Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

klkaylor78

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

About klkaylor78

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    Bakersfield, CA, USA
  • Interests
    Trekking, Skiing, Running, Hiking, Foodies
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Seabourn
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call
    Seabourn Antartica

Recent Profile Visitors

126 profile views
  1. The actual key data point is positive predictive value - essentially you get the right answer from a diagnostic test The positive predictive value (PPV) is defined as PPV=Number of true positivesNumber of true positives+Number of false positives=Number of true positivesNumber of positive calls{\displaystyle {\text{PPV}}={\frac {\text{Number of true positives}}{{\text{Number of true positives}}+{\text{Number of false positives}}}}={\frac {\text{Number of true positives}}{\text{Number of positive calls}}}} For the case you gave we do not have the specificity but we can use the Covid 19 rt-PCR at 96% for our example and use your give specificty of 99.9 So if there is a 1% prevalence (good guess for Covid) of a disease then 10 out of 1000 will have the disease and and for testing 10 will have the disease, 9 will test positive and one will have a false negative if you test 1000 folks. (sorry cant make half of a person) with a 99.9% sensitivity (your data point) 11 will be falsely positive and 979 are negative So we will have 20 positive tests but only 9 will actually have the disease - so over half will be isolated for nothing - not a great test. So the real issue is that testing asymptomatic patients in a disease with low prevalence the specificity is critical to not have so many false positive that the test is a coin flip (this example) when the test is positive. People think that testing is perfect but screening testing is much harder to get right than diagnostic testing in light of symptoms.
  2. Three things come to mind here Why are we sure the positive test is the correct result - as stated above all tests have incorrect results both positive and negative. When the disease is rare - as in covid 19 in AUS then it is more likely to have a false positive than a false negative given the rt-PCR test sensitivity ( positive when colonized/infected) and specificity (negative when no virus present). Ill skip the whole discussion of what type of testing we are doing. Many vaccines require multiple dose, don't work for everyone every time, have some rate of unexpected bad reactions, and may have to be repeated years down the road to maintain a protective level of immunity. Some "bugs" cannot be immunized for - HIV, Malaria, common colds, so getting some immunity for some or most of the population still has value. Which brings us to third issue - why have we decided that the goal is protecting everyone from ever being colonized -virus present no illness - or sick, or death from this specific disease. We seem to be down a path that is not realistic with this disease process. We try to prevent diseases such as malaria although it is treatable, and rarely fatal. It is still present in the amazon but we routinely go there as tourists. We try to prevents, treat it if we get is and essentially ignore the fact that a few people will die of the disease. For covid it is not that much different. We believe that the virus is highly contagious. It is most likely has a variable rate/severity of illness when infected or colonized, and death rates are higher by age. It is time to critically review the idea of no infections, no illness, and no deaths. If we use that level of public health goals we would all have to live in a bubble forever.
  3. To really know the "success " of this most recent PG cruise - which I am rooting for as we have a suite on the Solar Eclipes Charter 5 Dec- is to get a breakdown of pre FP testing, Pre Cruise Testing, if/how many did the FP 4 day test, and then were there any illnesses (symptomatic patients). Along with this data it would be nice to get a report from the "cruisees' on how the new Ponant rules effected the trip - fun meter- and how compliant were the passengers ( +/- the "Karen" factor). It is sad that so far we have no reports from on board but it would be nice to know. I have pushed for a pre departure "hotel isolation" to reduce the requirements for on board social distancing - i.e. create a cruise social bubble. Data from the cruise as to who did what and tested when would be very helpful.
  4. How are both the diving and shore excursion being done ? We are on a PG charter in Dec for a solar eclipse so trying to figure out to go or stay.
  5. well with the Seabourn's cancellation of two different March 2021 sailing -first on Sojourn Sydney to Cape Town and then BA to Rotterdam on the quest I have made it a Bud Lightyear trip - to infinity and beyond -😪
  6. did the person who tested positive on the "four day test" every have symptoms or test positive for test after being quarantined?
  7. So I am going to end this - it is clear that for the most part folks are willling to take great financial risk just to cruise and that we - me included - are willing to sign away standard contract law options for the abilty to live on a ship. -fair enough.
  8. Dont bark - not a dog No force involved - words and rules are not either violent or forceful I am not using any strong arm tactics to get a refund - I know the contract and understand the contract I am brining up the idea of perhaps we should not be signing these common carrier contracts that clearly benifit the big business folks and leave us- the purchaser/passenger with lots of problems if the cruise line or airline breaches the contract had to accept to enjoy the cruise/flight we wanted. The only way that the contracts will change is that we refuse to sign - ie buy - or get the goverment(s) to make new laws. I clearly understand the nature of once in a lifetime issues but perhaps our goverment should not let these things cost the common wo(man) when they decree new rules.
  9. It actually is your position -the breacher of the contract is only resposible for the base cost of the item they sold - not any associated losses. This is not the common law position of most contracts. It is however the present state of most common carrier contracts. This is the purpose of this discussion - My positiion is that in most contracts the breacher of the contract is responsible for all losses suffered by the other party. With the advent of non refundable airline tickets and hotel rooms (which I try to avoid-and avoid completely now for obvious reasons) cancellation of one part - the cruise -can cause losses to the person who bought the cruise from other sources. The airline did not breach its contract so why should it pay. As far as travel insurance paying for those other losses that does not work with most presently sold policies. Interestingly enough a common carrier cancellation prior to departing on your trip voids most travel insurance. When my amazon cruise was cancelled and I filed to get repayed for a transfer that I had paid for in advance I was told that because I never started the trip the insurance was void and would not pay. One way to avoid that issue is to add the *cancel for any reason " or CFAR clause to your insurance they they do have to pay if you do not go. Interesting is this adds about 50% to the cost of the insurance and most travel insurance companies are not selling that option at this time. Also most are not paying as they have "pandemic clauses" - no coverage if WHO declares a pandemic. I have to admit that I did not read that far into my travel insurance policy and I bet I am not alone on that. I agree that it is a complex issue but I still think that perhaps if we traveler care enough we might make a change to the common carrier contract. The flyers in the EU got the government to force airlines to pay them for delays. While a "dream" it is not impossible
