Jump to content

Cause for cautious optimism?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Psoque said:

Well, right now, cruising involving most people from most parts of the world is considered a terrible idea by both CDC, WHO, and other organizations that advise various government agencies.  As Vince said, I'm sure these organizations will put out a statement on how we start allowing certain recreational activities to resume, when we know it is safe and reasonable to do so.  I think it is irrelevant whether the "path to cruising" is made difficult by the regulations or not AT THIS TIME, because there should be no cruising, except in very specific circumstances.  I don't think the current CDC regulations are not making cruises any more difficult, or that the regulations are increasing the daily cost of cruise lines' operation while they are not cruising.  All of the tourism sector is suffering because they cannot operate their business secondary to the outbreak.  I am not sure how any regulation can make their lives any more difficult at this point.

 

Of course if the regulations that we have continued beyond its necessity, we can call that excessive/harsh/draconian/unfair/etc.  But unfortunately, we have not gotten to that yet, and we have no idea when we will get there.

 

I don't think the cruise line people are stupid enough to even try to go through the hoops that they have to go through and actually do a real cruise, especially with people from high-incidence locales, and lose money in the process, so I don't think the regulations are really a burden to them at this point.

 

We all understand that many companies in the tourism segment of the economy have already ceased to exist, and many more will do the same before everything will be "back to normal."  But I think you are misdirecting your frustration if you think that the CDC regulation outlining how cruises CANNOT operate at this time because of the outbreak is the cause of their plight.

I suspect cruising will open up sometime this year so the CDC should work with the cruise lines to figure out a way to do this balancing the health and safety with the profitability.

 

On a related note it is ironic that we don't see standards in flights (all seats can be taken), in restaurants (I know some standards but.........) and in other types of businesses. 

 

My point is that I think more can be done to maintain safety while making it profitable for lines to get back into business and I am NOT proposing the cruise lines begin now.  I think they could all come to the table and work cooperatively on this.  JMO

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted on Crystal's website today:

https://www.crystalcruises.com/advisory-alerts/statement-on-canada-no-sail-order-until-february-2022

CRYSTAL STATEMENT ON CANADA'S EXTENDED "NO-SAIL" ORDER

  • February 5, 2021

     

    Crystal is aware of the recent news of Canada’s decision to restrict cruise travel until February 28, 2022, which would impact Crystal Serenity’s scheduled sailings this fall. We were surprised by the length of the extension of the Government of Canada’s ‘No-Sail Order,’ and as a result our itinerary team is now working on creating exciting alternative voyages. We will update our guests and travel advisors as soon as further information is available. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nancygp said:

All June symphony and serenity cruises now show “call for availability”.  I suspect the official cancellation will come early next week.  😥
 

Nancy


and Esprit

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 12:19 PM, Pat King said:

Keith, this MedCram video from a few hours ago talks about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, and gives very hopeful news about it's use against variants and reduction in severe disease. 100% efficacy after 49 days for severe cases. Room temperature, one dose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qT7wLxkvU

 

I think a very important point is being made here. We seem to focus on the protection that each vaccine gives against actually getting covid. However, what is also important is how ill those getting the virus become. It seems that the Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Moderna and J&J vaccines all have superb results in this area. There is also great news coming from Israel of some potential game-changing treatments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, vistaman said:

There is already a third vaccine by Astra Zeneca  however there are doubts for using it to people above 65 ...In Belgium it was decided not to use it for that category - the same as Sweden did 

J and J is owning the Belgian branch Janssen Pharma and over the years the research by that company was always a great success in the medical history.

 

Sadly, this misinformation  continues to come from certain EU countries. The only issue is the rather small relative number of over 65s used in the clinical trials. However, these concerns have been , to be frank, ridiculed by the scientific/medical fraternity here in the UK and elsewhere, as antibodies have been found to be as strong in this age group, after vaccination, as those in other age groups. It should be noted that the EU's own regulator has approved the Astra vaccine for use in all age groups in all EU countries.. As I have mentioned previously, this approach by a few EU individual countries may have much to do with their failure to order enough Astra doses in a timely manner and to deflect attention from their woeful performance in the vaccine procurement area generally. This seems to be the general consensus here in the UK, where we have now vaccinated nearly all of our over 75s, the majority with the Astra vaccine ! Certainly no doubts here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keith1010 said:

I suspect cruising will open up sometime this year so the CDC should work with the cruise lines to figure out a way to do this balancing the health and safety with the profitability.

