Ebola Threat

[Responder]

Actually, I wasn't even thinking about Ebola. Something maybe like heart or broken limb or ???

 

There's no reason for a situation like this.

[chengkp75]

Does anyone know if Purell or some other commercial antibacterial kills the Ebola virus? What about rubbing achohol? Anything else??? If no one can answer this, does anyone know where the answer can be obtained? I seriously think the answer is beyond my local pharmacist. I cannot believe I am thinking about this... the 21 day cruise was supposed to be a laid back, care free vacation and since Regent, so far, has not made any statement, I think the trip has lost much of it's sparkle. If we dock, will the crew be allowed off the ship? What if the answer is yes and two or three days after we depart Dakar, they announce that there were X number of cases there that had previously not been known or announced? We are not thrilled to be worried about that. Taking a yellow fever shot which may not be necessary (if we don't dock in Dakar) also doesn't thrill us. Most of our experience at sea has been with Seabourn...we were recommended to Regent and this is our first cruise with them. This lack of communication on their part has damaged their reputation as far as we are concerned. Thinking about a box of those gloves they wear behind the deli counter.... this is crazy!

 

Just picked up this thread when I saw the title on the "latest post" column of the forum home. I admit to being too lazy to read back over 12 pages of posts, to see what appears to be a bit of a hate war, but I thought I'd answer some of your questions.

 

In your own post, you ask about antibacterials being effective against viruses. You answered your own question, no, antibacterials are effective against bacteria, not viruses. Alcohol is not effective against viruses; if you've ever read anything about noro on cruise ships (noro is another virus), alcohol based hand sanitizers are almost worthless. What does the CDC recommend as the best way to guard yourself? Hand washing. Hand washing does not kill the virus either, but will remove it from your skin. Soap is the lubricant that does this; that is what soap is, a lubricant, not a sanitizer.

 

I will also say that since the ship is calling in the US, it will be maintaining USPH standards for the cruise, and this will limit the exposure of the ship to the virus, by limiting the food taken onboard, etc.

 

Also, the CDC says that your chance of contracting Ebola, even if you travel in the affected area is not high, unless you are a health care worker, working with the Ebola cases. Remember, Ebola is not contagious until the patient is showing symptoms. So, stay away from anyone who looks feverish, or ill, but remember that the crew will be looking for illness, as they do for noro, and will quarantine guest or crew that show symptoms, which will limit the possibility of spread.

[crusin7]

My travel agent spoke with her Regent contact today. He said Senegal is a go. :(

[Eager2Travel]

Does that mean they are no longer monitoring the situation but have made a definite decision in regards to Dakar?

[Responder]

Does that mean they are no longer monitoring the situation but have made a definite decision in regards to Dakar?

 

My TA just called and was told they would come up with an answer within a week.

 

I think trivial pursuit would be more fun...and certainly safer than this suspense.

[mariners]

If Senegal is a go, then Cape Verde is a no go as there must be 30 days between visiting Senegal and Cape Verde.

 

We have friends who will be/would have been on this sailing. They do not read CC, and, as CC often provides more information (and misinformation) than other sources, I have been monitoring this thread. I hope others will post information as they receive it from their TA's.

 

Thanks, Responder. I thought there might be different answers out there.

Edited September 16, 2014 by mariners
adding response to Responder

[Eager2Travel]

Thanks, Responder.

 

That sounds somewhat definitive. Let us hope Regent holds to it. This is getting tiring. I don't usually spend this much time on CC but it seems to be my only source of information on this issue.

[Responder]

Thanks, Responder.

 

I don't usually spend this much time on CC but it seems to be my only source of information on this issue.

 

What does that tell you??:D

[Responder]

Just for the record...my TA just called me to say that Regent has not made any decision yet.

She mentioned that she has been getting at least 10 calls a day asking the same question.

[Caroldoll]

This is not an airborne disease. You must come in contact with someone's bodily fluids who has it.

 

There is a 21 day incubation period.

 

If everyone feels this bad, it would be best to cancel. However, I think there is little chance of getting Ebola from this cruise.

 

We have just come back through Heathrow, and I worked myself up about the airport as so many planes come through there from Africa. I can honestly say that the only time I think I would have come in contact with bodily fluids would have been when Virgin served too much alcohol to a gentleman in Upper Class and he almost fell into my pod, on top of me! LOL...airports are dangerous and airplanes!

 

I am surprised that someone on this board who is more in tune with medicine has not spoken up. Of course this virus can and probably will mutate, but it hasn't at this point.

