First fully vaccinated flights Florida to NY

[ArthurUSCG]

3 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Be specific. Tossing out generalities is meaningless and certainly does nothing to bolster your opinion.

 

What policies fly in the face of your "common sense"? 

 

When the two cohorts are not in identical environments, of course there can be different rules. To argue that a ship at sea is the same as a facility on land is ludicrous and defies common sense.

Agreeded,

Shipboard transmission is far far greater then on land for almost every sickness. I think a lot of cruisers don't realized how tightly packed the crew is and that is the primary worry for transmission. 

[Ocean Boy]

38 minutes ago, ArthurUSCG said:

Agreeded,

Shipboard transmission is far far greater then on land for almost every sickness. I think a lot of cruisers don't realized how tightly packed the crew is and that is the primary worry for transmission. 

I don't find a crew that will be at a minimum 98% vaccinated to be worrisome at all.

[boscobeans]

4 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

Plus we live in the Northeast. 50 degrees is short sleeve weather for us especially if leaving in February.

Yup.. We are about 225 miles North from Coram where we lived until 1980.

 

I'm in shorts the second day most of the time and all thoughts of shovels, my plow and the snow blower have been temporarily erased with a breakfast Bloody Caesar.

[dswallow]

CDC’s slow, cautious Covid-19 messaging seems out of step with moment (statnews.com)

[boscobeans]

5 minutes ago, dswallow said:

CDC’s slow, cautious Covid-19 messaging seems out of step with moment (statnews.com)

In a nut shell:  
"“In every public health crisis the complaint is made that the CDC is too slow to make recommendations. … It’s an issue that the CDC has always grappled with and will continue to grapple with.”

[smokeybandit]

7 minutes ago, boscobeans said:

In a nut shell:  
"“In every public health crisis the complaint is made that the CDC is too slow to make recommendations. … It’s an issue that the CDC has always grappled with and will continue to grapple with.”

 

I hope that's not your takeaway from that article.

[smokeybandit]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

What policies fly in the face of your "common sense"? 

 

 

Wearing a mask outside.  Having to put your mask on in between bites.  

[mauraoel]

2 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

Having to put your mask on in between bites.  

Just did that on a flight and pray to God I don't have to do that on my next cruise. 

 

And yes it was announced as part of the safety briefing.

Edited May 12, 2021 by mauraoel

[boscobeans]

33 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

I hope that's not your takeaway from that article.

It is for the most part, slow to make decisions, fast to flip flop one each decision and have different statements made by different members on the same day.

 

Have they done anything other than at a snails pace dealing with the cruise industry?  

Seems like the airlines are doing well enough following issued guidelines?

[not-enough-cruising]

3 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Be specific. Tossing out generalities is meaningless and certainly does nothing to bolster your opinion.

 

What policies fly in the face of your "common sense"? 

 

When the two cohorts are not in identical environments, of course there can be different rules. To argue that a ship at sea is the same as a facility on land is ludicrous and defies common sense.

The fact that you stated the last paragraph shows you don’t understand the tenets of virology, viral spread, nor quarantining. 
 

The dining room on a ship is no different than a restaurant on land. 
 

The pool deck on a ship is no different than a community pool on land or a land based water park. 
 

The theater or the shops on a ship are no different thank those on land. 
 

The CDC however has made rules that are light years apart based on what?  There is zero scientific basis. 
 

When you add in the fact that the ship will be nearly, if not completely vaccinated, the rules are even more absurd. 

[not-enough-cruising]

3 hours ago, ArthurUSCG said:

Agreeded,

Shipboard transmission is far far greater then on land for almost every sickness. I think a lot of cruisers don't realized how tightly packed the crew is and that is the primary worry for transmission. 

Nonsense, there is nothing published that supports this claim. 
 

there is plenty published that disputes it for some diseases (Noro for example)

[broberts]

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

 

Wearing a mask outside.  Having to put your mask on in between bites.  

 

Wearing a mask outside makes sense in crowds when social distancing is not possible, especially when nobody was vaccinated.

 

As far as I understand it the masking between bites is a response to the people making one potato chip last three hours.

 

2 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

The fact that you stated the last paragraph shows you don’t understand the tenets of virology, viral spread, nor quarantining. 
 

The dining room on a ship is no different than a restaurant on land. 
 

The pool deck on a ship is no different than a community pool on land or a land based water park. 
 

The theater or the shops on a ship are no different thank those on land. 
 

The CDC however has made rules that are light years apart based on what?  There is zero scientific basis. 
 

