Don’t cruise until after you have had a vaccine for COVID-19

[TeeRick]

3 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

While the serology tests aren't infallible, they are a great step in the right direction. With results available within 10 minutes, the lead taken by the Emirates is one that the CLIA and its members should following, as should airlines everywhere.

Yes and the rapid antibody tests will be manufactured in the millions.  That will be key.

[OuiOnboard]

Glad we cruised lots "when cruisin' was cruisin' ". Would consider one in the future when an effective vaccine is available. Would also look at the other effective alternatives as they are brought forward. We'll see.

[markeb]

2 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Sorry for repeating here as I know I have commented extensively on this topic elsewhere. 

 

I think that if an effective vaccine is actually developed it will be initially very limited to global hot spots and to those at greatest risk.  Manufacturing and distribution will be initially very limited.  Most luxury cruise ship passengers will be low priority.  I'm not trying to rain on the parade but I think waiting for a vaccine means you might never cruise again or not cruise for a number of years.  It is possible that a therapeutic approach against the virus might come before a vaccine (which might never come unfortunately).  A good anti-viral therapy would also help tremendously in lieu of a vaccine.   I think the greatest hope is in natural immunity (antibodies) against the virus if they are proven to provide protection from re-infection.  So maybe cruising might require in the future an antibody test and a certificate that one has positive antibodies as a requirement for boarding a cruise ship.

 

And most likely the first vaccines will be for public health use to up the herd immunity. If the most current estimates bring the R value (estimate of transmission rate) down to 2 or less outside of densely populated settings, then you can stop sustained transmission with a vaccine that might not be protective enough for how people on this board want to use it. Ideally you get both, but stopping sustained transmission is going to be key.

 

And frankly the population that will need it first are lab workers, health care providers, and first responders!

[ERParadise]

6 hours ago, excitedofharpenden said:

There's one thing you omitted to talk about when distinguishing between older and younger guests. Younger are just as effective at passing on the virus as anybody else. That's the rub.  

 

Phil 

Phil,

You are absolutely correct.  The biggest spreaders of the virus are millennials and virtually no millennials die unless they are obese or have a severe pre-existing condition (ie diabetes).

 

Children also carry the virus and rarely have symptoms.

 

But if a person has any of the underlying conditions COVID-19 can be a killer.

 

Hopefully within a month or so we will start having antibody testing.  Then people who already have had the virus can be freed up to work.

[jagoffee]

Anyone that has one of the underling medical condition should not even consider being in close contact with any other person.  IMO that is where the focus should be. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by jagoffee

[ch175]

1 hour ago, ERParadise said:

Phil,

You are absolutely correct.  The biggest spreaders of the virus are millennials and virtually no millennials die unless they are obese or have a severe pre-existing condition (ie diabetes).

 

Children also carry the virus and rarely have symptoms.

 

But if a person has any of the underlying conditions COVID-19 can be a killer.

 

Hopefully within a month or so we will start having antibody testing.  Then people who already have had the virus can be freed up to work.

This points to the uneasiness I feel with the current situation.

 

We as a country have no problem sending our younger generations off to fight in armed conflict while the rest of us stay safe at home.

 

Yet now we ask for more sacrifice from that same group, as they are faced with the prospect of lost jobs and a higher debt to deal with in the future.

 

All the while nobody in the press, or positions of leadership, has the maturity to ask if there is a better way to handle this than a near total lockdown.

[DaveSJ711]

44 minutes ago, ch175 said:

All the while nobody in the press, or positions of leadership, has the maturity to ask if there is a better way to handle this than a near total lockdown.

 

45 out of 50 states have issued stay-at-home orders.  I'm sure the state governors -- including the Indiana governor -- asked themselves if a "better way" was available.  There wasn't.

Edited April 16, 2020 by DaveSJ711

[dandee2]

17 hours ago, jelayne said:

Are you a doctor? Medical researcher or just stating your opinion ? The statistics you quoted don’t reflect anything we have seen, but thanks for sharing your recommendations.
 