[computerworks]

This is not an airborne disease. You must come in contact with someone's bodily fluids who has it.

 

NYT article raised a scare about it going airborn...

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/

 

If they stop at Dakar, right now, it eliminates the stop at Cape Verde.

 

Geez, it's a no-brainer to blow off the Senegal port, regardless of the real or perceived risk.

[Travelcat2]

The article presents a lot of questions but no answers. The data can be skewed any way a person wants to skew it. There are concerns for the future, but for now, and as it relates to this cruise, "So far, however, there is no indication that Ebola is mutating in a way that could allow it to make the leap from becoming transmissible via contact with body fluids (as it is now) to become a germ that could be transmitted by breathing the same air, according to WHO."

[computerworks]

The article presents a lot of questions but no answers.

 

...just like this thread. :p

[Travelcat2]

...just like this thread. :p

 

Have to agree with you!

[Responder]

Have to agree with you!

 

Besides the opinions(facts) posted by those who are not even going to Dakar, I suppose the opinions(facts)in this article are also just questions.

 

Too bad you are not on this sailing, as you could do what you said you would do in your earlier post #130.....go on tour and hug all the people to show them how much we care.

 

Your words...

 

"It is interesting that it is believed that WHO does not want to alarm people. Even though WHO has not issued a statement regarding Senegal, passengers on this cruise appear to be completely freaked out. Truly wish I was onboard and that Regent would stop in Dakar and eliminate Cape Verde. I would love to meet the people, give them hugs and make them feel as if the world does not fear them. Hopefully they do not realize that a teeny tiny group of people are afraid of them."

 

Maybe the troops that the US is sending should also go around and hug the people as well.

[Responder]

Last updated: September 16, 2014 11:27 pm

Obama calls for global response to Ebola

 

By Barney Jopson in Washington and Javier Blas and Mark Odell in London

 

The world must act fast to fight the global threat posed by Ebola, President Barack Obama warned on Tuesday as the US deployed 3,000 soldiers to west Africa to contain the outbreak.

 

“It’s spiralling out of control. It is getting worse. It’s spreading faster and exponentially,” Mr Obama said as health officials warned that the death toll could rise sharply. “We have to act fast.”

 

 

The chances of an Ebola outbreak in the US were extremely low, he said, but the disease would pose a threat to global security “if these [west African] countries break down, if their economies break down, if people panic”.

 

The US move came as senior UN officials warned the outbreak was worsening with almost 2,500 dead and close to 5,000 people infected. In a sign that the virus remains out of control, the World Health Organisation warned that the number of dead was likely to double every three weeks.

 

The US offer of help is the most significant since the outbreak erupted in a remote region of Guinea in February. Since then, the virus has been concentrated in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Two other countries – Nigeria and Senegal – have had a small number of cases.

 

The White House said it had already committed $175m to address the crisis and would set up an Ebola command centre in Monrovia, Liberia, to help train healthcare workers and build new treatment centres.

More video

 

Speaking in Atlanta at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is playing a central role in the response, Mr Obama said “this is a global threat, and it demands a truly global response”.

 

He urged international organisations to move faster and called on governments to contribute more personnel, medical supplies and funding.

 

Bruce Aylward, assistant director-general of the WHO, said the world was facing a health crisis “unparalleled in modern times”.

 

“We don’t know where the numbers are going on this,” he said, adding that even with “a much faster response” the number of cases could reach the tens of thousands.

 

Dr David Nabarro, senior UN co-ordinator for Ebola, said the estimate of how much it would cost the countries affected to tackle the disease had jumped tenfold to $1bn from a previous estimate just a month ago. Only a fraction has been committed by countries affected.

 

“The amount for which we requested was about $100m a month ago and now it is $1bn, so our ask has gone up 10 times in a month,” Dr Nabarro said.

 

The White House did not say how long the US military personnel would remain deployed in west Africa, but the World Health Organisation has said in the past that the outbreak could last another 6-9 months.

Podcast

 

 

Washington’s move came after a rare call by the aid group Médecins Sans Frontières, which has a long history of battling Ebola elsewhere in Africa, for the mobilisation of western countries’ biological warfare units.

 

MSF, one of the handful of non-governmental organisations fighting the virus in west Africa, said the use of military biohazards units was probably the only way to stop the spread of the disease.

 

Washington has also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council this week to co-ordinate international help for the region. Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN, said the epidemic could “set the countries of west Africa back a generation”.

 

Foreign investors in west Africa have also called for more aid, warning about the dire economic impact of the virus.