 

On a related note it is ironic that we don't see standards in flights (all seats can be taken), in restaurants (I know some standards but.........) and in other types of businesses. 

 

My point is that I think more can be done to maintain safety while making it profitable for lines to get back into business and I am NOT proposing the cruise lines begin now.  I think they could all come to the table and work cooperatively on this.  JMO

 

Keith

I also hope this outbreak will be contained, at least better than now, soon.  And yes, the airlines, especially the US airlines are operating more or less unhindered (though with less passengers than before) throughout this outbreak.  I have a few reasons for it.

 

One is that these US airlines are US based businesses, and they can actually lobby the congress and the executive office more effectively.  Also, we all know that many members of the congress has literally in bed with the airlines for decades.

 

Also, the airlines has been pro-actively "publishing" scientifically fraudulent (my professional opinion) to say that for some magical reasons it is absolutely safe for people to fly, and many people are believing it.  It's a long story but my readings of the primary papers say a lot about how filters remove virus (yes, they do, but it does not prevent people-to-people transmission in the flight)  from the air and that there has not been extensive documented outbreaks secondary to flights (because our public health infrastructure does not have the capacity to track this kind of things right now), leading to a false conclusion that flying is even safer than just staying at home.

 

And most notably, in stark contrast to most would-be cruise passengers, there are people whose livelihood depends on his/her ability to take a flight.  That does not mean everyone boarding an airplane are business travelers, but this is a huge factor.  I'm sure most of you would agree that cruise ships never served that purpose.

 

But ideally, the US Transportation Department should really think about making flying safer, and if that is not possible, regulations should be placed on their ability to spread this disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kool kruiser said:

Sadly, this misinformation  continues to come from certain EU countries. The only issue is the rather small relative number of over 65s used in the clinical trials. However, these concerns have been , to be frank, ridiculed by the scientific/medical fraternity here in the UK and elsewhere, as antibodies have been found to be as strong in this age group, after vaccination, as those in other age groups. It should be noted that the EU's own regulator has approved the Astra vaccine for use in all age groups in all EU countries.. As I have mentioned previously, this approach by a few EU individual countries may have much to do with their failure to order enough Astra doses in a timely manner and to deflect attention from their woeful performance in the vaccine procurement area generally. This seems to be the general consensus here in the UK, where we have now vaccinated nearly all of our over 75s, the majority with the Astra vaccine ! Certainly no doubts here.

I am sorry, but you strongly defend the use of AstraZeneca for all ages, and while doing so, you mention that other countries are wrong. It is good that you believe in the vaccine and it is good that many people are being vaccinated with it. Sadly it does not seem to be a question of misinformation or failure or any negative feelings from other countries who do not recommend the use of this vaccine for people older than 65. It seems that there is not YET enough data available on people older than 65 with this vaccine. The European countries who will not use AstraZeneca on people older than 65, according to my knowledge at this moment, are Germany, Spain, France and Greece. Those countries have very strong, serious and reliable scientific bodies who took this decision. Once more data is provided, and AstraZeneca should not have any trouble doing that, since in the UK is vaccinating also older people, most probably the scientific bodies of the mentioned European countries will also recommend its use for everyone.
In the mean time the AstraZeneca vaccine will play an important role in vaccination in those countries, being used on people who are younger than 65. This is a vey important step and will allow other segments of people to have access to earlier vaccination. There is no need to be bitter about this. As a matter of fact even me (younger than 65) have now a better chance of being vaccinated earlier with the AstraZeneca vaccine due to this recommendation.
Ivi

Edited by travelberlin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of the usual power of "money talks," plus airlines are treated as critical infrastructure where leisure cruises aren't, I don't know how nefarious the CDC is being with their hypocrisy.   The same law gives the CDC the authority for the Vessel Sanitation Program as it would jurisdiction over most domestic and international airline flights (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42 section:264 edition:prelim), but the CDC is used to treating the cruise industry as its play thing (which I'm NOT complaining about).  That long history has made the cruise industry answer in a way to CDC that I've never seen airlines or any other travel sector do, though.

