Ebola scare?

[kwazi07]

Where did you hear this? And therefore, because they are Liberian, they are immediately prone to catching ebola? After many months on the ship, not being anywhere close to the affected areas?

Again, very well said. Although it is a serious issue, Ebola is not the huge threat everyone makes it out to be. I saw an article on Huff Post that said that we should worry more about the flu, ghonoreea and some new polio like virus that is paralyzing kids and teens.

[Orison]

Where did you hear this? And therefore, because they are Liberian, they are immediately prone to catching ebola? After many months on the ship, not being anywhere close to the affected areas?

 

Cruise Law News

[MrsPhoenix91]

It's more than a scare now. The good thing is those employees from Liberia and the affected areas are not having their contracts renewed, and being send home when their contract is done.

 

Please stop spreading rumors.:mad:

[kwazi07]

Cruise Law News

Makes sense :rolleyes:

[chengkp75]

Cruise Law News

 

First off, you actually believe anything this guy says? He's my morning chuckle given how much he gets wrong or distorts.

 

So, going for my morning chuckle, here's what he said:

 

Quote:

 

 

To my knowledge, there are no cruise lines which routinely hire from Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea.

In fact, I have never met or even heard of crew members from these countries.

I anticipate that if there are any crew members from these countries, they will not be be re-hired when they return home on vacation.

Miami-based cruise lines enacted such hiring freezes on crew members from affected areas during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in the past.

 

Unquote.

 

He does not know of any employees from the affected countries. He anticipates (meaning this is his own personal opinion) that if there are any they won't be rehired. And no where does he say anything about them being sent home from the ship. No where does it say this is fact, or that it will happen in the future. It is his opinion, and only his opinion.

 

If you are going to draw information from questionable sources, at least try to get the information correct.

[Orison]

I guess I can copy and paste his words too:

 

 

 

Cruise Law News shared a link.

Yesterday at 7:27pm ·

Are there any crew members from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea working on cruise ships? Sorry to tell you this, but the cruise lines are going to send you on vacation and not rehire you . . .

[Havingfun2010]

The OP was asking about the Caribbean, not Africa. And perhaps they are concerned that an upcoming cruise itinerary may be changed due to Ebola. Fair question given the events of the last couple months.

 

Western Africa and Caribbean are attached how? The two items are not connected. That is like asking should I drive to Florida, because Hawaii has an outbreak. I was just wondering what exactly they were looking for, since Carnival does not cruise to Western Africa so how would a Caribbean itinerary be affected by a disease on the other side of the Ocean?

[chengkp75]

I guess I can copy and paste his words too:

 

 

 

Cruise Law News shared a link.

Yesterday at 7:27pm ·

Are there any crew members from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea working on cruise ships? Sorry to tell you this, but the cruise lines are going to send you on vacation and not rehire you . . .

 

Wow, Cruise Law News and Facebook together.

 

What link is he sharing? He makes this statement, without any supporting facts, and then links to his webpage post that I've quoted. Did you actually read the link, or just accept his statement as gospel? This is just the kind of grandstanding and fearmongering he uses. He posts a statement on facebook that has no bearing on the post he links it to, hoping that no one will spend the time to actually read the post.

 

Social media manipulation at its best.

[bgh10788]

Western Africa and Caribbean are attached how? The two items are not connected. That is like asking should I drive to Florida, because Hawaii has an outbreak. I was just wondering what exactly they were looking for, since Carnival does not cruise to Western Africa so how would a Caribbean itinerary be affected by a disease on the other side of the Ocean?

 

Well hurricanes usually develop off the west coast of Africa and then travel to the Caribbean. If the wind is blowing off of Africa, some bodily fluids could get sucked up in there. Then guess what you have...an EBOLACANE!!!! (Trademark pending)

 

I can't believe fox news or CNN haven't picked up on this yet with all the fear mongering that's going on. :rolleyes:

 

But seriously, the fact is, if there isn't ebola near you, you can't catch it. Plain and simple. Yes, precautions need to be taken to prevent the spread, but it's not airborne and there have only been 2 confirmed cases outside of Africa.

Edited October 10, 2014 by bgh10788

[kwazi07]

Well hurricanes usually develop off the west coast of Africa and then travel to the Caribbean. If the wind is blowing off of Africa, some bodily fluids could get sucked up in there. Then guess what you have...an EBOLACAIN!!!! (Trademark pending)

 

I can't believe fox news or CNN haven't picked up on this yet with all the fear mongering that's going on. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't be surprised if this shows up in Fox or even Cruise Law News :rolleyes:

[BeagleOne]

An Ebolacane! Good one! Hope it takes out some of those annoying "reporters" who stand out in the wind and rain to tell us it's windy and raining. ;)

[jetta8300]

Western Africa and Caribbean are attached how? The two items are not connected. That is like asking should I drive to Florida, because Hawaii has an outbreak. I was just wondering what exactly they were looking for, since Carnival does not cruise to Western Africa so how would a Caribbean itinerary be affected by a disease on the other side of the Ocean?