 

The current outbreak is focusing attention on how little progress has been made towards tackling Ebola since it was first identified 38 years ago by scientists who analysed a blood sample from a person struck down by a mysterious virus in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, near the Ebola river.

 

Since then, the haemorrhagic fever has become notorious for its gruesome symptoms, including vomiting, diarrhoea and both internal and external bleeding. Ebola has a fatality rate of up to 90 per cent and there is no cure. The current outbreak, however, has a fatality rate of about 50 per cent.

[gnomie1]

As someone who spent quite a few years in the public health arena, some of the comments on this board truly upset me - people are writing about topics that they obviously know very little about and are pretending otherwise. That being said, it truly saddens me regarding Regent's response, or lack thereof, to the situation at hand. I have believed and said before that Regent's corporate/back office is lacking on many fronts, and this just re-enforces my belief. The one thing that I can think of that may be causing the delay, is that they have insurance coverage against the port charges which only comes into effect if canceled within a very short period of time. However, since the other cruise lines have already canceled the stop in Senegal, I don't know if that could really be the cause of the complete lack of communication.

 

There was a discussion at my synagogue last night regarding how some tour companies (and cruises) very quickly canceled all travel to Israel during the most recent outbreak, even though some of the trips were scheduled for months later. Life is back to normal is Israel (I know, I have lots of family there and have plenty of friends and family who are traveling there without any worry), yet tours continue to cancel for trips scheduled at the end of the year or into 2015. Yet tours scheduled for other parts of the world where there are problems continue and if the customer doesn't like it - that is too bad. It makes one wonder exactly what criteria is used to determine whether a trip will be canceled or detoured.

 

Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is the rare company that puts customer service first, usually it is an after thought. That can be witnessed by so many companies sending their call centers overseas and making it nearly impossible to get a positive resolution. Companies believe that if they lose a few customers, they are still ahead of the game by the overall money saved. It is not unless there is an outright embarrassment of the company (think Bank of America when they tried to introduce a $5.00 ATM fee) that things change, but only for a short period.

 

We know that Regent monitors this board (and even their lawyers!!), yet I have always wondered why they do not believe their customers are not important enough to warrant an official Regent spokesperson, to monitor and respond to inquiries and complaints. I participate in other travel discussion groups and all the airlines, hotels and even travel related credit cards monitor the board and have official representation. It would do much to bolster consumer confidence. Right now we have one cruise scheduled for later in the year, but NOTHING in 2015, which is so unlike us, who usually book as soon as the catalog comes out. We are waiting to see how this resolves before booking another Regent cruise - I do not believe I am alone in this thinking.

 

gnomie :)

[borntocruz]

As someone who spent quite a few years in the public health arena, some of the comments on this board truly upset me - people are writing about topics that they obviously know very little about and are pretending otherwise. That being said, it truly saddens me regarding Regent's response, or lack thereof, to the situation at hand. I have believed and said before that Regent's corporate/back office is lacking on many fronts, and this just re-enforces my belief. The one thing that I can think of that may be causing the delay, is that they have insurance coverage against the port charges which only comes into effect if canceled within a very short period of time. However, since the other cruise lines have already canceled the stop in Senegal, I don't know if that could really be the cause of the complete lack of communication.

 

There was a discussion at my synagogue last night regarding how some tour companies (and cruises) very quickly canceled all travel to Israel during the most recent outbreak, even though some of the trips were scheduled for months later. Life is back to normal is Israel (I know, I have lots of family there and have plenty of friends and family who are traveling there without any worry), yet tours continue to cancel for trips scheduled at the end of the year or into 2015. Yet tours scheduled for other parts of the world where there are problems continue and if the customer doesn't like it - that is too bad. It makes one wonder exactly what criteria is used to determine whether a trip will be canceled or detoured.

 

Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is the rare company that puts customer service first, usually it is an after thought. That can be witnessed by so many companies sending their call centers overseas and making it nearly impossible to get a positive resolution. Companies believe that if they lose a few customers, they are still ahead of the game by the overall money saved. It is not unless there is an outright embarrassment of the company (think Bank of America when they tried to introduce a $5.00 ATM fee) that things change, but only for a short period.

 

We know that Regent monitors this board (and even their lawyers!!), yet I have always wondered why they do not believe their customers are not important enough to warrant an official Regent spokesperson, to monitor and respond to inquiries and complaints. I participate in other travel discussion groups and all the airlines, hotels and even travel related credit cards monitor the board and have official representation. It would do much to bolster consumer confidence. Right now we have one cruise scheduled for later in the year, but NOTHING in 2015, which is so unlike us, who usually book as soon as the catalog comes out. We are waiting to see how this resolves before booking another Regent cruise - I do not believe I am alone in this thinking.

