Ebola making a difference in your next cruise?

A comment about another consideration of travel during this Ebola situation...

 

The plane referenced in this post in Boston today was Emirates Airlines and had flown 14 hours from Dubai (I think). There were five passengers reported as 'not feeling well' and they were taken off the plane by fully suited people in protective coverings. The other passengers on that flight remained seated for about 3 hours before they were permitted off the plane.

 

One never knows about such unexpected, unplanned and probably unwelcome inconveniences these days.

 

I agree and delays will be the least of it. I think people tend to underestimate the danger, or rather they will be optimistic, but generally this bears watching closely.

We have 30 days on the Caribbean in January and final payment is due in November early and we are very nervous about ebola. There are so many people from all parts of the world. I cannot even imagine the fear which would happen on a ship if there was just one case. CDC said it would not come to US it did. I don't think our government tells us all that is going on.

We know it is wrong to be afraid; however, sometimes it is good to use common sense and be safe rather than sorry. I don't think the ships can properly care for a person and will probably leave them at port, and a lot of the ports care would even be worse.

We have been reading and monitoring about ebola...some scary stuff.

This is just our opinion and I respect everyone else's decision.

An interesting excerpt from an AP story today:

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The World Health Organization called the Ebola outbreak "the most severe, acute health emergency seen in modern times" on Monday but also said that economic disruptions can be curbed if people are adequately informed to prevent irrational moves to dodge infection.

WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, citing World Bank figures, said 90 percent of economic costs of any outbreak "come from irrational and disorganized efforts of the public to avoid infection."

Staffers of the global health organization "are very well aware that fear of infection has spread around the world much faster than the virus," Chan said in a statement read out to a regional health conference in the Philippine capital, Manila...

Although the entire stock market is down of late, due to many reasons, it seems that shares of Carnival, Royal Caribbean and NCL have been hit especially hard. I see troubled waters ahead for the cruise lines (pun intended) if lots of folks decide to cancel or forego travel.

Although the entire stock market is down of late, due to many reasons, it seems that shares of Carnival, Royal Caribbean and NCL have been hit especially hard. I see troubled waters ahead for the cruise lines (pun intended) if lots of folks decide to cancel or forego travel.

Maybe it will result in lower prices.;)

Its interesting because unless I've missed something I have yet to see anyone mention the risk from crew on board cruise ships. In my (brief) experience a lot of the crew seem to be international and i'm sure several must be from the region. Presumably they do occasionally return home - I would imagine in the unlikely event that a crew member did return to the ship in the incubation phase and then developed symptoms but carried on serving food, or cooking, or making beds etc there could well be the potential for an issue...but then who knows when the disease has previously been confined to a small area.

The 2 US cases really concern me because they were health care professionals treating the highest profile disease to have appeared for years....if they couldn't avoid it, what hope others!

If you were to book a cruise today, would you purchase cancel for any reason insurance

even if you never have before?

Thought about it....And still think about it...

Got til Feb, though. Will see how things are...

Most Holland american crew workers are from indonesia not west africa.This disease has been around a while Iam aretired nurse from Africa. Hygien and what they eat is didgusting - I have been there and seem many a sight

To be honest, I don't think this kind of thread does anything to alleviate the unfounded fear being circulated. What is needed is accurate information, and not speculation. CNN and Fox are loving it and, I'm sure, disappointed that an epidemic has not broken out in the western world yet. We have lived through "pandemics" before. Which reminds me - time to get a flu shot.;)

We do not plan to change our cruise plans at this time. We will not be flying, which to us is a great relief. We will be very extra cautious during our travels the next few months. That said, I think it would be dangerous to think Ebola is a quickly passing news headline.

 

I think it is a very serious situation and greatly favor mandatory quarantine for anyone wanting to come into the U.S. from the affected areas. I know most will not agree with me on this - but it is MY opinion.

 

I do not think most have considered the economic impact this will have on those of us in the U.S. Who's going to end up paying for all the airport extra screenings, all the hospital preparations and treatments, decontaminations, etc.? We are sending troops to the affected areas to help! This will have a huge economic impact when all is said and done.

 

It would be interesting to find this thread in 6 months for an update on all of our thoughts.