 

I think the OP was possibly referring to the numerous amount of news articles saying that the Caribbean/Latin America/Dominica/Mexico/Central America is possibly the next hotspot for Ebola. Basically the theory is that the poorer countries with terrible healthcare systems will be where it spreads to because people will travel there and go undetected. That it could even be there now as we would have no idea... and so on and so on, until it reaches the US through Mexicans fleeing the virus through the US border. That's the "worst case scenario" of how this is going to go.

 

Many news outlets reporting this same type thing over the last few days.

http://www.caribbean360.com/news/ebola-outbreak-in-the-caribbean-could-cause-mass-migration-says-top-us-military-official

Edited October 10, 2014 by jetta8300

[Badfinger]

Western Africa and Caribbean are attached how? The two items are not connected. That is like asking should I drive to Florida, because Hawaii has an outbreak. I was just wondering what exactly they were looking for, since Carnival does not cruise to Western Africa so how would a Caribbean itinerary be affected by a disease on the other side of the Ocean?

 

Good to know you passed 4th grade geography. However, land masses do not have to be contiguous for a disease to migrate from one to another. These things called airplanes can transport people over large bodies of water. And recent events have shown that the operators of these airplanes really don't do all that much screening of their passengers. Now add in he fact these carribean countries are generally poor and with poor sanitary conditions. It is not that great of stretch to see how those countries could be next in line for an outbreak. And if the cruising population, the majority of which do not even know this cruise critic website exists, decide not to cruise to the carribean, the the cruise lines will adjust to this, possibly changing itineraries. So yeah, the OPs question is reasonable.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Badfinger

[Isasprings]

Well hurricanes usually develop off the west coast of Africa and then travel to the Caribbean. If the wind is blowing off of Africa, some bodily fluids could get sucked up in there. Then guess what you have...an EBOLACANE!!!! (Trademark pending)

 

I can't believe fox news or CNN haven't picked up on this yet with all the fear mongering that's going on. :rolleyes:

 

But seriously, the fact is, if there isn't ebola near you, you can't catch it. Plain and simple. Yes, precautions need to be taken to prevent the spread, but it's not airborne and there have only been 2 confirmed cases outside of Africa.

 

Live in Miami and I like this EBOCALANE!

[luvtheships]

That is so sad.

 

Yes but what is sadder yet is that he knew he was sick and his that fact in order to enter the USA

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RuthlessBoss]

Yes but what is sadder yet is that he knew he was sick and his that fact in order to enter the USA

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

He knew he had contact but lied.

 

There IS a positive side to all this. It started with one. It woke up everybody about sanitation and care. The airports are implementing new procedures and likely more cleaning of seats between flights. Hospitals are more alert.

 

It didn't start here with masses of people all at once, so that's a plus. But it did wake people up. In the long run, this scare might help trim down flu epidemics even on cruise ships.

[njasmine]

Well the Coast Guard is changing the rules for all vessel in preparing for Ebola. Here's the link.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/10/us-coast-guard-had-watchful-eye-on-incoming-ships-for-ebola-threat-since-summer/

[ldlewis45]

I think we need to remember that the areas that Ebola is hitting hardest are extremely poor areas with little to no real sanitation standards. The fact is, people that are likely to come in contact with this disease are very much unlikely to just pack up and decide to go on vacation in the Caribbean, and even less likely to do so if they are exhibiting symptoms of the disease.

 

One, they're unlikely to be able to afford it.

 

Two, if they're already exhibiting symptoms that indicate the disease is actively contagious, they likely aren't going to be ABLE to fly, as they'd be sweating severely and having explosive diarrhea and vomiting, let alone allowed inside an airport (your temperature is checked multiple times before you even approach your gate at the Liberian airports).

 

Three, if they somehow did manage to make it to the Caribbean and are exhibiting symptoms, they're extremely unlikely to be out-and-about in the tourist areas that cruise passengers are likely to be in (unless you make a habit of hanging out at the hospitals and clinics on your vacation). If they're well enough to actually travel, you're extremely unlikely to catch Ebola from them. The major risk lies when they're no longer physically able to travel because they're so weak from an extremely high fever, sweating buckets, and vomiting and having diarrhea everywhere.