When you add in the fact that the ship will be nearly, if not completely vaccinated, the rules are even more absurd. 

 

We've had this discussion before. I reject your condescension. Your judgement of my understanding of virology, viral spread, and quarantining is meaningless. Unless of course you wish to present some credentials that qualify you to make such a judge!ent.

 

We do not know if ships will sail fully vaccinated. It is unreasonable to suggest the CDC should assume all cruises will be fully or near fully vaccinated before cruise lines have decided.

 

A small risk of infection may be acceptable on land and not acceptable when some 5,000 live in relatively confined quarters for a week or more.

 

It also seems to me that somone on land is typically close to full medical facilities. That simply isn't so on a ship at sea. Again, the environment is different despite the fact that parts resemble land based facilities.

[ReneeFLL]

On 5/10/2021 at 12:29 AM, Biker19 said:

Biker, who wonders if any of the passengers on that flight had fake vaccination records.

Exactly and I think this will be a common thing.

[dswallow]

12 minutes ago, ReneeFLL said:

Exactly and I think this will be a common thing.

 

Again, this wasn't a thing, because they didn't accept people's submission of vaccination records. CLEAR confirmed vaccinations using other means; this flight was a test of that system.

[dswallow]

28 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Wearing a mask outside makes sense in crowds when social distancing is not possible, especially when nobody was vaccinated.

 

As far as I understand it the masking between bites is a response to the people making one potato chip last three hours.

 

 

We've had this discussion before. I reject your condescension. Your judgement of my understanding of virology, viral spread, and quarantining is meaningless. Unless of course you wish to present some credentials that qualify you to make such a judge!ent.

 

We do not know if ships will sail fully vaccinated. It is unreasonable to suggest the CDC should assume all cruises will be fully or near fully vaccinated before cruise lines have decided.

 

A small risk of infection may be acceptable on land and not acceptable when some 5,000 live in relatively confined quarters for a week or more.

 

It also seems to me that somone on land is typically close to full medical facilities. That simply isn't so on a ship at sea. Again, the environment is different despite the fact that parts resemble land based facilities.

 

Not really terribly worth responding point by point, because it won't change what you think. But this is an example of the blind thinking the CDC has been using when preparing guidelines; completely ignoring circumstances and context while making their guidelines, and even ignoring the other guidelines they make almost simultaneously.

 

The complete stupidity and conflict of item by item of it taken as a whole is unfathomable coming from an organization that purports to follow anything scientific at all. They have lost their credibility by putting out these crazy guidelines, especially in the manner in which they have done so. These represent the sorts of rules you might make up on day 5 of 450 days of experience. And they're being foisted on everyone as if they have meaning or purpose.

 

We are well over a year into this pandemic, and we know a hell of a lot about it. And we've done a lot of things to mitigate it. And the cruise lines have themselves done a lot to prepare dealing with almost every single thing that the scientists have identified and explored about the spread. The cruise lines have more of a clue about the vaccinations than apparently do the mouthpieces at the CDC who created this condescending crapfest of a conditional sailing order, which itself has ignored at least a year of scientific research about COVID-19 and how it spreads.
 

And that's all BEFORE you consider the proposals from the cruise lines have never once indicated anything but a willingness to go fully vaccinated, if that's the necessary avenue to take. But even without that, they have been proving that it is in the current environment completely safe to sail; unvaccinated with proper precautions and protocols, which they have been following themselves, with frankly no particular concern over what the CDC wants or says, on many, many sailings out of other countries already.

 

The country is still waiting for the CDC to provide an explanation for anything they've proposed here, or for that matter, to even explain what they think the point has been to vaccinate the population, since their "guidance" has barely even acknowledged that there may be two people who are vaccinated who may mingle with eachother out there.

 

 

[ArthurUSCG]

8 hours ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Nonsense, there is nothing published that supports this claim. 
 

there is plenty published that disputes it for some diseases (Noro for example)

The US Navy and US Coast Guard has the data. After about 2 months, sick call visits for cold, flue and antibiotics drop as the crew has passed everything around. But this only lasts until the next port call and then starts all over again. The density conditions aren't that much different between the crews of a cruise line and the new carriers.

[ArthurUSCG]

8 hours ago, ReneeFLL said:

Exactly and I think this will be a common thing.

It's unlikely they have a fake record, since CLEAR pulled from the state database and doesn't use the cdc card.

 

But it's only as strong as the weakest link and right now, it is the verification for getting the vaccine.