Same opinions from French Doctors on France24 and France 2  and also from the head of public health in Quebec.

[phoenix_dream]

25 minutes ago, ch175 said:

This points to the uneasiness I feel with the current situation.

 

We as a country have no problem sending our younger generations off to fight in armed conflict while the rest of us stay safe at home.

 

Yet now we ask for more sacrifice from that same group, as they are faced with the prospect of lost jobs and a higher debt to deal with in the future.

 

All the while nobody in the press, or positions of leadership, has the maturity to ask if there is a better way to handle this than a near total lockdown.

I debated even responding, but just can't let these comments lie.  To say we have no problem sending these younger generations off to war while we stay safe at home is so wrong I can't even come up with the words.  No sane person has 'no problem' sending anyone to armed conflict.  Younger people take these roles because they are the most able to perform the task.  Period.  And for the record, there is currently no draft (and has not been for close to 50 years).

 

As regards maturity to ask if there is a better way - anyone with any level of intelligence cannot really believe that leaders all over the world have not agonized over these same questions.  Do they always make the right or perfect call?  Of course not.  But to think they would take such drastic measures with their populations, knowing the disastrous economic impact, without seriously considering other options is beyond belief.

 

That same group, as you call them, are of course facing sacrifice.  I have children that age and it pains me greatly to see them have to deal with this.  But they are not alone in suffering the loss of job and higher debt.  Middle aged people are seriously impacted as well.  Seniors are seeing their lifetime savings dwindling down to nothing, with few years left to rebuild the nest egg.

This situation affects everyone. 

[dandee2]

6 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Yes and the rapid antibody tests will be manufactured in the millions.  That will be key.

And all the countries Health Official, Health Dept. will have to agree on procedure. That will be difficult to achieve in the short term.

[ERParadise]

36 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

I debated even responding, but just can't let these comments lie.  To say we have no problem sending these younger generations off to war while we stay safe at home is so wrong I can't even come up with the words.  No sane person has 'no problem' sending anyone to armed conflict.  Younger people take these roles because they are the most able to perform the task.  Period.  And for the record, there is currently no draft (and has not been for close to 50 years).

 

As regards maturity to ask if there is a better way - anyone with any level of intelligence cannot really believe that leaders all over the world have not agonized over these same questions.  Do they always make the right or perfect call?  Of course not.  But to think they would take such drastic measures with their populations, knowing the disastrous economic impact, without seriously considering other options is beyond belief.

 

That same group, as you call them, are of course facing sacrifice.  I have children that age and it pains me greatly to see them have to deal with this.  But they are not alone in suffering the loss of job and higher debt.  Middle aged people are seriously impacted as well.  Seniors are seeing their lifetime savings dwindling down to nothing, with few years left to rebuild the nest egg.

This situation affects everyone. 

My original post had no politics involved, but it has involved into conflict on this blog.

 

My single point is that before there is a vaccine, anyone who is in the primary groups of people who are dying from COVID-19 should be very cautious before taking a cruise.  As long as COVID-19 is circling around, cruise ships might be the worst place someone with risk factors should step foot on.

 

Young people carry the virus and are spreading it like wildfire, but the people dying are coming from people with known health issues (diabetes, heart, lung desease, obesity and primarily with people over 70 and/or smokers.

 

No one with these health concerns should take a cruise until after they have received a vaccine (and that won't be for another 8-12 months at the earliest).

 

I'm sure most everyone on this blog loves cruising and wants to do more and more of it. But this is a rare situation that won't be resolved by November 2020.

[TeeRick]

14 hours ago, dandee2 said:

And all the countries Health Official, Health Dept. will have to agree on procedure. That will be difficult to achieve in the short term.

Yes everything will be difficult but in the short term but no choice but to forge ahead anyway.