 

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, travelberlin said:

I am sorry, but you strongly defend the use of AstraZeneca for all ages, and while doing so, you mention that other countries are wrong. It is good that you believe in the vaccine and it is good that many people are being vaccinated with it. Sadly it does not seem to be a question of misinformation or failure or any negative feelings from other countries who do not recommend the use of this vaccine for people older than 65. It seems that there is not YET enough data available on people older than 65 with this vaccine. The European countries who will not use AstraZeneca on people older than 65, according to my knowledge at this moment, are Germany, Spain, France and Greece. Those countries have very strong, serious and reliable scientific bodies who took this decision. Once more data is provided, and AstraZeneca should not have any trouble doing that, since in the UK is vaccinating also older people, most probably the scientific bodies of the mentioned European countries will also recommend its use for everyone.
In the mean time the AstraZeneca vaccine will play an important role in vaccination in those countries, being used on people who are younger than 65. This is a vey important step and will allow other segments of people to have access to earlier vaccination. There is no need to be bitter about this. As a matter of fact even me (younger than 65) have now a better chance of being vaccinated earlier with the AstraZeneca vaccine due to this recommendation.
Ivi

Had my first vaccine this morning !!💉 Astrazeneca ( under 65 but cancer patient) 

2nd dose in may !! I'm just thankful I have been given the vaccine & have not looked into the pros & cons of the various vaccines available..maybe as a cancer patient & survived a stem cell transplant I will take what ever is offered

Here's to happy cruising sometime 🚢🙏 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@LvshackCongratulations on getting the jab and being a cancer survivor.

is 3 months the normal suggested time period between jabs or is the UK spacing dose 2 out so as to get more people jabbed with dose 1.  
 

BTW, I was in Bath when they were filming Bridgerton.  If you haven’t see it, do give it a view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cruisr said:

@LvshackCongratulations on getting the jab and being a cancer survivor.

is 3 months the normal suggested time period between jabs or is the UK spacing dose 2 out so as to get more people jabbed with dose 1.  
 

BTW, I was in Bath when they were filming Bridgerton.  If you haven’t see it, do give it a view.

Don't quote me but you are right in your reply. yes we are looking to vaccinate  more people getting there first jab therefore decided to space 2nd dose from 1month to 3 ..

 here in the UK  we are making good progress .. no sorry not watched bridgerton period drama not really my thing but get used to camera crew filming something or other here in bath ( not sure where your from ) 

And other local areas..😃😷

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, travelberlin said:

I am sorry, but you strongly defend the use of AstraZeneca for all ages, and while doing so, you mention that other countries are wrong. It is good that you believe in the vaccine and it is good that many people are being vaccinated with it. Sadly it does not seem to be a question of misinformation or failure or any negative feelings from other countries who do not recommend the use of this vaccine for people older than 65. It seems that there is not YET enough data available on people older than 65 with this vaccine. The European countries who will not use AstraZeneca on people older than 65, according to my knowledge at this moment, are Germany, Spain, France and Greece. Those countries have very strong, serious and reliable scientific bodies who took this decision. Once more data is provided, and AstraZeneca should not have any trouble doing that, since in the UK is vaccinating also older people, most probably the scientific bodies of the mentioned European countries will also recommend its use for everyone.
In the mean time the AstraZeneca vaccine will play an important role in vaccination in those countries, being used on people who are younger than 65. This is a vey important step and will allow other segments of people to have access to earlier vaccination. There is no need to be bitter about this. As a matter of fact even me (younger than 65) have now a better chance of being vaccinated earlier with the AstraZeneca vaccine due to this recommendation.
Ivi

With respect, you misunderstand my position. My point is that the stance taken by a small number of countries has been very strongly refuted by the scientific and medical community in the UK. Interestingly, their position is also contradicted by their own EU regulator !! It also probably does not matter too much to the citizens of those countries, as they failed to order doses of this vaccine in a timely manner, so probably not enough is available for them anyway and this may serve as a useful diversion from their obvious supply failings. In the UK, there is widespread support for using this vaccine for all and I cannot recall any differing views from our science boffins, who are certainly not shy in coming forward to express their views.

