Jump to content

Cruise with/without a mask


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, caribill said:

 

 

Assuming that passengers will not be required to be vaccinated (and we do not know if this will be the policy) if the unvaccinated do pass it around and show symptoms,  I would worry about the cruise being cut short.

From the looks of it, if Carnival Cruises want's to be part of the earliest sailing cruise lines they'll probably have no choice in requiring that all passengers be vaccinated (as well as their staff). It seems to be the safest way at this point in time to keep the covid-19 from spreading throughout out the ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MissP22 said:

From the looks of it, if Carnival Cruises want's to be part of the earliest sailing cruise lines they'll probably have no choice in requiring that all passengers be vaccinated (as well as their staff). It seems to be the safest way at this point in time to keep the covid-19 from spreading throughout out the ship.

If by staff you meant all crew, I doubt that Carnival will be one of the first with that requirement.  Or at least let us hope, because that may be a while based on Global availability. Just passengers, perhaps.

 I am not sure how cruise lines are going to deal with CDC if US waters are involved.  CDC’s implication that the vaccine is only good for 90 days is ridiculous. (With the easing of quarantine rules after vaccination).  It would have been easier to mange if they had placed it at a year or longer  with the statement that it could be reduced based on findings.  Just more bureaucratic BS.
 

No one knows for sure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 12:12 PM, Treasure Hunter said:

GWe will have our second Moderna shot by the end of  this  week. We wear masks ( doubled up) when we are  out of our house. We have friends who ate inside restaurants and got covid. They were really sick for months. We will gladly wear masks on board and we always took the ship’s excursions. In the Caribbean we don’t get off anymore anyway. Please let us follow the rules and start cruising again. I’d be happy to just sit on my balcony look out to sea and have room service. I’m going bananas at home. I can’t think of anything else to cook.  I just want to see the sea witch logo one more time. Sigh.

YES!!  Just give me one week that I don’t have to meal plan, cook, do dishes, or answer the phone. A week when someone else will bring me drinks in response to a few taps on my smart phone!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 10:53 AM, jagoffee said:

If by staff you meant all crew, I doubt that Carnival will be one of the first with that requirement.  Or at least let us hope, because that may be a while based on Global availability. Just passengers, perhaps.

 I am not sure how cruise lines are going to deal with CDC if US waters are involved.  CDC’s implication that the vaccine is only good for 90 days is ridiculous. (With the easing of quarantine rules after vaccination).  It would have been easier to mange if they had placed it at a year or longer  with the statement that it could be reduced based on findings.  Just more bureaucratic BS.
 

No one knows for sure.  

Not exactly sure why you are saying that the CDC is implying that the vaccines in only good for 90 days? 

 

Do you have a reference to the exact text.

 

The CDC has stated that if someone has been infected with COVID they can wait 90 days prior to getting the vaccine or as one of their presentations puts it

 

"However, current evidence suggests reinfection uncommon in the 90 days after initial infection and thus persons with documented acute infection in the preceding 90 days may defer vaccination until the end of this period, if desired"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 3:42 PM, nocl said:

Not exactly sure why you are saying that the CDC is implying that the vaccines in only good for 90 days? 

 

Do you have a reference to the exact text.

 

The CDC has stated that if someone has been infected with COVID they can wait 90 days prior to getting the vaccine or as one of their presentations puts it

 

"However, current evidence suggests reinfection uncommon in the 90 days after initial infection and thus persons with documented acute infection in the preceding 90 days may defer vaccination until the end of this period, if desired"

I was referencing the ridiculous statement that the CDC made that states that you if a person that is fully vaccinated (no more than 90 days ago) does not need to quarantine if they are exposed to someone who has Covid if they do not have any symptoms.  IMO the CDC should have made the statement about 90 days, because I do not believe they really mean it.

 

Have you not seen this guideline/policy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, jagoffee said:

I was referencing the ridiculous statement that the CDC made that states that you if a person that is fully vaccinated (no more than 90 days ago) does not need to quarantine if they are exposed to someone who has Covid if they do not have any symptoms.  IMO the CDC should have made the statement about 90 days, because I do not believe they really mean it.

 

Have you not seen this guideline/policy?

That logic behind that statement is not because the immunization wears off after 3 months, but because they now have data that says that someone that has been vaccinated does not spread the virus within the first 3 months after vaccination. They do not know if that holds true beyond three months because they do not have data yet.

 

Why 3 months.  Because they only have data for three months (remember the first vaccinations only occurred around 3 months ago.  As they have more data the recommendation will change. Remember when the vaccines first came out they did not know if they prevented spread.

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2021 at 3:23 AM, caribill said:

 

You are missing the main reason for wearing masks. It is not to prevent the wearer from catching the virus (although it does help some), it is to help prevent those who have the virus and do not know it from infecting others.

 

Hope fully those who have been vaccinated will not be able to have the virus and thus pass it on to thers, but science has not yet told us if this is true or not.

 

Just because a person is not wearing a mask does not mean the person has been vaccinated.

 

Until just about everyone is vaccinated that is willing to be, everyone should wear masks. Otherwise, hardly anyone would wear a mask saying look at all the people who are not doing so, why should I?