 

gnomie :)

 

Interesting points, gnomie. Re: an "official Regent spokesperson"--I wonder if they rely on the "cheerleaders" to do the job? From my perspective, when a "cheerleader" starts making excuses for, or explaining away another person's problem with Regent, I just can't take it seriously. Especially if the "cheerleader" is someone who has made known all the special perks/treatment they receive from Regent while cruising. Let me be clear--I am not saying it is wrong, or that the perks are not genuinely given because the Regent officers, etc. just like the "cheerleader". I'm merely saying that I can't see that "cheerleader" has being objective. (Also, my use of "cheerleader" is not meant to be snarky. I used it because some use it to describe themselves. I mean it neutrally.)

 

An "official Regent spokesperson" would have A LOT more credibility in my eyes. I don't think I am alone in this way of thinking.

[Travelcat2]

This objective cheerleader spent close to a year bashing one of Regent's proposed policies. This same objective cheerleader has repeatedly spoken out against "free" excursions and asking for an "opt out" option. Perhaps the reason why Regent, Seabourn and Silversea do not have a dedicated spokespersons on the boards is because they would be argued with incessantly -- words could be twisted and they would be told that they do not care about their customers. This is besides the fact that a very small percentage of Regent cruisers actually post or read CC.

 

In terms of cancelling cruises to Israel (which I am sad that they did -- Israel is such an amazing place), there was a real threat to tourists. I do not believe they cancelled Israel without a great deal of thought (and perhaps a warning from the State Dept?) The reason for my feeling is that they did not cancel our cruise when the port of Ashdod was endangered. Instead, they cancelled the port and docked in Haifa for three days. They did what they could to insure that passengers would still have the same excursions, etc.

 

Israel, although not the same as Senegal in terms of the threat, relates to this discussion in some ways. There would likely have been passengers as afraid to go to Israel as there are passengers afraid to go to Senegal. Just an observation.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Travelcat2

[borntocruz]

This objective cheerleader spent close to a year bashing one of Regent's proposed policies. This same objective cheerleader has repeatedly spoken out against "free" excursions and asking for an "opt out" option. Perhaps the reason why Regent, Seabourn and Silversea do not have a dedicated spokespersons on the boards is because they would be argued with incessantly -- words could be twisted and they would be told that they do not care about their customers. This is besides the fact that a very small percentage of Regent cruisers actually post or read CC.

 

In terms of cancelling cruises to Israel (which I am sad that they did -- Israel is such an amazing place), there was a real threat to tourists. I do not believe they cancelled Israel without a great deal of thought (and perhaps a warning from the State Dept?) The reason for my feeling is that they did not cancel our cruise when the port of Ashdod was endangered. Instead, they cancelled the port and docked in Haifa for three days. They did what they could to insure that passengers would still have the same excursions, etc.

 

Israel, although not the same as Senegal in terms of the threat, relates to this discussion in some ways. There would likely have been passengers as afraid to go to Israel as there are passengers afraid to go to Senegal. Just an observation.

 

I remember it well. You see it as being objective because you were critical of Regent about policies that you did not like. Those things mattered to you. That is not how I define being objective. To me, being objective would be to see both sides of an issue and offer information without obviously leaning one way or another. (No need to look it up in a dictionary for me, I'm just trying to explain why I see things the way I do.) You have every right to express your opinion about these things. And it is my right to decide what information is credible and what information may be more biased. Most issues on this board really don't warrant an "official response". The concerns of the people on this particular cruise, as raised in this thread, do seem worthy of that. This, of course, is just my opinion. ;)

[Travelcat2]

I remember it well. You see it as being objective because you were critical of Regent about policies that you did not like. Those things mattered to you. That is not how I define being objective. To me, being objective would be to see both sides of an issue and offer information without obviously leaning one way or another. (No need to look it up in a dictionary for me, I'm just trying to explain why I see things the way I do.) You have every right to express your opinion about these things. And it is my right to decide what information is credible and what information may be more biased. Most issues on this board really don't warrant an "official response". The concerns of the people on this particular cruise, as raised in this thread, do seem worthy of that. This, of course, is just my opinion. ;)

 

You seem to be seeing only one side of the issue as well. I do see both sides of the issue regarding the Ebola cruise. However, having weighed the pros and cons - based on information posted on this thread -- news stories -- the CDC, WHO, etc., I did take a side. News people do need to deliver information without "obviously leaning one way or the other" - this is their job. Almost everyone on this thread has posted whether they would like to see Regent cancel the port of Dakar or not. There was no need to state opinions or facts without giving their personal bias.