Not my ''defence'' nor am I 'bitter', although I certainly tire of the 'bigging up' of these minority views.  Rather, just a statement of the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what I have read, spacing out the two doses of AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine up to 90 days from the initially recommended 22 days appears to have no adverse effect, though this, presume, is based on a subset analysis.  What we know is this, however:  It is ideal if a lot of people receives both shots within 22 days.  However, that may not happen in the UK because of the vaccine supply and logistics issue.  I think the compromise that is being offered is to give partial protection to as many people in UK as possible, to at least slow down the spread of the virus sooner.  I don't think it is a terrible compromise in my opinion.  I agree that the two doses should be given at the time interval initially used in the phase 3 study, if UK has the enough resources to do this to a large portion of their population.  Another issue that is ignored by the public is that there is no strong data to suggest spacing the vaccines apart beyond 22 days has any real consequence, and we have no idea how the spacing affects (or does not affect) the long-term immunity (not just the acute IgG antibodies in the blood, but other immunoglobin subtypes as well as T cells) from the vaccine.

 

I think the jury is out on this issue, and I think it is premature to say one approach is better than the other, other than to say that the current UK compromise makes sense to a lot of people who are trained to think about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Psoque said:

 

i think the jury is out on this issue, and I think it is premature to say one approach is better than the other, other than to say that the current UK compromise makes sense to a lot of people who are trained to think about this.

 

Do you agree that within two weeks of a person receiving their second dose (whether 22 days or 90 days) that they have a higher level of protection?  If so, you are telling the people that the state is leaving them partially protected in order to protect others (forced altruism).  

 

You do realize that the first set of lemmings going over the cliff provide a little protection for the later arrivals as they have a softer landing zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

 

Do you agree that within two weeks of a person receiving their second dose (whether 22 days or 90 days) that they have a higher level of protection?  If so, you are telling the people that the state is leaving them partially protected in order to protect others (forced altruism).  

 

You do realize that the first set of lemmings going over the cliff provide a little protection for the later arrivals as they have a softer landing zone.

It's not that simple.

To break the cycle of rapid spread of this virus, there might be a good reason to give, say 60 % protection to 80 % of the population vs. giving 90% protection to 40 % of the population.  It's the concept of herd immunity, based on the actual definition of the term, not the ones the news people are using.

This has nothing to do with altruism or some sort of dystopian socialism.

If you are not aware, the actual efficacy of the vaccines are typically dependent on the incidence of the pathogen, so doing what UK is doing may not be as crazy as some may think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 8:06 PM, TER777 said:

Tracie, thanks for sharing this info on research. I am now aware of the use of nanobodies as a potential neutralizer. It made me think of old bacteriophage ideas around neutralizing the bacteria of diseases through the RNA of phage in cells and there is some thought of phage potentially neutralizing viruses.

A rapid response tool that can be used to reduce viral viability may be our best hope for future traveling. It is seeming more and more unlikely that controlling (or even reducing) spread of variants will even be possible on a global level.

We need a tool that stops the virus in place after someone is found to be infected, i.e. something to prevent all replication and spread and reduce the populations of virus going around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psoque said:

I think the jury is out on this issue, and I think it is premature to say one approach is better than the other, other than to say that the current UK compromise makes sense to a lot of people who are trained to think about this.

 

This discussion has focused on the UK.  I hope regulators in the USA do not follow the same path.

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were swiftly approved on an emergency basis, due to highly successful efficacy results followed during the tests.

