Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About ProgRockCruiser

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Only on their way to Cleveland, OH. 😉 (John Heald joke there.) And there's just nowhere to park a ship in Winnipeg, especially around Portage and Main. 😉 (I consider Manitoba to be part of Central Canada, because, it's it in the center, eh? Even though the official designation is that Central Canada is Ontario and Quebec. Not sure how something that has a giant Fleuve to the Atlantic can be considered "Central". But I digress.) I was born in Canada, now reside in FL. I have relatives all across Canada (as well as the rest of the world). None of them are interested in going out for anything but the essentials. As far as I know, none of them have come down with COVID-19, thank goodness. Canada does rely a little on tourism, but as alluded to in a previous post, many Canadians are tourists in other countries, so if Canadians stay within Canada to travel, the net impact will be greatly reduced if borders remain closed. However, as long as the numbers stay steady (which they seem to be, just had a big spike in deaths yesterday, while new cases remained relatively steady), Canadians are not likely to do any "elective" traveling. I owe a visit to some close family up there, but I'm not going until the borders are open and I feel it is safe for me to do so - I don't want to be a vector. Sigh.
  2. The US has roughly 10 times the population of Canada. Per capita, Canada is 184 deaths per million, while the US is at 315 per million. So yes, Canada has had fewer deaths per capita, but it isn't quite as drastic as the total cases might lead you to think. Canada is running about 60% the rate of the US. And Quebec, which the other poster was referencing, has 4302 deaths, or 506 deaths per million. So not all rosy in the Great White North, eh?
  3. And this is why I think cruising will re-start as planned in August - there is too much momentum to open things back up, and if theme parks and shopping malls and restaurants and bars are all back to some form of operation by July, I can't see cruising waiting too much longer. Again, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just predicting based on observation.
  4. As noted by others, the sailings through March have not been removed, you just can't book anything. Three factors could drive the lack of availability: 1. Carnival cancelled a whack of cruises. Many of those cruisers re-booked, and probably on the Mardi Gras if that was what they originally had booked. 2. Carnival has stated they are trying to reduce the number of pax on board for some period after they start sailing. I don't know if they have announced numbers, but assuming it could be something like 50% capacity for a period of time, 75% for another period, then full(er) capacity. It is possible (with or without the re-bookings) Mardi Gras is already at whatever max capacity that Carnival wants to impose. 3. Regardless of max capacity or rebookings, Carnival might be choosing to halt all new bookings on a ship that does not yet exist in their fleet until a very conservative future date "just in case". I strongly suspect this is the reason. Until operations resume and it is apparent the shipbuilding has continued at full speed, it is all speculation. Carnival isn't about to discuss these matters publicly. Carnival reps may have been told something, but I would bet most of their "inside information" is self-generated within the general workforce, not info passed down from senior management, and is therefore rumor-mill/speculation again.
  5. All states have already started to loosen up lock down "rules/suggestions", and many, like Florida, are well into the plans to get fully up and rolling. The CDC has not reacted to those changes, AFAIK, and I think it will be very unlikely, given the current political "climate", that the CDC will do anything to slow down the restart unless there are actual huge new spikes. The CDC will continue to "fight" the pandemic for as long as it is a real threat - they will fight it by continuing to advise people on the wearing masks and social distancing, and co-ordinating testing and vaccine development. But I just don't see them extending the no sail order or doing anything to upset the apple-cart of reopening the country. Note that I am not saying I agree with the current actions, just making observations on what I think is likely to occur (or not).
  6. Well, aren't we just a giant ball of cheeriness! Back to the OP topic: Florida is opening up. And people are being stupid. If we get a large second wave, it will be very interesting to see how the state responds, and whether it impacts the cruise line industry's plans. The hospital ship(s) in NYC got stood down. Nobody ended up converting any cruise ship to any other use, AFAIK, except to transport crew home. No-one, regardless of how smart it may be, will wait for a vaccine before resuming operations. And that very article states: "That means that as of now, if the “No-Sail Order” were to remain in effect for the duration (and not be extended), ships would sail again on July 24, 2020. However, it is possible that ships could return sooner." So resuming 1 August 2020 seems like a very likely scenario. (I didn't say smart, or dumb, just likely.)
  7. Carnival did offer a 20% or something discount on Cheers about a month ago to help drum up business during the initial concerns over COVID-19. That has been the only time I have seen Cheers go on sale.