Seems to me it would make more sense to screen people leaving the affected areas, rather than than wait till they get to our shores, so to speak.

Seems to me it would make more sense to screen people leaving the affected areas, rather than than wait till they get to our shores, so to speak.

They say temperatures are being taken before people are permitted to board planes flying internationally. But, again...... they can be incubating and not yet have a fever or cough which seem to be the first symptoms.

 

The 2 US cases really concern me because they were health care professionals treating the highest profile disease to have appeared for years....if they couldn't avoid it, what hope others!

Most people (other than health care professionals) are not going to come into close contact with the blood, vomit, urine, etc.) of those infected.

They say temperatures are being taken before people are permitted to board planes flying internationally. But, again...... they can be incubating and not yet have a fever or cough which seem to be the first symptoms.

 

A cough is not one of the first symptoms to develop.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/symptoms/

If anything, it may appear later in infection, together with chest pain.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ebola-virus/basics/symptoms/con-20031241

That is exactly what we would do and have done. Did some great trips to Greece and Turkey for two years when uninformed TA's were advising against it. Went to Thailand last Jan during the troubles.

IMHO the U.S. mass media are partly to blame. They jump on the story to fill air time, often providing very incomplete information with opinion presented as fact. People are lazy and will not take the time to get on the web and do some basic research instead of turning to TV news.

Why Asia? Would you avoid Singapore, Hong Kong?

Singapore is about the most safe, organised and hygienic city I have been too. Even better then some european or us cities.

To be honest, I don't think this kind of thread does anything to alleviate the unfounded fear being circulated. What is needed is accurate information, and not speculation. CNN and Fox are loving it and, I'm sure, disappointed that an epidemic has not broken out in the western world yet. We have lived through "pandemics" before. Which reminds me - time to get a flu shot.;)

I don't think there's an obligation by CC to alleviate unfounded fear. It's a legitimate question. I'm unflappable and I'm considering canceling my cruise and taking a wait and see approach. FYI I don't have cable, only a Roku. So aside from Netflix, etc, the only news I get on TV is Sky News from England, which is extremely low key compared to Fox and CNN. What I do read religiously is the NY Times and the Ebola reporting has been phenomenal.

We would all love accurate information but who knows what that is? Do we trust the CDC? If they were correct the nurse in Dallas would never have become infected. She wasn't even on their watch list. Accurate information- do we trust the top of the WHO projected infections estimate? If so that's 1.6 million by January.

It's not "is it likely someone with Ebola will be on my cruise?" It's "what if by some crazy chance someone with Ebola was on my cruise- could they be isolated and contained?"

I am much more worried about close quarters and the enterovirus strain going around.

At some point I'm going to just have to say "damn the torpedoes" and make the final payment and not think about it. I have two weeks. We shall see.

We have not purchased insurance in the past, however, for our upcoming January Caribbean cruise, we went ahead and bought the insurance. It has the "cancel for any reason" and receive full refund toward a future cruise. IT cost extra but provides peace of mind, especially for my husband who is a little more concerned than I am.

Singapore is about the most safe, organised and hygienic city I have been too. Even better then some european or us cities.

That is not necessarily the biggest attraction to draw me to visit any particular locale but, of course, I speak only for myself. Thankfully all of us here on CC still have the privilege of choosing where we wish to travel. Singapore has never been on my list. :)

We have not purchased insurance in the past, however, for our upcoming January Caribbean cruise, we went ahead and bought the insurance. It has the "cancel for any reason" and receive full refund toward a future cruise. IT cost extra but provides peace of mind, especially for my husband who is a little more concerned than I am.

Thank you for answering. I expect a number of cruisers who never before had 'cancel for any reason insurance' will consider buying it for cruises they are booking for near future. I never would have considered it in the past but might now.

I have tried hard to only state my viewpoint for ME and make it clear I have no interest in telling anyone else what they should think or do.

I'm not sure there is any 'right answer' for all. The right answer is the one each feels comfortable about. There is no sense spending the time, energy and money on a cruise or any travel that makes them uncomfortable or more than minimally nervous about infectious disease. If you are okay with 'rolling with it', then great. If you are hesitant, listen to your inner voice but please don't criticize or minimalize any who feel differently than you.