I fear that the type of half-baked leeway taken in the UK could provide a systematic means for many of the FDA  & CDC expectations to be waived aside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jim9310 said:

 

This discussion has focused on the UK.  I hope regulators in the USA do not follow the same path.

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were swiftly approved on an emergency basis, due to highly successful efficacy results followed during the tests.

I fear that the type of half-baked leeway taken in the UK could provide a systematic means for many of the FDA  & CDC expectations to be waived aside.

?????😷💉

Link to post
Share on other sites

During Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials alternative dose sizes and dosing patterns were evaluated.  Based on those results Phase 3 trials were conducted.  Are we to throw out all the data from Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials if we (arbitrarily or not) change the dose size and/or the dosing pattern?

 

My second dose is eight days away and I am sweating a potential change in USA dosing akin to UK dosing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

During Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials alternative dose sizes and dosing patterns were evaluated.  Based on those results Phase 3 trials were conducted.  Are we to throw out all the data from Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials if we (arbitrarily or not) change the dose size and/or the dosing pattern?

 

My second dose is eight days away and I am sweating a potential change in USA dosing akin to UK dosing.

I think a lot depends on circumstances. Given the supply problems we are having up here with both Pfizer and Moderna, our two largest provinces have decided to stretch out the timing on the second dose. The idea is to try and get at least one dose into as many Long Term Care residents as possible to at least give them some protection. Over 80% of our 21K COVID deaths have been over 80 years old and an enormous percentage of those have been residents of LTC homes!

Edited by Roland4
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

My second dose is eight days away and I am sweating a potential change in USA dosing akin to UK dosing.

I think you are at much more risk from supply logistics getting the vaccine to where you are than to new governmental policy in the next 8 days.  But Texas is probably doing a much better job with both of those issues than my state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

I think you are at much more risk from supply logistics getting the vaccine to where you are than to new governmental policy in the next 8 days.  But Texas is probably doing a much better job with both of those issues than my state.

 

Bell County has really streamlined their system after initial hiccups.  I had first dose scheduled for a monday but deliveries were delayed so they rescheduled me for that Friday.  To not have that problem again they switched to a Tue - Sat delivery for first doses.  They have also gone to Mon - Thu for second doses at separate facility.  Paperwork associated with first dose so they are doing it indoors but second dose drive thru.  And when the state allocates first doses to facilities they allocate the second doses at that time for delivery either three or four weeks later.  So far it has been working; they just need more vaccine to allocate.  Texas is still doing less than 1,000,000 doses per week; need to pick up the pace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched two BBC documentaries covering the first few months from the start of the pandemic. (perhaps some of you have the means to access?) The first was on what happened (as far as can be ascertained) in China. That was jaw dropping. The second was on what happened in the US in the same early period. The construction of the programmes was largely interviews with key characters. The viewer was left to draw their own conclusions. The second programme was equally sobering as it portrayed the mistakes and slow to evolve understandings that took place - from 'we're Americans, we can't be beat by a little 'ol virus' (I paraphrase...) to acceptance, in many places, that there was a present and real danger to all.  

 

Fast forward to today and one has to wonder whether some of the comments here will look, in time, a little misplaced.... The UK has adopted it's strategy on vaccination spacing to get as many vaccinated as soon as possible to slow the rate of transition. The rate of transition is what is causing our health service to be put under such pressure, causing so many to die and causing the intensity of our lock-downs. To slow the transition and vaccinate the most vulnerable as quickly as possible is the fastest way back to some sort of normality. Then the focus must be on getting everyone up to the same speed around the world - a huge mission for us all. 

 

So, rather than worry about whether you've got your second vaccination, with respect, I suggest a bit more focus on what each of us can do to help influence the speed of priority group vaccination and persuasion of those that plan to refuse to be vaccinated the sooner we might be through this and cruising again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Noggins said:

I suggest a bit more focus on what each of us can do to help influence the speed of priority group vaccination and persuasion of those that plan to refuse to be vaccinated

With respect, I would rather focus on the first part first.  Get everyone who wants it vaccinated first, and then focus on the persuasion of the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team: New Ship Ultramarine
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...