that comply with our prescribed protocols will be permitted, 

means that the only shore excursions that will be permitted are those that comply with their prescribed protocols. It does not cover an individual going ashore under there own motivation and wandering from point to point.  If they intend to disallow any port visits except as part of a cruise line arranged shore excursion then they need to specifically state that NO OTHER visits ashore except company arranged shore excursions are permitted.

[Daniel A]

 

17 minutes ago, VMax1700 said:

I disagree with your interpretation.

 

Only shore excursions that comply with our prescribed protocols will be permitted, 

means that the only shore excursions that will be permitted are those that comply with their prescribed protocols. It does not cover an individual going ashore under there own motivation and wandering from point to point.  If they intend to disallow any port visits except as part of a cruise line arranged shore excursion then they need to specifically state that NO OTHER visits ashore except company arranged shore excursions are permitted.

You may be right, and I may be right.  Only time will tell.  If anyone who says bubble excursions are a deal breaker and wants to take that chance, they're certainly free to do so.  The best way of knowing what they mean is to send the line an e-mail requesting clarification of the policy.  (I wouldn't rely on a telephone call, I'd prefer to get the answer in writing.)

 

I do think the last sentence "strict adherence required of all guests and denial of re-boarding for any guests who do not comply." means if you go off on your own in a port, you won't be allowed to get back on, but again, that's just my interpretation.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Daniel A

[kazu]

34 minutes ago, VMax1700 said:

I disagree with your interpretation.

 

Only shore excursions that comply with our prescribed protocols will be permitted, 

means that the only shore excursions that will be permitted are those that comply with their prescribed protocols. It does not cover an individual going ashore under there own motivation and wandering from point to point.  If they intend to disallow any port visits except as part of a cruise line arranged shore excursion then they need to specifically state that NO OTHER visits ashore except company arranged shore excursions are permitted.

 

I agree.  I think HAL’s meaning is their excursions but they need to be more specific as you suggested in your last line.

[mcrcruiser]

37 minutes ago, VMax1700 said:

I disagree with your interpretation.

 

Only shore excursions that comply with our prescribed protocols will be permitted, 

means that the only shore excursions that will be permitted are those that comply with their prescribed protocols. It does not cover an individual going ashore under there own motivation and wandering from point to point.  If they intend to disallow any port visits except as part of a cruise line arranged shore excursion then they need to specifically state that NO OTHER visits ashore except company arranged shore excursions are permitted.

We  have a Hawaii 18 night cruise  on Koningsdam ,Feb 2 ,2022 . I can not think that I would not be able to  go ashore unless I was with a HAL tour ;because ,if that was the  case then I would cancel  that cruise .

[cruisemom42]

HAL's wording may be vague, but I suspect it will be further clarified once they actually are preparing to start sailing.

 

So far, with the exception of a few of the cruises starting up in the Caribbean, it has been a REQUIREMENT that people can only leave the ship via a ship shore excursion. No walking off the ship independently and no private tours. It has been the case with, e.g., Costa, MSC and TUI.

 

That is what I would expect if HAL begins cruising in Europe first, as I believe it is an agreement that the cruise lines reached with the specific countries where they are stopping.

 

What would be the health/safety value of saying that ship shorex were required, only to allow passengers to disembark and freely mingle with locals in port?  There would be no "bubble" and contact tracing would be virtually impossible.

 

Mind you, I would not be happy to take a cruise under these circumstances, but it has been broadcast for a while that this is how start-up of cruising will look. 

 

 

[iancal]

Why on earth would we fly to a port and board a cruise to nowhere.  OR board a cruise where our options were to remain on board to take a cruise line excursion in order to get off the ship.

 

No thanks. We would much rather buy a week or two at an AI or resort hop for a few weeks.  

 

That is the tradeoff for us and it is why we are not particularly fussed about increasing cruise prices.   There are other options.

Edited April 16, 2021 by iancal

[Sir PMP]

On 4/14/2021 at 1:08 PM, KirkNC said:

We won’t sail with them either.

Same here..

[kazu]

57 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Mind you, I would not be happy to take a cruise under these circumstances, but it has been broadcast for a while that this is how start-up of cruising will look. 

 

37 minutes ago, iancal said:

Why on earth would we fly to a port and board a cruise to nowhere.  OR board a cruise where our options were to remain on board to take a cruise line excursion in order to get off the ship.

 

No thanks. We would much rather buy a week or two at an AI or resort hop for a few weeks.  

 

 

Completely agree with you both.

I really don’t see the need for a bubble if people are vaccinated.  A mask will protect the locals (assuming it is determined that vaccination does not prevent - right now it is looking promising that vaccination does inhibit spread but it’s early).