[TeeRick]

18 hours ago, markeb said:

 

And most likely the first vaccines will be for public health use to up the herd immunity. If the most current estimates bring the R value (estimate of transmission rate) down to 2 or less outside of densely populated settings, then you can stop sustained transmission with a vaccine that might not be protective enough for how people on this board want to use it. Ideally you get both, but stopping sustained transmission is going to be key.

 

And frankly the population that will need it first are lab workers, health care providers, and first responders!

Agree with all of your comments.  Did you see the positive (early) reports yesterday on the COVID-19 clinical results on the Gilead antiviral drug Remdesivir?  I am pretty hopeful about this.  The mechanism makes sense.  Therapeutic advances to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease will come first - vaccine later.

[markeb]

14 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Agree with all of your comments.  Did you see the positive (early) reports yesterday on the COVID-19 clinical results on the Gilead antiviral drug Remdesivir?  I am pretty hopeful about this.  The mechanism makes sense.  Therapeutic advances to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease will come first - vaccine later.

 

I've seen what's in the press; haven't looked for anything in a journal yet. Surprisingly good results, especially as late in the disease as they were using it (multi-day IV limits its early use). Everything right now is essentially a rescue drug. If one of the orals works out and can be used early like a flu drug, then...

[marieps]

On 4/16/2020 at 10:13 AM, Charles4515 said:

Glad I never bought any cruise line stock.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Depends on the price at which one buys it.  I bought RCL at $25.  So far, so good.

Edited April 17, 2020 by marieps

[Charles4515]

Depends on the price at which one buys it.  I bought RCL at $25.  So far, so good.

So far but what if they go bankrupt?


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[marieps]

11 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

So far but what if they go bankrupt?


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

That is certainly a risk, no question.

[ERParadise]

11 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

So far but what if they go bankrupt?


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Carnival's lenders have stopped providing new loans.  RCL has drawn down the balance of their available line of credit. These companies are burning cash at a rapid rate. Because most people won't cruise until after they get a vaccine it is unlikely the blood bath will end until mid-2021.  

 

What no one knows is under a chapter 11 will the cruise vouchers lose all value.  Many cruisers I know have asked for cash refunds of money put down on future cruises as they don't think vouchers will survive a chapter 11.

 

As far as shareholders go, the stock prices have held up because many investors are holding on hoping for a recovery.

 

Here is a good read:  https://www.investopedia.com/time-running-out-for-cruise-line-stocks-4801755

[cltnccruisers]

On 4/16/2020 at 6:39 PM, phoenix_dream said:

I debated even responding, but just can't let these comments lie.  To say we have no problem sending these younger generations off to war while we stay safe at home is so wrong I can't even come up with the words.  No sane person has 'no problem' sending anyone to armed conflict.  Younger people take these roles because they are the most able to perform the task.  Period.  And for the record, there is currently no draft (and has not been for close to 50 years).

 

As regards maturity to ask if there is a better way - anyone with any level of intelligence cannot really believe that leaders all over the world have not agonized over these same questions.  Do they always make the right or perfect call?  Of course not.  But to think they would take such drastic measures with their populations, knowing the disastrous economic impact, without seriously considering other options is beyond belief.

 

That same group, as you call them, are of course facing sacrifice.  I have children that age and it pains me greatly to see them have to deal with this.  But they are not alone in suffering the loss of job and higher debt.  Middle aged people are seriously impacted as well.  Seniors are seeing their lifetime savings dwindling down to nothing, with few years left to rebuild the nest egg.

This situation affects everyone. 

Seniors are seeing their lifetime savings dwindling down to nothing, with few years left to rebuild the nest egg.

That's us.  Wife already retired.  I'm 65 and planned on retiring by 68.  Now it looks more like 70 or never.

[mickey89]

23 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

Seniors are seeing their lifetime savings dwindling down to nothing, with few years left to rebuild the nest egg.

That's us.  Wife already retired.  I'm 65 and planned on retiring by 68.  Now it looks more like 70 or never.

 

...and that's after only 3/4 weeks of the lockdown. Frightening thoughts........