 

Is it possible? I guess, but probably less likely than you going snorkeling and getting hit by lightning, attacked by a shark, and hit by a boat, all at the same time.

Edited October 11, 2014 by ldlewis45

[RuthlessBoss]

:confused:

I think we need to remember that the areas that Ebola is hitting hardest are extremely poor areas with little to no real sanitation standards. The fact is, people that are likely to come in contact with this disease are very much unlikely to just pack up and decide to go on vacation in the Caribbean, and even less likely to do so if they are exhibiting symptoms of the disease.

 

One, they're unlikely to be able to afford it.

 

Two, if they're already exhibiting symptoms that indicate the disease is actively contagious, they likely aren't going to be ABLE to fly, as they'd be sweating severely and having explosive diarrhea and vomiting, let alone allowed inside an airport (your temperature is checked multiple times before you even approach your gate at the Liberian airports).

 

Three, if they somehow did manage to make it to the Caribbean and are exhibiting symptoms, they're extremely unlikely to be out-and-about in the tourist areas that cruise passengers are likely to be in (unless you make a habit of hanging out at the hospitals and clinics on your vacation). If they're well enough to actually travel, you're extremely unlikely to catch Ebola from them. The major risk lies when they're no longer physically able to travel because they're so weak from an extremely high fever, sweating buckets, and vomiting and having diarrhea everywhere.

 

Is it possible? I guess, but probably less likely than you going snorkeling and getting hit by lightning, attacked by a shark, and hit by a boat, all at the same time.

 

The people who came back with ebola were not poor. :confused:

[ldlewis45]

:confused:

 

The people who came back with ebola were not poor. :confused:

But they were in very poor areas, helping the people that were stricken with it. And we're talking one person, maybe a couple that traveled while having the disease unknowingly (out of the 4,000+ that have died from the disease). The others were aid workers who were transported back while quarantined, knowing that they already had the disease. The nurse in Spain that caught it from the priest violated quarantine procedure by touching her bare face with a gloved hand.

[chengkp75]

Well the Coast Guard is changing the rules for all vessel in preparing for Ebola. Here's the link.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/10/us-coast-guard-had-watchful-eye-on-incoming-ships-for-ebola-threat-since-summer/

 

It's not that they are "changing the rules" for ships, but that they are applying existing protocols to a potential danger. Neither the national "Maritime Security Information Bulletin", nor the Long Island zone "Area Maritime Security Bulletin" have any new regulations in them, they are just informational bulletins to Masters and ship owners/agents reminding them of existing requirements. The review of ENOA (electronic notice of arrival) that all ships must submit 72 hours before entering US waters has been done since 9/11 when the procedure was implemented, and before that when it was done manually upon a ship arriving in port. Prior to this ebola outbreak, the procedure was used (without the media fanfare) for cases of other infectious diseases (SARS, bird flu). The USCG is actually merely the clearinghouse for ship information, as CBP and USPH have the lead on clearing passengers and crew for entry into the US and for preventing the importation of infectious diseases into the US respectively.

[RuthlessBoss]

But they were in very poor areas, helping the people that were stricken with it. And we're talking one person, maybe a couple that traveled while having the disease unknowingly (out of the 4,000+ that have died from the disease). The others were aid workers who were transported back while quarantined, knowing that they already had the disease. The nurse in Spain that caught it from the priest violated quarantine procedure by touching her bare face with a gloved hand.

 

I responded to post #93. :rolleyes:

[ldlewis45]

I responded to post #93. :rolleyes:

 

And I responded to post #94. :confused:

Edited October 11, 2014 by ldlewis45

[jetta8300]

I think we need to remember that the areas that Ebola is hitting hardest are extremely poor areas with little to no real sanitation standards. The fact is, people that are likely to come in contact with this disease are very much unlikely to just pack up and decide to go on vacation in the Caribbean, and even less likely to do so if they are exhibiting symptoms of the disease.

 

One, they're unlikely to be able to afford it.

 

Two, if they're already exhibiting symptoms that indicate the disease is actively contagious, they likely aren't going to be ABLE to fly, as they'd be sweating severely and having explosive diarrhea and vomiting, let alone allowed inside an airport (your temperature is checked multiple times before you even approach your gate at the Liberian airports).

 

Three, if they somehow did manage to make it to the Caribbean and are exhibiting symptoms, they're extremely unlikely to be out-and-about in the tourist areas that cruise passengers are likely to be in (unless you make a habit of hanging out at the hospitals and clinics on your vacation). If they're well enough to actually travel, you're extremely unlikely to catch Ebola from them. The major risk lies when they're no longer physically able to travel because they're so weak from an extremely high fever, sweating buckets, and vomiting and having diarrhea everywhere.