 

The policy that I discussed (negatively) for so long was huge in terms of Regent passengers. Regent lost passengers over this (and the excursions as well). Actually, as you no doubt know, the "policy" that I was so much against did not affect me at all. It mattered to me because of how it would affect other passengers.

 

I feel strongly that the Ebola issue does not require an official response from Regent. They did not make an official response regarding Israel either. What they did was to inform the affected passengers once they made the decision. This is what I expect them to do in this case.

 

Of course you (and all posters) decide which information is credible -- which is biased, etc. I post it the way I see it. If I am wrong, I'll be the first to admit it (and it won't be the first time).

Edited September 17, 2014 by Travelcat2

[msafiri]

borntocruz,

 

I doubt her posts on this board have gotten her any benefits on-board. I am guessing that her benefits come from frequent cruising or spending $.

In my opinion, her board personality has had a negative impact on the Regent brand.

I can’t imagine that the Regent executives are happy about her suggestion that “ Regent attorneys read CC and do not take well to threats or intentionally putting Regent in a bad light.” (It didn’t stop her from posting untruthful statements about Seabourn.)

In addition, on this thread, http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1184369&page=2 her buddy Frank Del Rio made one of his rare appearances on this board to say; “TravelCat2 comments are more often than not, disturbing, and more importantly, not true, and this case regarding air travel is no exception.”

So, I don’t think she is being rewarded for her “cheerleading.”

[fizzy]

borntocruz,

 

I doubt her posts on this board have gotten her any benefits on-board. I am guessing that her benefits come from frequent cruising or spending $.

In my opinion, her board personality has had a negative impact on the Regent brand.

I can’t imagine that the Regent executives are happy about her suggestion that “ Regent attorneys read CC and do not take well to threats or intentionally putting Regent in a bad light.” (It didn’t stop her from posting untruthful statements about Seabourn.)

In addition, on this thread, http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1184369&page=2 her buddy Frank Del Rio made one of his rare appearances on this board to say; “TravelCat2 comments are more often than not, disturbing, and more importantly, not true, and this case regarding air travel is no exception.”

So, I don’t think she is being rewarded for her “cheerleading.”

 

I remember that and at the time thought it was rather rude and like a slap in the face. THAT might have been better handled privately. Very embarrassing.

[borntocruz]

borntocruz,

 

I doubt her posts on this board have gotten her any benefits on-board. I am guessing that her benefits come from frequent cruising or spending $.

In my opinion, her board personality has had a negative impact on the Regent brand.

I can’t imagine that the Regent executives are happy about her suggestion that “ Regent attorneys read CC and do not take well to threats or intentionally putting Regent in a bad light.” (It didn’t stop her from posting untruthful statements about Seabourn.)

In addition, on this thread, http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1184369&page=2 her buddy Frank Del Rio made one of his rare appearances on this board to say; “TravelCat2 comments are more often than not, disturbing, and more importantly, not true, and this case regarding air travel is no exception.”

So, I don’t think she is being rewarded for her “cheerleading.”

 

You are probably right. On all accounts. ;)

[Responder]

borntocruz,

 

I doubt her posts on this board have gotten her any benefits on-board. I am guessing that her benefits come from frequent cruising or spending $.

In my opinion, her board personality has had a negative impact on the Regent brand.

I can’t imagine that the Regent executives are happy about her suggestion that “ Regent attorneys read CC and do not take well to threats or intentionally putting Regent in a bad light.” (It didn’t stop her from posting untruthful statements about Seabourn.)

In addition, on this thread, http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1184369&page=2 her buddy Frank Del Rio made one of his rare appearances on this board to say; “TravelCat2 comments are more often than not, disturbing, and more importantly, not true, and this case regarding air travel is no exception.”

So, I don’t think she is being rewarded for her “cheerleading.”

 

Funny you should bring up that thread as it contains a bit more if you read #22 as well....

 

This was TC's response when Regent didn't respond to passengers begging for information....

 

"I strongly suggest that you (and anyone that agrees with you) block my posts. Or, at the least, ignore me for another six months. Have you absolutely no understanding how the lack of response from Regent is affecting their passengers? These passengers are going through a difficult time. While Regent may not be able to solve their problem, they certainly can make a statement that is supportive of their passengers! Again, this is not the time to blast those of us who actually care about what is going on."

__________________