The Way Forward

[ski ww]

On 4/13/2020 at 9:08 PM, Fredric22 said:

I think a lot of you are way too pessimistic about the future.  This is 2020 and literally the entire world is working on both treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.  A vaccine is not our best hope to get our economy back up and running in the short term.  The best bet we have to do this are proven treatments that work for those who become ill.  Once you have treatments in place, COVID-19 becomes another flu or common viral illness that does not spell death for those who are high-risk.  While it will take some months to get these treatments (drugs) to market, they will most likely arrive before a vaccine.  Hopefully we can have some of these treatments in place by the summer or very early Fall.  

 

Now, with that said, cruise lines will need to make some changes.  As testing technology improves and becomes more accurate and cheaper, cruise lines (in my opinion) should test for COVID-19 as a pre-boarding procedure.  Crew would be tested on a rotating basis every 7 days and of course ships would have the testing capabilities to do the rapid 5-minute test.  Any crew who test positive would immediately be isolated.  That doesn't take the risk of getting COVID-19 on the ship away completely, but it certainly does a lot more than just doing temperature checks (and they will do those too, of course).  There is also some technology being tested in the UAE at airports that asses someone's overall general health (looks at temp, heart rate, vitals, etc.) and can apparently tell if someone is sick.  These types of technological solutions will only get more important in the future.  I also think that cruise lines will continue to ask for doctor's approval from those over a certain age.  While I think 70 may be a bit young, I have certainly seen some guests who were clearly either too frail or sick to be on a cruise (or outside of a medical environment to be honest).  It really is unfair to put the burden on the cruise line to have to take care of these guests if they fall ill.  Of course, emergencies would still happen but the point would be to mitigate risk. 

 

As for on-board the ship, you can certainly count on more hand sanitizing, general cleaning, and a full-service buffet.  However, any more than that, I don't think would actually work.  Face masks, social distancing, and other invasive measures simply don't work in a leisure environment.  If things are truly that severe, then cruises will continue to pause operations until the experience can get back to at least 80% of what it once was.  Behind the scenes, there should probably be a few cabins dedicated to medical isolation if crew or guests become ill with either COVID-19 or any other contagious illness. 

 

For me, I would rather go through an extra hour or so of screening at the pier than to have my on-board experience be a shadow of what it once was.  I do think cruise lines should wait to continue cruises until the Fall 2020 season.  This will allow society to catch a bit of a break from cruising psychologically and allow the cruise lines to really come up with, implement, and market these new strategies.  I think the worst thing they could do would be to open up prematurely, and then get an outbreak on board, and then have to shut down again.  They will lose all credibility if they force it and start too soon not to mention have another PR mess to contend with.  

 

Eventually COVID-19 will subside in one way or another, and the industry will move on.  Some changes that take place this year will be lasting and others will probably not last.   During the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, I am sure many people thought shaking hands would be a thing of the past.  Social distancing became the norm for almost 10 months. People wore masks, avoided physical contact, and didn't attend gatherings (sound familiar?).  What happened?  Well, we all know that shaking hands came back.  Our society has short memories, even after a pandemic like that, which killed 600,000+ Americans.  

 

 

I think you are being overly optimistic. The world is now  and for ever a different place, before COVID 19 and after. The same as the world changed and is different from before & after 9/11. My thoughts are that cruising as we know it is over.  I agree cruising will come back but not in 2020, late spring or early summer 2021 at the earliest.  

[Lazz]

In the end, it will be the lawyers that make the decisions.

 

[Fredric22]

2 hours ago, ski ww said:

I think you are being overly optimistic. The world is now  and for ever a different place, before COVID 19 and after. The same as the world changed and is different from before & after 9/11. My thoughts are that cruising as we know it is over.  I agree cruising will come back but not in 2020, late spring or early summer 2021 at the earliest.  