 

Is it possible? I guess, but probably less likely than you going snorkeling and getting hit by lightning, attacked by a shark, and hit by a boat, all at the same time.

 

 

i respectfully, but COMPLETELY disagree with you. Thomas Eric Duncan did not come to Texas for a "vacation". He came here because his girlfriend lived there. He also could afford a plane ticket. People do not just come to the Caribbean to "vacation", and they do not come when they are always showing signs of the illness. They come for business. They come for relatives. He is the perfect example. No fever for days after he landed in texas. The problem is the people NOT showing symptoms until days after they reach their destination. Do you think people in West Africa have ZERO relatives in third world countries? I would be willing to bet lots of them do, and many of them CAN afford a plane ticket, just as Thomas Duncan did.

 

Do you honestly think, that if his girlfriend Louise lived in Dominica, or Antigua, or Belize, or Hunduras, that he would have shown up at an ER and immediately received Ebola care? NO. (The Texas hospital didn't even do that, which could have cost other lives!) Do you think his family would have been quaranteened, along with every other soul he came into contact with? NO. Do you think that his apartment would have been sanitized? NO. In that scenario, his whole family would have probably been infected, (which they still could be here in the US...) along with every doctor in the hospital who would have treated him, possibly along with other people he came into contact with. And thus starts the chain of events for it spreading throughout all 3rd world countries due to a horrible medical system. Again, it could be there now and we would have NO CLUE.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Edited October 11, 2014 by jetta8300

[ldlewis45]

i respectfully, but COMPLETELY disagree with you. Thomas Eric Duncan did not come to Texas for a "vacation". He came here because his girlfriend lived there. He also could afford a plane ticket. People do not just come to the Caribbean to "vacation", and they do not come when they are always showing signs of the illness. They come for business. They come for relatives. He is the perfect example. No fever for days after he landed in texas. The problem is the people NOT showing symptoms until days after they reach their destination. Do you think people in West Africa have ZERO relatives in third world countries? I would be willing to bet lots of them do, and many of them CAN afford a plane ticket, just as Thomas Duncan did.

 

Do you honestly think, that if his girlfriend Louise lived in Dominica, or Antigua, or Belize, or Hunduras, that he would have shown up at an ER and immediately received Ebola care? NO. Do you think his family would have been quaranteened, along with every other soul he came into contact with? NO. Do you think that his apartment would have been sanitized? NO. In that scenario, his whole family would have probably been infected, along with every doctor in the hospital who would have treated him. And thus starts the chain of events for it spreading throughout all 3rd world countries due to a horrible medical system. Again, it could be there now and we would have NO CLUE.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Regardless, they still aren't likely to be in tourist areas. I work for CBP, I'm fully aware that people come to visit family members. I've processed enough of them to be aware of it. I can tell you that the vast majority of people that are traveling to visit family are not the people that are in a situation to catch Ebola.

 

Let me ask you this: Have you seen the pictures of the areas that are being hit by Ebola? The vast majority of these people aren't traveling, whether it's to visit family or to go on vacation. They can't afford electricity, running water, or toilets, let alone an international ticket. The reason that Ebola is hitting in these regions so badly is, in part, due to extreme poverty, which is correlated with extremely poor sanitation, traditional burial practices and the fact that the families tend to care for their ill relatives.

 

All "3rd world countries" are not equal in their "3rd-world-ness." Compare Liberia to one of the countries that you mentioned. Statistically, Liberians are far, far worse off than the citizens of any of those countries that you mentioned. The only statistics where Liberians are doing better is that they spend less money on healthcare (although, with the current crisis, that's not actually a good thing), consumption of oil, and consumption of electricity (due to lack of infrastructure). We're talking decades shorter life-spans, much higher birth rates and infant mortality rates, far lower incomes, etc. (That's per http://www.ifitweremyhome.com, for whomever is interested, since it's a pretty cool website to compare the standings of different countries.) I'm pretty sure someone would probably have a better outcome from Ebola in all the countries that you mentioned than in Liberia. Since the virus has a death toll of up to 90%, we'd be hearing about it if it were spreading throughout the Caribbean, since a bunch of people suddenly keeling over in countries with high tourism usually hits the news pretty quickly.

 

To freak out to the extent of canceling a cruise that spends a day in each port for the fear of Ebola traveling across the world and you happening to come into contact with someone that's contagious is just paranoia. You're far more likely to be injured in a scooter accident, drown, or be attacked in port while in the Caribbean than to catch Ebola.