  10. I do agree that consumers have a responsibility to know the contracts they sign but they are contracts. Using your rule if you signed a contract and paid for the contract to say take photos at your wedding 1 yr out, and the photographer cancelled one week out and you had to pay twice as much to get one in a hurry that the first photographer should be able to use the defense that you signed the contract a year in advance and that ***** happens over that length of time and that a breach should be expected. Not sure that is the ruling a court would give. Contracts are not a chance event. Contracts and property rights are a key part of a civil society. If you read the first question I posed then you would know I know what I am buying and the contracts that are presently in use - my discussion is that these common carrier contracts are to biased to the carrier - compared to other service contracts and should we try to get a little more ballance as far as compensation for cancellations and changes. A good example is that most folks dont know that the cruise line has no responsiblity to make all or any port calls. You leagaly have no right to compensation as long as ship takes you from the starting port to the ending port. Lines tend to be customer sensitive so they voluntarily rebate is ports are missed but not legally bound to do so.
  11. Appreciate the replys For sverigecruiser- agree that with our CDC declaring a stop in cruising that the cruise lines had no choice. Your position is that if the government(s) requires the cruise line or airline to breach (cancel) then the purchaser of the contract has to shoulder all losses save the base cruise fare. This would fit in with iancal - that these losses are a personal responsibility - bad things happen and life is not without risk so this is the cost of life. Both fair points. I do disagee a little with iancal - neither the cruise line or the passenger could have foreseen the pandemic two years out (many book cruises that far out and airlines at 330 days or so to get the prime upgrades). Those who booked travel after the data on the virus was known know the risk and if they book without some additional protections then they are failing the buyer beware rule and any losses are on them. I appreciated sanger727 position but disagree somewhat - getting people to ask either the seller or the government for a better contract is not impossible. It would take a lot of folks not going on cruises or asking for better protection for their dollars. Infact that has already happened - lots of cruise lines have better options for cancelations now then before the pandemic. The question is can we get something in the standard contract so that when the previously unthinkable happens again that we are better protected? Can we as consumers ask for a proactive event rather than waiting for a reactive market. I do think that it would be a big lift but .... maybe this is a good use of social media - make a better market place. Would you pay a little for every cruise to have a pandemic/weather/war fund to cover these type of cancelations/losses?
  12. This is prob the best post - while counting days, segments, cruise numbers is fun - and insuring that our perks are correct based on same. The tip to look at longer "cruises" by segment or combination cruises (seabourn term) to insure that you get the most days for the least euros (or your denominator of funds). I have done that several times but the combined was always better than individual segments. Thanks for the tip and the reminder to look at the costs with the green eye shade of an accountant.
  13. You are aware that at present all vaccines/vaccine manufactures have blanket liability protection via US statutes https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22 Vaccine liability is dealt with via this process https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html So no special deal here for Covid Vaccine manufactures - just standard US law
  14. Well - I agree with your concern over our cancelations - I tend to plan far out and the Mar 21 booking was made almost two years earlier - a rare southwest route around Australia. Only one was our stupidity - a rebook of an early Covid Alaska Cruise for our 40th that we tried to move to Sep - We also have saved a lot of money - but it is all tied up in Seabourn as FCC. We are still debating what to do with the last cancelation as I like making 25% on my money but now I think they have more than I can spend with them. We too now look carefully at the refund/change policy (turned down a great rate in Maldives as the cancel was a loss of 60% of the full fare after only 48hr and no covid flexibility. The US threat of not letting US residents back in if covid + makes your idea of US travel smart But back to the orignal question - why do we tollerate such one sided contracts for travel - Lets band together and demand a more fair contract from airlines and cruise ships.
  15. Both make valid points True right now depending on how you book you can have multiple contracts and therefore different outcomes based on those commitments. If I am building a house and the builder defaults on the contract I will hold them responsible for all costs and damages even if it puts him out of business. A contract is a contract. Let me change the "purchase" a bit You contract for an all inclusive wedding - venue, lodging, meals, entertainment - but 6 days before the wedding the the venue calls and cancels your wedding. You now have to find a new place, change the travel, find new caterers, and dj - it cost you $10K more - would you sue the first place for these additional costs? You might based on your contract- but the question is would you ever sign a contract with a location that allowed them to cancel your event up to 1 day before, at their discretion, no reason needed - and all they had to do is return the monies you paid in 4 months. If you dont read the contract you might, if you see it in the contract you prob. would either walk or request a change. However due to the common carrier contract for cruises we sign that contract everytime. That is our only choice. Should we asking for something different? If a cruise line offered (and many have now) a better cancellation policy but they still do not cover the ancillary losses that would be covered by most other forms of contracts. The EU has done something along this line with payments for canceled or late flights. Again I don't have the "right" answer just wondering why we give up our rights for damages when we sign up for cruises of which we can be canceled for no reason (not that covid is not a good reason) but... Food for thought - and appreciate the opinions so far - more are welcomed
×
×
  • Create New...