You can call it overly optimistic and I will call it realistic.  But at the end of the day, no one knows for sure what will happen.  I do disagree, however, that cruising as we know it is over.  We thought after 9/11 that air travel would be over as we knew it.  Read some first-hand accounts from the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and people thought that going to theaters, restaurants, etc. would come to an end.  Spoiler alert... they didn't.  Things will be different for a while, and we probably won't forget this event any time in the near future.  But eventually, society adapts and moves on and some things stick and other things will be forgotten.  It may be tough to see it during the "fog" but it will lift and people will continue to be people and will want to do the things that make them happy. 

[Qcruise]

Well said Fredric.......I agree with your entire statement and hopeful at some point all society and economic sectors will return to "business as usual".   The problem I see with vaccinations,  what percentage of our society won't vaccinate now for the flu...?   It's like 30% , and the people I know that were hospitalized this year for what we thought was flu still won't get a shot.  Here in California I really think the earlier timeframe might be true and we've got some herd immunity going on.   As you say it's the treatments and routine proticols to treat this along with a vaccine that will change things.

[DaveOKC]

21 minutes ago, Qcruise said:

Well said Fredric.......I agree with your entire statement and hopeful at some point all society and economic sectors will return to "business as usual".   The problem I see with vaccinations,  what percentage of our society won't vaccinate now for the flu...?   It's like 30% , and the people I know that were hospitalized this year for what we thought was flu still won't get a shot.  Here in California I really think the earlier timeframe might be true and we've got some herd immunity going on.   As you say it's the treatments and routine proticols to treat this along with a vaccine that will change things.

Obviously this is a bit different and far more serious situation.  IMO, 90-95% of people will line up to get the vaccine. 

 

[Fredric22]

24 minutes ago, Qcruise said:

Well said Fredric.......I agree with your entire statement and hopeful at some point all society and economic sectors will return to "business as usual".   The problem I see with vaccinations,  what percentage of our society won't vaccinate now for the flu...?   It's like 30% , and the people I know that were hospitalized this year for what we thought was flu still won't get a shot.  Here in California I really think the earlier timeframe might be true and we've got some herd immunity going on.   As you say it's the treatments and routine proticols to treat this along with a vaccine that will change things.

There is also talk that anti-body drugs will be released by the end of the summer/early fall.  These antibodies can be injected to keep someone from getting the virus for about 2 months or given to someone with the virus to help fight it off.  If these drugs do what they promise, they will be "game changers" in the near future.  Now, will cruise lines require guests to receive one of these shots before coming on board?  It is possible!  They certainly may be required for crew members.  I truly believe the answer to many of the issues will come from science and technology. 

[Tampa Girl]

3 hours ago, Fredric22 said:

There is also talk that anti-body drugs will be released by the end of the summer/early fall.  These antibodies can be injected to keep someone from getting the virus for about 2 months or given to someone with the virus to help fight it off.  If these drugs do what they promise, they will be "game changers" in the near future.  Now, will cruise lines require guests to receive one of these shots before coming on board?  It is possible!  They certainly may be required for crew members.  I truly believe the answer to many of the issues will come from science and technology. 

 

There is no solid evidence yet, however, that antibodies will work.  The common cold is a corona virus, and antibodies have not worked very well there.  

[npcl]

1 minute ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

There is no solid evidence yet, however, that antibodies will work.  The common cold is a corona virus, and antibodies have not worked very well there.  

Largely because what we call the common cold is not one virus, but a number of them, including some strains of Rhinoviruses as well as milder strains of coronaviruses..  So you might have antibodies for the last one you caught only to run into a different one.

[Tampa Girl]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Largely because what we call the common cold is not one virus, but a number of them, including some strains of Rhinoviruses as well as milder strains of coronaviruses..  So you might have antibodies for the last one you caught only to run into a different one.

  

Yes, and that there could be a similar problem with COVID if it has already started to mutate.  The experts are, understandably, being very cautious about coming to a premature conclusions.  They have said that they need more time and more recovered patients before coming to any conclusion.  We will continue to hope and pray. . .

[npcl]

37 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

  

Yes, and that there could be a similar problem with COVID if it has already started to mutate.  The experts are, understandably, being very cautious about coming to a premature conclusions.  They have said that they need more time and more recovered patients before coming to any conclusion.  We will continue to hope and pray. . .