  8. OP, you subject line is deceiving. It looks like a statement, whereas you seem to have been trying to ask a question. AFAIK, there has been nothing official released or stated by Carnival, therefore anything else you read is probably old, speculation, or just clickbait. I am booked to sail on her in December, so I, too, would like confirmation of the upgrades and maintenance going ahead as planned, but I'm sure nothing much will be said until June, at the earliest - the shipyards/dry docks/whatever have to restart work, and as far I as I can tell, that may be just starting up.
  9. Well, thank you! I'm just trying to point out that the statistics being reported, even if accurate and timely, may not represent anything useful at all regarding trends. A year from now maybe we'll see a clearer picture of what really went down.
  10. Interesting,that is different-looking data from the other link provided, at: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/ I concur. I understand the desire to test to see how relatively prevalent the virus is amongst the population, but I agree that the raw data, unto itself, does little to show overall underlying growth trends. Imagine, if you will, a somewhat ridiculous scenario I admit, that half the population was infected from day 1, and that remained so throughout the "measurement" period - i.e. no new cases after that first day. As the number of tests increase, the total number of positive cases increases, which might look like the virus is spreading rapidly. But really, all it shows is that you have done more testing. And imagine that after some period of time, everyone with the virus gets better, all on the same day. Now the tests show zero new cases. But that isn't a measurement of when the virus stopped spreading. The virus and infections aren't anything like that scenario, but it does show how the measurement technique itself smears the validity of the data and any trends you may generate from it.
  11. It is listed in the graphic of a chart. Second from bottom.
  12. Hospitalizations are probably the most accurate useful data, though even that will be tainted. Regardless of how much you test, and how many positives vs negatives you find, the folks that get really sick will generally end up in a hospital. If more people are getting hospitalized per day, than that indicates (to me) that the true rate of infections is increasing. If we never actually "tested" out in public, but only looked at cases as assessed in a hospital, that would give a truer trend line direction, IMHO. Not total number of cases, but a trend. Which assumes the relative rates of asymptomatic or non-hospitalized but symptomatic cases also stay the same. Ideally we'd test the entire population over a single day, over and over, to see how the infection is spreading, and at what rate. By simply increasing the number of tests available, and testing new candidates every time, I'm not sure what we are measuring. It's like turning up the radio as a song naturally fades, so it actually sounds louder - the base signal isn't increasing, just your awareness of it. So if hospitalizations start to decrease, I will feel more assured that the actual rate of infection is decreasing.
  13. @jimbo5544, I looked at the charts for Texas. Death count reported May 21 is 63, the highest since starting. The total new cases reported the same day were 1856, second only to the number reported on May 15, 2012. Not sure what you looked at. Maybe hit refresh if you have old data cached?
  14. Regarding # of cases of coronavirus in FL - the recent "statistics" have been up and down for quite a while, bouncing between 550 and 950 new cases per day for a couple of weeks, maybe a bit more. But today the state announced over 1200 new cases in the last day. Random spike in the noise of sampling? Perhaps. Result of the incubation period after starting to open up more fully two weeks ago? Perhaps. Also, with the shenanigans going on with the firing of the dashboard manager, I'm not sure I trust what the state publishes anyway. Florida didn't fully into "Phase 1" until Monday of this week - south Florida still had a number of restrictions in place. Phase 2 has not yet started, I believe, just an expanded Phase 1. As for # of new cases each day vs the total number of tests: I don't think enough or the right type of data has been collected to make any judgments. Yeah, more testing will lead to more overall positive tests, and should also lead to more negative tests. But early on, the tests were restricted to those really at risk and/or showing definitive symptoms, so they tended to show high rates of infection per number of people tested. Now, the tests are far more widespread, and people probably not really at risk of being infected are getting tested for peace of mind. Personally, I'm taking it cautious, because I know too many older/at risk folks, and I don't want to be a vector. And I also don't want to get sick, oddly enough. If things have really started to trend down by early June, I'll feel a bit better. As for the OP's original question: IMHO, if social distancing through use of face masks and physical separation is still "required", then cruising will not happen - too many people won't want to do it, so will either cancel, or too many will break the "rules", not wear masks, get all crowded at the bars, Lido deck, and comedy clubs, and eventually another outbreak will occur, and the gates will come slamming down again.
  • Create New...