 

[RuthC]

2 hours ago, iancal said:

Why on earth would we fly to a port and board a cruise to nowhere.  OR board a cruise where our options were to remain on board to take a cruise line excursion in order to get off the ship.

YOU wouldn't, as you have said numerous times. 
But there are many others who would---and be thrilled with the opportunity. 

[iancal]

As I see it the real issue, given the uncertainties of covid, is that what you think you are buying when you make your final payment may not be what you get when you board the ship.

 

The cruise line contracts of passage are such that you can do little about it. And even if you could, the costs of doing so would greatly exceed the benefit.   This is the harsh reality of committing at time of final payment in these very uncertain times. It is very much in the cruise lines interest to be exceedingly circumspect up to to final payment window.

[harkinmr]

Just a question for everyone.  I know a lot of folks are concerned about going on a cruise and not being able to go off on their own to explore or shop or eat in local restaurants in ports of call.  But at the same time, people are adverse to sailing on a cruise with anyone other than full vaccinated crew and passengers.  Given that going off on one's own could expose one to those who are not vaccinated or could be COVID-19 infected, how does this square with the desire to be on board with only vaccinated persons?  This would seem to contradict the whole purpose of a fully vaccinated cruise.  A "bubble" cruise is still likely to be the best option going forward, at least until the pandemic is under control.  

[AncientWanderer]

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

Just a question for everyone.  I know a lot of folks are concerned about going on a cruise and not being able to go off on their own to explore or shop or eat in local restaurants in ports of call.  But at the same time, people are adverse to sailing on a cruise with anyone other than full vaccinated crew and passengers.  Given that going off on one's own could expose one to those who are not vaccinated or could be COVID-19 infected, how does this square with the desire to be on board with only vaccinated persons?  This would seem to contradict the whole purpose of a fully vaccinated cruise.  A "bubble" cruise is still likely to be the best option going forward, at least until the pandemic is under control.  

 

Oh..for me it's because if everyone is vaccinated, they won't catch covid while ashore and bring it back onboard with them, causing the ship to go into quarantine and be turned away from port stops.  I believe that is the concern of many here.   Agree that the total bubble, including excursions, would be safest of all, but if everyone is vaccinated, people can probably do what they want at port stops.  At least for me I'd accept that level of risk.

[harkinmr]

56 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

 

Oh..for me it's because if everyone is vaccinated, they won't catch covid while ashore and bring it back onboard with them, causing the ship to go into quarantine and be turned away from port stops.  I believe that is the concern of many here.   Agree that the total bubble, including excursions, would be safest of all, but if everyone is vaccinated, people can probably do what they want at port stops.  At least for me I'd accept that level of risk.

Thanks for replying!  The issue is that the vaccine will not prevent one from catching the virus.  But it does keep one from becoming severely ill or worse with the disease COVID-19. The jury is still out on whether one can transmit the virus to others while vaccinated. To me the whole point of a fully vaccinated ship is to keep the virus from getting on board and causing quarantine or stopping the cruise.  I feel that allowing folks to freely wander would defeat that purpose.  If everyone is going to break the bubble then maybe a vaccine mandate is moot?  Just my opinion. 

[cruisegirl]

3 hours ago, RuthC said:

YOU wouldn't, as you have said numerous times. 
But there are many others who would---and be thrilled with the opportunity. 

Count me in!

[AncientWanderer]

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

Thanks for replying!  The issue is that the vaccine will not prevent one from catching the virus.  But it does keep one from becoming severely ill or worse with the disease COVID-19. The jury is still out on whether one can transmit the virus to others while vaccinated. To me the whole point of a fully vaccinated ship is to keep the virus from getting on board and causing quarantine or stopping the cruise.  I feel that allowing folks to freely wander would defeat that purpose.  If everyone is going to break the bubble then maybe a vaccine mandate is moot?  Just my opinion. 

 

Your point is well-taken. I do recognize that these vaccines have been described by some scientists as immune therapies, rather than traditional vaccines.   Another consideration, though, is the crew.  They really rely on certain port stops to go shopping for personal items, contact their homes, that kind of thing.  I guess their port stop movements could be limited in some way, too, but that would be sad for them and certainly daunting for the cruise lines.

 

No great solutions here.  Personally, I'm willing to limit myself to "bubble" ship excursions.  It wouldn't be a deal-breaker for us.  We are very flexible in how we "do" our port stops. DH's favorite is to rent a car and explore like wild, but we know how to settle down, too.

 

I guess where I'd part ways with you here is your statement that if everyone is going to break the bubble, then maybe a vaccine mandate is moot.  I don't believe that it's moot.  The vaccine mandate still increases odds of a successful outcome for the cruise.  A gamble, yes, but with better odds.  With an unvaccinated ship and people out doing their own thing...I don't see any chance of a successful cruise there.  