The virus's that cause the common cold are not mutations they are entirely different, including totally different classes coronavirus vs rhinovirus

[CGTNORMANDIE]

In 1918 there was a virulent pandemic called Spanish Flu.  It killed millions of people worldwide.  By 1920 it had practically disappeared even though there were no medications or vaccines.  People simply built up antibodies and put Spanish Flu in the rear view mirror.  Our antibodies will multiply faster due to advanced medical technology and interim treatments.  We will hopefully work our way out of this sooner than later and set up the protocols necessary to continue cruising.  

[npcl]

10 minutes ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

In 1918 there was a virulent pandemic called Spanish Flu.  It killed millions of people worldwide.  By 1920 it had practically disappeared even though there were no medications or vaccines.  People simply built up antibodies and put Spanish Flu in the rear view mirror.  Our antibodies will multiply faster due to advanced medical technology and interim treatments.  We will hopefully work our way out of this sooner than later and set up the protocols necessary to continue cruising.  

Of course to build up antibodies one must first get infected.  At this point the experts are estimating that in the US maybe 2-5 percent of the population has been infected (probably closer to the 2 not the five). With maybe professions with lots of contact health care workers, supermarket checkout, mass transit, etc. might be as high as 10%.   Not anywhere close to stop or even slow down the virus on its own.

 

Even with the Spanish Flu which infected far far more people than this has so far, it still lasted two years. Also unlike now the social distancing in 1918 was hit or miss.  Some cities did it, some did not. The medical systems then were pretty limited.  Most of the country did not have easy access to a doctor.  No way to exchange information to identify a wave so often even when distancing was ordered it was too late.  AS a result distancing was far less effective and a fairly high percentage of the population was infected during that two year period.

 

If this last two years there will not be a cruise industry as we know it today.

Edited April 17, 2020 by npcl

[CGTNORMANDIE]

19 minutes ago, npcl said:

Of course to build up antibodies one must first get infected.  At this point the experts are estimating that in the US maybe 2-5 percent of the population has been infected (probably closer to the 2 not the five). With maybe professions with lots of contact health care workers, supermarket checkout, mass transit, etc. might be as high as 10%.   Not anywhere close to stop or even slow down the virus on its own.

 

Even with the Spanish Flu which infected far far more people than this has so far, it still lasted two years. Also unlike now the social distancing in 1918 was hit or miss.  Some cities did it, some did not. The medical systems then were pretty limited.  Most of the country did not have easy access to a doctor.  No way to exchange information to identify a wave so often even when distancing was ordered it was too late.  AS a result distancing was far less effective and a fairly high percentage of the population was infected during that two year period.

 

If this last two years there will not be a cruise industry as we know it today.

Interestingly enough...I did some digging and went into the archives of my hometown newspaper and found some interesting information.  The flu epidemic of 1918 was taken very seriously and people were wearing masks and all public assemblies were banned.  Any home or apartment building with flu was quarantined.    Traffic and human movement were kept to a minimum.  Separate hospital sections were set up to quarantine the flu victims from the healthy.  That flu was spread due to the soldiers returning from Europe in the winter of 1918-1919.  I read an account of more than 100 soldiers dying in a few weeks at Ft. Devens in Massachusetts after returning home.  That flu did dissipate after 1919.   

[npcl]

1 hour ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

Interestingly enough...I did some digging and went into the archives of my hometown newspaper and found some interesting information.  The flu epidemic of 1918 was taken very seriously and people were wearing masks and all public assemblies were banned.  Any home or apartment building with flu was quarantined.    Traffic and human movement were kept to a minimum.  Separate hospital sections were set up to quarantine the flu victims from the healthy.  That flu was spread due to the soldiers returning from Europe in the winter of 1918-1919.  I read an account of more than 100 soldiers dying in a few weeks at Ft. Devens in Massachusetts after returning home.  That flu did dissipate after 1919.   