[Joebucks]

14 hours ago, TMLAalum said:

 

Really? If you live near me in O-H-I-O and don't have the vaccine, I'd be happy to meet you maskless since I have been jabbed and am not scared of you or anyone else who's not  been!

Maybe you should delete your claim.....

 

I'm glad you have common sense. Unfortunately, not all do. You'd be surprised how many people think they are at risk because other people aren't vaccinated. 

[jrapps]

9 hours ago, not-enough-cruising said:

The fact that you stated the last paragraph shows you don’t understand the tenets of virology, viral spread, nor quarantining. 
 

The dining room on a ship is no different than a restaurant on land. 
 

The pool deck on a ship is no different than a community pool on land or a land based water park. 
 

The theater or the shops on a ship are no different thank those on land. 
 

The CDC however has made rules that are light years apart based on what?  There is zero scientific basis. 
 

When you add in the fact that the ship will be nearly, if not completely vaccinated, the rules are even more absurd. 

This is the logic that I believe the CDC does not agree with. 

 

Yes, a dining room at sea is like a restaurant on land, and a pool deck at sea is like a pool on land, etc, etc. But I also think an argument can be made that all of these things together are more than the sum of their parts. A cruise ship contains the SAME PEOPLE, going to the same venues, over and over again. When you go to a restaurant on land, the people who sit near you are likely those you have never seen before and won't see again. When you are in a bubble with the same people, the risk factors can be higher especially if there can be a few infected people. On land, even if it spreads, those vectors go off in different directions. An infected person at a restaurant might spread it to another person, who then spreads it to another person, but that vector goes off and never circles back. But if you infect one person, and then those 2 people are now in the same dining room again, and again, and again, it can multiply at a much faster rate.

 

Now I agree, the CDC rules are too harsh, especially on cruises with vaccinated passengers. I can also "see where they are coming from" and the lens they are looking at this thru is one of extreme caution.

 

I for one am hoping for a compromise here on cruises with 100% vaccinated people. If the CDC truly wanted people to get vaccinated, and for cruise ships to choose to sail with 100% vaccinated people, give some incentive!

[DCGuy64]

I loved this paragraph in particular:

 

"“It looks like there’s still confusion, and what people are wanting from the CDC … is more certainty,” said Glen Nowak, a 14-year veteran of the CDC’s communications department who now teaches at the University of Georgia. Nowak added that people want certainty from the CDC rather than “what ifs,” and that they want to know “if you do believe in these vaccines, why do you show so much trepidation regarding these vaccines?”

 

Sadly, too many of my well-meaning Cruise Critic compadres engage in this kind of rabbit hole thinking of "what ifs," and too many of them rather carelessly spout trite slogans like "trust the science" or "I believe what the CDC says," as though even the CDC itself always knows what is going on and issues guidance accordingly. It's clear from this article that the CDC has been WAY overcautious throughout the pandemic (and many seem fine with that, despite the disastrous consequences) and that it has FAILED to update its guidance when many of its assumptions were contradicted (such as surface transmission). Doesn't anybody have a problem when the nation's foremost public health agency makes rookie mistakes like this? I sure do!

[Pratique]

13 minutes ago, jrapps said:

This is the logic that I believe the CDC does not agree with. 

 

Yes, a dining room at sea is like a restaurant on land, and a pool deck at sea is like a pool on land, etc, etc. But I also think an argument can be made that all of these things together are more than the sum of their parts. A cruise ship contains the SAME PEOPLE, going to the same venues, over and over again. When you go to a restaurant on land, the people who sit near you are likely those you have never seen before and won't see again. When you are in a bubble with the same people, the risk factors can be higher especially if there can be a few infected people. On land, even if it spreads, those vectors go off in different directions. An infected person at a restaurant might spread it to another person, who then spreads it to another person, but that vector goes off and never circles back. But if you infect one person, and then those 2 people are now in the same dining room again, and again, and again, it can multiply at a much faster rate.

 

Now I agree, the CDC rules are too harsh, especially on cruises with vaccinated passengers. I can also "see where they are coming from" and the lens they are looking at this thru is one of extreme caution.

 

I for one am hoping for a compromise here on cruises with 100% vaccinated people. If the CDC truly wanted people to get vaccinated, and for cruise ships to choose to sail with 100% vaccinated people, give some incentive!