[Lido - Lanai]

6 hours ago, AncientWanderer said:

Oh..for me it's because if everyone is vaccinated, they won't catch covid while ashore and bring it back onboard with them,

That's the issue..... the current thinking right now is a vaccine don't necessarily prevent one from catching covid, it just minimizes the symptoms should one catch it. 

I agree with @harkinmr, those saying they will only cruise if everyone is vaccinated, yet won't cruise if they are not free to walk around ports on their own are conflicting desires.

[AncientWanderer]

2 hours ago, Lido - Lanai said:

That's the issue..... the current thinking right now is a vaccine don't necessarily prevent one from catching covid, it just minimizes the symptoms should one catch it. 

I agree with @harkinmr, those saying they will only cruise if everyone is vaccinated, yet won't cruise if they are not free to walk around ports on their own are conflicting desires.

 

Oh well...it's probably all just us speculating anyhow.  I have a feeling the authorities in various ports will have the last say on what cruise passengers are allowed to do when they visit.

My guess is they'll be pretty strict.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Just a question for everyone.  I know a lot of folks are concerned about going on a cruise and not being able to go off on their own to explore or shop or eat in local restaurants in ports of call.  But at the same time, people are adverse to sailing on a cruise with anyone other than full vaccinated crew and passengers.  Given that going off on one's own could expose one to those who are not vaccinated or could be COVID-19 infected, how does this square with the desire to be on board with only vaccinated persons?  This would seem to contradict the whole purpose of a fully vaccinated cruise.  A "bubble" cruise is still likely to be the best option going forward, at least until the pandemic is under control.  

OK, let me try to give an answer to that. We hear that cruise ships are "petri dishes". We hear that cruise ships are different than other forms of transportation because we all spend so much time together. So we agree on an everyone vaccinated policy makes a lot of sense. 

 

Now what about the whole bubble concept? Unlike the ship, one going ashore is not spending days upon days in contact with the same people. The risk of a vaccinated person catching the virus or spreading it to the locals with minimal contact should be very small. Then you balance that risk against what you lose by not being able to experience the port and learn something about the native culture.

 

Now is the bubble experience safer? Possibly, but I really do not see it. Are they going to clear the streets if they let you off the bus? Will everyone have to clear out of store if they take you shopping? Will they sanitize the bathrooms at stores before the bubble people are allowed in? Though I guess they could just have you go to Diamonds International as no locals shop there. LOL. Will museums and churches be forced to evacuate everyone else before your bubble arrives? Are any of these things actually practicable?

 

Seriously, unless you cruise just to be on the ship, what is the purpose of being able to go to ports unless you have the freedom to explore as you wish?

[harkinmr]

7 hours ago, AncientWanderer said:

 

Your point is well-taken. I do recognize that these vaccines have been described by some scientists as immune therapies, rather than traditional vaccines.   Another consideration, though, is the crew.  They really rely on certain port stops to go shopping for personal items, contact their homes, that kind of thing.  I guess their port stop movements could be limited in some way, too, but that would be sad for them and certainly daunting for the cruise lines.

 

No great solutions here.  Personally, I'm willing to limit myself to "bubble" ship excursions.  It wouldn't be a deal-breaker for us.  We are very flexible in how we "do" our port stops. DH's favorite is to rent a car and explore like wild, but we know how to settle down, too.

 

I guess where I'd part ways with you here is your statement that if everyone is going to break the bubble, then maybe a vaccine mandate is moot.  I don't believe that it's moot.  The vaccine mandate still increases odds of a successful outcome for the cruise.  A gamble, yes, but with better odds.  With an unvaccinated ship and people out doing their own thing...I don't see any chance of a successful cruise there.  

You also make some good points, especially with regard to the crew. I made the “moot” comment as a further challenge to the concept of breaking the bubble. Personally, I am in full favor of a 100% vaccinated ship, and like you believe it is the way forward for cruising. 

[harkinmr]

35 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

OK, let me try to give an answer to that. We hear that cruise ships are "petri dishes". We hear that cruise ships are different than other forms of transportation because we all spend so much time together. So we agree on an everyone vaccinated policy makes a lot of sense. 

 

Now what about the whole bubble concept? Unlike the ship, one going ashore is not spending days upon days in contact with the same people. The risk of a vaccinated person catching the virus or spreading it to the locals with minimal contact should be very small. Then you balance that risk against what you lose by not being able to experience the port and learn something about the native culture.