Current thought is the the flu actually started in Kansas and taken to Europe by the US troops deploying there.  The first set of multiple victims was at an Army base in Kasas.

[Lazz]

20 hours ago, Qcruise said:

Well said Fredric.......I agree with your entire statement and hopeful at some point all society and economic sectors will return to "business as usual".   The problem I see with vaccinations,  what percentage of our society won't vaccinate now for the flu...?   It's like 30% , and the people I know that were hospitalized this year for what we thought was flu still won't get a shot.  Here in California I really think the earlier timeframe might be true and we've got some herd immunity going on.   As you say it's the treatments and routine proticols to treat this along with a vaccine that will change things.

There is talk that those who took this year's flu shot were more susceptible to COVID-19.  You may see a noticeable reduction in the number of people taking the flu shot in the coming years is this is not proven to be wrong. 

[TJR_0323]

41 minutes ago, Lazz said:

There is talk that those who took this year's flu shot were more susceptible to COVID-19.  You may see a noticeable reduction in the number of people taking the flu shot in the coming years is this is not proven to be wrong. 

False talk (I wish Facebook would cease to exist !)

 

From USA Today 4/1/2020

Alexander said that despite the citations in Facebook posts, academic research has also not shown a connection between the flu shot and coronavirus. 

The Hong Kong study in question, she said, was a small study with limitations that shouldn't be extrapolated. The coronavirus mentioned in both studies is also not the new strain of coronavirus that has become a global pandemic.

[cruisemom42]

56 minutes ago, Lazz said:

There is talk that those who took this year's flu shot were more susceptible to COVID-19.  You may see a noticeable reduction in the number of people taking the flu shot in the coming years is this is not proven to be wrong. 

 

I can't believe anyone would believe garbage like that.  It's false, and potentially dangerous if it scares people from getting the flu shot.  Source?

 

I've worked in the vaccine industry and I can't fathom how someone could think this is even possible.  

 

Edited to add:  Ah, just read the post above mine. Facebook. That explains a lot....

Edited April 17, 2020 by cruisemom42

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

56 minutes ago, Lazz said:

There is talk that those who took this year's flu shot were more susceptible to COVID-19.  You may see a noticeable reduction in the number of people taking the flu shot in the coming years is this is not proven to be wrong. 

"There is talk ..."

 

Baseless nonsense by non-scientists? The loudmouth neighbor?  The tinfoil hat lady on Facebook? Breitbart and Hannity?

[welwyngirl]

On 4/13/2020 at 3:51 PM, jimdalva said:

In 1 year we will have forgotten all about this.

I doubt everyone will.  Especially if they have lost someone to this disease.

[KirkNC]

21 hours ago, Fredric22 said:

You can call it overly optimistic and I will call it realistic.  But at the end of the day, no one knows for sure what will happen.  I do disagree, however, that cruising as we know it is over.  We thought after 9/11 that air travel would be over as we knew it.  Read some first-hand accounts from the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and people thought that going to theaters, restaurants, etc. would come to an end.  Spoiler alert... they didn't.  Things will be different for a while, and we probably won't forget this event any time in the near future.  But eventually, society adapts and moves on and some things stick and other things will be forgotten.  It may be tough to see it during the "fog" but it will lift and people will continue to be people and will want to do the things that make them happy. 

Let’s rendezvous in twelve months and see who was right, the pessimists or the optimists.  I am in the former camp.  I think we might still be dealing with this virus in some form next summer (2021).

Edited April 17, 2020 by KirkNC

[Galley Slave]

The crews for the Alaska fishing fleets are going to quarantine in a hotel for two weeks, monitored with guards and daily temperature checks by nurses.  Two days prior to departure they will have tests for Covid 19 and take tests with the boats.  They next step is to keep the processing plants from having an outbreak.  This is their attempt to "avoid what happened on cruise ships."  This is in today's Seattle Times.   

[Btimmer]

One item mentioned on the Travelling With Bruce YT channel yesterday was a report that Emirates airlines will require a CV-19 test at check-in in Dubai before boarding a flight.  It's supposed to be a 10 minute turnaround.  If this is true, it could become part of the new norm for cruising.

