Jump to content

CarelessAndConfused

Members
  • Content Count

    741
  • Joined

About CarelessAndConfused

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Since there will certainly be demand, can't they run 14 day cruises with a stop in Ensenada? Obviously that's a lot of sea days and I would never consider such a cruise but apparently there are lots of folks that would be thrilled with being stuck on a ship with limited port days.
  2. I'm not sure as companies usually don't share a whole lot of detail. It's possible someone might have asked them that on their earnings' call, if CCL is even doing those. They did declare on their 10-Q though: "Based on these actions and assumptions regarding the impact of COVID-19, we have concluded that we will be able to generate sufficient liquidity to satisfy our obligations for at least the next twelve months." That applies from the October 8th date of when they filed the report. Usually companies and auditors are somewhat conservative in making sure that such
  3. https://investorplace.com/2020/11/ccl-stock-recover-before-2021-cruises-allowed/ Yes, they should get well past April 2021. When they announced their earnings, or rather losses for Q3 a few weeks ago, they reported having $8.2 billion in cash as of 8/31. That's probably down to around $6.5-7 billion today. They claim, which I mostly believe, that Q4 cash burn will be on the order of $530 million per month. So even if they had a protracted situation of cruises not sailing, they should be able to get to sometime toward the end of 2021. However, they did have a cash bu
  4. There is not support precisely because there was no support for making the claims that she made. These are BLINDED studies once again and there is very little known about them, INCLUDING why they were exactly paused. I've more than proven than her statement is clearly off the mark. If you can't interpret that, then that's your own limitations for you to deal with, not me. I realize that we are all going to say things based on opinions, interpretations, and sadly political ideology. However, to imply something like a vaccine in a clinical trial is perfectly safe and that a Phase
  5. There's been some scuttlebutt recently about how BC may ban cruising for good due to environmental reasons or whatever. Now admittedly, I am completely clueless about what I am going to suggest (just for humor sake). Can we not break off a small island or two lower in Alaska, call it "Winterland" or "Snowland" or whatever and give it it's own sovereignty. Then build a port and then let commerce take its' course from there? It doesn't seem like it would be TOO expensive. I'm not sure of all of the logistics in creating a shell government there so I am somewhat grasping at straws here. An
  6. What reliable information is there on the COVID-19 vaccines as of now that have been published? Because they are double blinded studies, even the drug companies themselves don't have the data yet to understand the results until they are unblinded. NO ONE is decrying vaccines. NO ONE said that studies don't get paused. The point is, not every vaccine gets approved. Most of them that start Phase 1 clinical trails never make it to approval. And there have been disastrous consequences of vaccines that have been approved without enough studies in the past. That is not causing pani
  7. These are Phase 3 clinical trials. Which means that they are double blinded studies. The patients, nor the doctors, even know whether they're being dosed with the drug or not. How can one garner much detail on the progress from that? The optimism from the drug companies you hear about likely stems from the fact that that they are seeing overall numbers of infections being less than they would have thought. For all we know, there may be more infections from the treated group than the placebo group. Further making the analysis a complete mess is that the habits of these individuals (being
  8. I had a different name all registered but while the site would acknowledge it, it would only take me to a blank screen with none of the forums listed on it. So I had to register a different name. Went thru about a couple of dozen names, which were all taken, and ultimately settled on what you see, which is a phrase from 'The Great Gatsby'.
  9. Just how bad are the environmental implications of cruising? I mean I realize they are going to have some detrimental impact but I've always weighed that against what the alternatives would be, at least for my own situation specifically in terms of land based travel and all the gas that a plane carrying about a mere 100 passengers can guzzle and all of the other considerations. I've recently already decided that I'm willing to cruise out of SF (since I can walk/public transpo to and from there) even though I hate the extra sea days. But if cruising is really as bad as all that, and someone
  10. That is a LOT of double talk to say absolutely nothing. What are these "key elements" you are referring to. I never argued against the vaccine yet you keep repeatedly acting like I did. What "declarations" am I making???
  11. What does any of that have to do with what you stated about the pause related to the clinical trial which is the only thing I was referring to? It seems like you're hell bent on going off on some tangent and making this a political issue. You seem all over the place implying that western sources aren't reliable but that is all you seem to cite. What are these non-western sources that we need to be looking at? And I never stated I wouldn't take the vaccine. I'm sure I will once it has proven to be safe and effective in the wider population. The saddest part of all of this is th
  12. Yes, and it seems like you may be one of those reading too many "political sites." You gave no such examples. You gave one example without any source cited but your own simple quick interpretation. BTW, the UK is a "western source." Most experts seem in agreement that a vaccine will only be 50% effective. Does that not implicitly tell you that this isn't about people getting sick.
  13. This is not about whether one wants to take the vaccine or not. It's about portraying the situation accurately. That one patient you refer to was not just because they got sick. It was due to a side effect of the drug that they probably couldn't understand why it occurred. It's tough to say because they don't disclose the details in these situations. It wasn't because they came down with Covid-19 or because of just any random flu like side effect. If that were the case, hardly any drug would ever get approved. There are plenty of adverse events and even severe adverse events in trials t
×
×
  • Create New...