IMO ......

yes absolutely Ebola makes a differnce!!!!!Have just booked a cruise going up the west coast of africa the "bad " ports have been changed .What a deal- could not turn it down.Now to do last minute airfares.

If I Were you Id look into some hot Hot deals in Lebanon and Kabul

You mention the bad ports..... I would be interested in what "good ports" exist?

Our plans won't change unless our government puts out a travel advisory for where our cruise is going. That I will listen to.

If I was going to West Africa I would be rethinking as we travel as a family and I wouldn't take any chances with DD and DS.

I am not a risk taker, or more correctly, I choose my risks carefully. I analyse risk for a living. I have lived through two SARs outbreaks and that was scary but we managed. Ground zero for that infection was less than 10km from our home at the time. We learned much. We changed how we did everyday things like I went grocery shopping at 5 in the morning at a 24 hour store to minimize exposure to people.

But I agree with the poster who said driving is more risky.

As it stands we will be flying to Fort Lauderdale and taking our 20 day cruise that we will have waited 11 months to take.

Saying air travel within North America or Europe is risky, in my opinion, doesn't even make the chart. Getting attacked by a shark (odds of 1 in 300 million), being struck by lightening (1 in 1.9 million) or being struck by and killed by a puck at an NHL game (1 in 10 million) are all much riskier activities in my book and we are not talking about them.

Other odds to consider:

• You have a 25 times higher chance of being killed in your car than in a plane;
  
• being killed while hang gliding: 1 in 80,000;
  
• being killed while scuba diving: 1 in 150,000;
  
• sustaining serious injury from going on a carnival ride: 1 in 25 million
  
• Getting killed from riding a carnival ride: 1 in 450 million;
  
• dying during or immediately after routine bypass surgery at a high-quality hospital: 2 in 100;
  

Singapore is about the most safe, organised and hygienic city I have been too. Even better then some european or us cities.

Agree. The way they run things, it's about the last place I'd expect Ebola to make an appearance, but you never know.

If I Were you Id look into some hot Hot deals in Lebanon and Kabul

 

You mention the bad ports..... I would be interested in what "good ports" exist?

You're probably being facetious, but for someone who truly loves to travel, there are many places that are not necessarily "risk free" but the risk is still small and the reward may be huge.

I gather from reading this thread and others, that travel for some is simply a nice "extra" and they are only interested in visiting places that are not going to take them out of their comfort zone at all -- which is fine. But not everyone is the same.

Of course I would not travel to Syria or Lebanon now. But I went there just 4-5 years ago. At the time, I got a lot of negative comments about safety. But if I hadn't gone when I did, I may never have gotten to see some of the fantastic sights that remain among my very favorites. Not only that, but some of them have now been damaged or even destroyed. If I hadn't gone when I did, I'd never have gotten to see them. I am still kicking myself that I didn't get to Libya during the brief period when it was possible...

Last November I spent two weeks in Tunisia. Some people (including some on this board) thought it was crazy. I had a wonderful time, went to Roman sites that most people have not even heard of. Not a breath or hint of trouble anywhere.

Not traveling is not an option for me. It's one of the things I enjoy most in my life and I'm not about to stop doing it or to limit myself to places where there is no 'perceived' risk. (For as we all know, even safe places can become very unsafe with no prior notice.)

I think the only thing that would make me cancel was if I had my heart set on an affected port that was likely to be cancelled by the cruise line and that port was going to be the highlight of the cruise.

Roy

 

<snip>

 

Not traveling is not an option for me. It's one of the things I enjoy most in my life and I'm not about to stop doing it or to limit myself to places where there is no 'perceived' risk. (For as we all know, even safe places can become very unsafe with no prior notice.)

Yes, of course, this is a valid comment.

How many people went to the Boston Marathon thinking bombs would be exploded 'that' day? Living is a risk. Getting out of bed is a risk. We all have to evaluate that which we feel is a risk we are willing to take and that

which goes too for for us.

The wanderlust of each of us is variant, our tastes and preferences are not the same, our comfort level varies and no one should judge another as we don't know from where they are 'coming'. We haven't walked in their shoes.