[Fredric22]

1 minute ago, Btimmer said:

One item mentioned on the Travelling With Bruce YT channel yesterday was a report that Emirates airlines will require a CV-19 test at check-in in Dubai before boarding a flight.  It's supposed to be a 10 minute turnaround.  If this is true, it could become part of the new norm for cruising.

Yes, I have already predicted this will be put in place for cruising.  They are also testing the hypothesis that dogs can actually "sniff out" people who have COVID-19, even if they asymptomatic.  This is very similar to dogs who sniff for drugs or explosive materials.  Apparently, dogs can sniff out a number of different diseases.  If this indeed works, you may be getting sniffed soon at a port near you!  

 

As you can see, our world is changing rapidly.  Science and technology are on the fast track to getting real solutions in place for getting the world through this.  Just yesterday, some new information about an antiviral drug came out that showed some great results.  As the days and weeks go on, we will continue to see how our ingenuity will combat this virus.  

[npcl]

38 minutes ago, Fredric22 said:

Yes, I have already predicted this will be put in place for cruising.  They are also testing the hypothesis that dogs can actually "sniff out" people who have COVID-19, even if they asymptomatic.  This is very similar to dogs who sniff for drugs or explosive materials.  Apparently, dogs can sniff out a number of different diseases.  If this indeed works, you may be getting sniffed soon at a port near you!  

 

As you can see, our world is changing rapidly.  Science and technology are on the fast track to getting real solutions in place for getting the world through this.  Just yesterday, some new information about an antiviral drug came out that showed some great results.  As the days and weeks go on, we will continue to see how our ingenuity will combat this virus.  

If you are referring  to Remdesivir I would not classify it as great news.  I would put it as a qualified seems to be positive news.

It was based upon  the a presentation by to Doctors at the university of Chicago about what they are seeing in the patients they are treating with responding.  Now while one might consider that good news it is not an analysis of the trial which will come out at the end of the month.  The other consideration is that Remdesivir also has a pretty severe side effect profile of its own with 25% of the patients having severe side effects up to and including full kidney failure.  So while the news, on the surface seems to be positive, even if approved Remdesivir, will be an infusion drug for those at the very serious level of symptoms. If the study does generate good data, it will shorten ICU time, reduce ventilator requirements, and hopefully, impact the death rate. But it does not signify a break through that will eliminate the need for social distancing.

[Fredric22]

23 minutes ago, npcl said:

If you are referring  to Remdesivir I would not classify it as great news.  I would put it as a qualified seems to be positive news.

It was based upon  the a presentation by to Doctors at the university of Chicago about what they are seeing in the patients they are treating with responding.  Now while one might consider that good news it is not an analysis of the trial which will come out at the end of the month.  The other consideration is that Remdesivir also has a pretty severe side effect profile of its own with 25% of the patients having severe side effects up to and including full kidney failure.  So while the news, on the surface seems to be positive, even if approved Remdesivir, will be an infusion drug for those at the very serious level of symptoms. If the study does generate good data, it will shorten ICU time, reduce ventilator requirements, and hopefully, impact the death rate. But it does not signify a break through that will eliminate the need for social distancing.

As you may notice I said "great results", not "great news."  It is certainly encouraging news from 1 particular drug.  As you may know, there are 30+ other drugs being studied right now and many of them have some very encouraging early results.  This is in addition to drugs that are currently being developed to treat COVID-19 specifically.  Remdesivir may only be used for those who have advanced disease and that is OK.  If we have a way to treat those who are most at risk, then the death rate for COVID-19 comes down significantly and we are able to keep these patients off ventilators and get them out of ICUs and hospitals quicker.  That changes the dynamic of how we look at this disease.  Now, couple that with some drug interventions that work well for early stages of the virus (prevent it from replicating), then you really change how this all plays out.  Social distancing to prevent a non-deadly virus starts to look silly, just as we didn't socially distance in order to prevent influenza.  Do you see how drugs/treatments will make a huge difference here?