The CDC has been working with the cruise industry on vessel sanitation since at least the early 1970's. This is nothing new and has been a more-or-less continuous work in progress. Cruise ships have always been a focus of the CDC, and arguably the Vessel Sanitation Program has been successful. The cruise lines like to say that the ships are more sanitary than a land-based facility. What is new, and more urgent, is Covid. I would agree that this is a case of exercising an overabundance of caution. If the CDC lets cruising resume and there is an outbreak of any magnitude, the CDC will be slammed with criticism. Remember that the general public does not think cruising is a priority (many associate cruise ships with petri dishes), and that Covid is still raging in parts of the world beyond the CDC's reach. The political headwinds since the pandemic began have not helped either.

[DCGuy64]

26 minutes ago, jrapps said:

When you are in a bubble with the same people, the risk factors can be higher especially if there can be a few infected people. On land, even if it spreads, those vectors go off in different directions.

Wait a minute, so you're saying a person is MORE prone to disease if he's around the same vaccinated people on a ship than a constantly changing group of new people coming into a restaurant all the time who may NOT be vaccinated? If that's the case, please point me to the inevitable massive outbreak (not isolated incidents, mind you) onboard the MSC Grandiosa that has sailed since last August.

[Ocean Boy]

22 minutes ago, jrapps said:

This is the logic that I believe the CDC does not agree with. 

 

Yes, a dining room at sea is like a restaurant on land, and a pool deck at sea is like a pool on land, etc, etc. But I also think an argument can be made that all of these things together are more than the sum of their parts. A cruise ship contains the SAME PEOPLE, going to the same venues, over and over again. When you go to a restaurant on land, the people who sit near you are likely those you have never seen before and won't see again. When you are in a bubble with the same people, the risk factors can be higher especially if there can be a few infected people. On land, even if it spreads, those vectors go off in different directions. An infected person at a restaurant might spread it to another person, who then spreads it to another person, but that vector goes off and never circles back. 

So in your mind it is safer to be exposed to countless people on land that you don't know, have no idea what their contacts have been, no idea if they are ill, and no idea if they are vaccinated than it is to be part of a cruise ship bubble where folks have been at least screened for illness and, at minimum, 95% have been vaccinated. Well, we simply disagree.

[Keksie]

9 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I loved this paragraph in particular:

 

"“It looks like there’s still confusion, and what people are wanting from the CDC … is more certainty,” said Glen Nowak, a 14-year veteran of the CDC’s communications department who now teaches at the University of Georgia. Nowak added that people want certainty from the CDC rather than “what ifs,” and that they want to know “if you do believe in these vaccines, why do you show so much trepidation regarding these vaccines?”

 

Sadly, too many of my well-meaning Cruise Critic compadres engage in this kind of rabbit hole thinking of "what ifs," and too many of them rather carelessly spout trite slogans like "trust the science" or "I believe what the CDC says," as though even the CDC itself always knows what is going on and issues guidance accordingly. It's clear from this article that the CDC has been WAY overcautious throughout the pandemic (and many seem fine with that, despite the disastrous consequences) and that it has FAILED to update its guidance when many of its assumptions were contradicted (such as surface transmission). Doesn't anybody have a problem when the nation's foremost public health agency makes rookie mistakes like this? I sure do!

Exactly.  When policy is driven by an "impending feeling of doom" it makes one wonder what science that came from.  IMHO they have not promoted the fact that if vaccinated and if you do contract covid it will be a mild case or one with no symptoms.  It is one thing to be cautious and another to be told you still need to act like it is 2020 even if vaccinated.  However, there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy being told how many plants they and their neighbors can have on their front porches.

[jrapps]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

If the CDC lets cruising resume and there is an outbreak of any magnitude, the CDC will be slammed with criticism. Remember that the general public does not think cruising is a priority (many associate cruise ships with petri dishes), and that Covid is still raging in parts of the world beyond the CDC's reach. The political headwinds since the pandemic began have not helped either.

Totally agree with this. As we were writing these replies, I did some research...about 4% of the American population go on cruises. 4%. That is an awfully small demographic to be catering to with this much attention. Yes cruise lines are responsible for a lot of economic growth and I am in no way trying to belittle that. However, I would agree that the majority of Americans don't care at all about what happens with the cruise industry, and unless you live near a port city, they likely don't care all that much about the economic impacts as well. 

 

We are all here on a cruise forum so we are part of that 4%. We have  a vested interest and care, probably a lot more than the average cruiser does. But from the CDCs perspective (or my opinion on what is the CDCs perspective since that is all I have), the risks of having an outbreak on a ship, and the negative press that comes with that, just aren't worth the effort to do more to help cruising start faster. Its sad, but it makes sense.