 

Now is the bubble experience safer? Possibly, but I really do not see it. Are they going to clear the streets if they let you off the bus? Will everyone have to clear out of store if they take you shopping? Will they sanitize the bathrooms at stores before the bubble people are allowed in? Though I guess they could just have you go to Diamonds International as no locals shop there. LOL. Will museums and churches be forced to evacuate everyone else before your bubble arrives? Are any of these things actually practicable?

 

Seriously, unless you cruise just to be on the ship, what is the purpose of being able to go to ports unless you have the freedom to explore as you wish?

An infection can occur in as little as 15 minutes according to the experts. Sitting in a local restaurant or bar would certainly allow for that. And I guess it only takes one to cause an outbreak when back aboard the ship. The whole point of testing and vaccines is to minimize the risk. Is that perfect?  It may be close to that given the success of pre-board testing, health protocols and closed excursions on European and Asia cruises. The cruise lines operating in Europe have found a way to provide guests with an “exclusive” experience. 
 

I understand perfectly cruisers’ desire to see and experience ports. For most of us, including myself, that is the main reason for a cruise.  But we can’t call for adequate protections and then start making exceptions to those based on that desire.  A bubble concept needs to be maintained for all our benefit.  That being said, I will not cruise until I am freely able to enjoy all that is so wonderful about cruising which includes freely exploring ports. I know everyone has to make that decision for themselves. 

[AncientWanderer]

In my own mind, I have a "pecking order" of safety protocols that I'll watch for before I cruise again.  Some things are, to me anyway, pure safety theater.  My pecking order kinda goes like this, from least useful to most useful:  Health questionnaires?  Useless. People fib because they want to board.  Temperature checks?  Pure theater, as an infected person might not yet have a fever.  Negative covid test?  Nice complement to a vaccination, but the tests are not always reliable and really depend on when one was infected, which could have been on the way to the port.  Masks onboard?  People will remove them often enough to spread virus anyhow.  Bubble for the port stops?  Nice idea, but as @ontheweb posted upthread, the bubble can't really be controlled in public places.  I mean, where has the local guide been before boarding the tour bus?  And then, last but first, there's the fully vaccinated ship, which isn't a full safety umbrella, but offers pretty high chance of protecting against disease, and, importantly, if a passenger becomes ill, they shouldn't be as seriously ill, so the ship medical team isn't crushed.

 

There are some folks on these boards who want to see cruises halted until the virus is eradicated.  That seems very unrealistic, because this virus will probably be floating around the world for a very, very long time.  We aren't living in Spanish flu days, where it can just fade away.  People in those days weren't able to fly around the world and we didn't have an international economy.  So real world, mitigate as much as possible, and get on with things.  I guess the more safety measures are layered, the safer the cruise.  People do have to decide what they can tolerate, and whether "the new cruising" is worth the time and money to them. 

 

Bottom line, tough times for cruise lines...and probably a too long post, but I selfishly needed to sort this out in my own mind.  I really miss cruising.

[Daniel A]

6 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

In my own mind, I have a "pecking order" of safety protocols that I'll watch for before I cruise again.  Some things are, to me anyway, pure safety theater.  My pecking order kinda goes like this, from least useful to most useful:  Health questionnaires?  Useless. People fib because they want to board.  Temperature checks?  Pure theater, as an infected person might not yet have a fever.  Negative covid test?  Nice complement to a vaccination, but the tests are not always reliable and really depend on when one was infected, which could have been on the way to the port.  Masks onboard?  People will remove them often enough to spread virus anyhow.  Bubble for the port stops?  Nice idea, but as @ontheweb posted upthread, the bubble can't really be controlled in public places.  I mean, where has the local guide been before boarding the tour bus?  And then, last but first, there's the fully vaccinated ship, which isn't a full safety umbrella, but offers pretty high chance of protecting against disease, and, importantly, if a passenger becomes ill, they shouldn't be as seriously ill, so the ship medical team isn't crushed.

 

There are some folks on these boards who want to see cruises halted until the virus is eradicated.  That seems very unrealistic, because this virus will probably be floating around the world for a very, very long time.  We aren't living in Spanish flu days, where it can just fade away.  People in those days weren't able to fly around the world and we didn't have an international economy.  So real world, mitigate as much as possible, and get on with things.  I guess the more safety measures are layered, the safer the cruise.  People do have to decide what they can tolerate, and whether "the new cruising" is worth the time and money to them. 

 

Bottom line, tough times for cruise lines...and probably a too long post, but I selfishly needed to sort this out in my own mind.  I really miss cruising.

 

In my mind, the major turning point will be when we finally get scientifically based conclusive data which shows vaccinated people do not spread the virus, even if exposed to it.  Once that happens, I would expect things to open up more.  (As long as the CDC pays attention to the data...)