Amen. 
so well said!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I'll wait and spend my limited vacation time elsewhere. I hope I get to cruise again but wearing a mask while on the ship would not feel like a vacation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nocl said:

That logic behind that statement is not because the immunization wears off after 3 months, but because they now have data that says that someone that has been vaccinated does not spread the virus within the first 3 months after vaccination. They do not know if that holds true beyond three months because they do not have data yet.

 

Why 3 months.  Because they only have data for three months (remember the first vaccinations only occurred around 3 months ago.  As they have more data the recommendation will change. Remember when the vaccines first came out they did not know if they prevented spread.

I understand the logic, but IMO it is ridiculous. .  I just happen to think it is political. They should have said it was for a year or two with the stipulation that it will be reduced if they collect evidence that is should be a shorter time frame.  They are going to make it four months after another month, then five months after an additional month, and then so on?

The inference is that it is only three months and even that decision is almost a month old.

How can any individual or Government agency manage something so ridiculous?  One group can do something different depending on when they were administered their shots?

 

Just about as ridiculous as the CDC’s guidelines for starting cruising that was published.  Just bureaucratic B.S.

 

of course, this is just my opinion.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

I understand the logic, but IMO it is ridiculous. .  I just happen to think it is political. They should have said it was for a year or two with the stipulation that it will be reduced if they collect evidence that is should be a shorter time frame.  They are going to make it four months after another month, then five months after an additional month, and then so on?

The inference is that it is only three months and even that decision is almost a month old.

How can any individual or Government agency manage something so ridiculous?  One group can do something different depending on when they were administered their shots?

 

Just about as ridiculous as the CDC’s guidelines for starting cruising that was published.  Just bureaucratic B.S.

 

of course, this is just my opinion.  

 

 

CDC is a data driven organization.  They make recommendations based on the data they have, not what they want the data to be.  

 

As they get more data on the longevity they will extend the recommendation.  Keep in mind that the recommendation is only about where one can safely lower the recommended restrictions.  That is why they are making that on the conservative side.

 

They are not making declarations on the length of time immunity from vaccination lasts, but except for the situation listed above they are not recommending changes in behavior for those vaccinated at this time.

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

CDC is a data driven organization.  They make recommendations based on the data they have, not what they want the data to be.  

 

As they get more data on the longevity they will extend the recommendation.  Keep in mind that the recommendation is only about where one can safely lower the recommended restrictions.  That is why they are making that on the conservative side.

 

They are not making declarations on the length of time immunity from vaccination lasts, but except for the situation listed above they are not recommending changes in behavior for those vaccinated at this time.

What you wrote is so obvious that you have to wonder why some people refuse to understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nocl said:

CDC is a data driven organization.  They make recommendations based on the data they have, not what they want the data to be.  

 

As they get more data on the longevity they will extend the recommendation.  Keep in mind that the recommendation is only about where one can safely lower the recommended restrictions.  That is why they are making that on the conservative side.

 

They are not making declarations on the length of time immunity from vaccination lasts, but except for the situation listed above they are not recommending changes in behavior for those vaccinated at this time.

 

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

What you wrote is so obvious that you have to wonder why some people refuse to understand it.

I am sure you get comfort in believing that the 3 months is driven by data, but I do not.  I cannot even imagine a set of data that would support an arbitrary 3 months or even a trial that would prove it either way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jagoffee said:

 

I am sure you get comfort in believing that the 3 months is driven by data, but I do not.  I cannot even imagine a set of data that would support an arbitrary 3 months or even a trial that would prove it either way.  

I had to run a vaccination program for my employer many years ago.  The vaccine itself was only 7 years old at that time, so the literature would only state the vaccine continued to be effective for AT LEAST 7 years.  Now, many years later, they state the vaccine is effective for a minimum of 20 years as they have had more time to follow up.  At the time the 3 month figure came out, the Covid Vaccines had only 3 months worth of follow up so they can't play Karnak the Magnificent and predict the future results.  🙂

 

A recent post stated that the three months is the time period the CDC says the vaccine prevents "spread of the virus,"  I believe this is an incorrect statement since as of three weeks ago, the CDC stated:   "Although COVID-19 vaccines are effective at keeping you from getting sick, scientists are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to others, even if you do not get sick.

 

If you are vaccinated against COVID-19, you may still be exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19. After exposure, people can be infected with or “carry” the virus that causes COVID-19 but not feel sick or have any symptoms. Experts call this “asymptomatic infection.”

 

For this reason, even after vaccination, we need to continue using all the tools available to help stop this pandemic as we learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work in real-world conditions."

 

 See:  Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

 

I think the three month time frame was how long the vaccine provided immunity from symptoms.  That time frame should increase as the length of time since the vaccine first became available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I had to run a vaccination program for my employer many years ago.  The vaccine itself was only 7 years old at that time, so the literature would only state the vaccine continued to be effective for AT LEAST 7 years.  Now, many years later, they state the vaccine is effective for a minimum of 20 years as they have had more time to follow up.  At the time the 3 month figure came out, the Covid Vaccines had only 3 months worth of follow up so they can't play Karnak the Magnificent and predict the future results.  🙂

 

A recent post stated that the three months is the time period the CDC says the vaccine prevents "spread of the virus,"  I believe this is an incorrect statement since as of three weeks ago, the CDC stated:   "Although COVID-19 vaccines are effective at keeping you from getting sick, scientists are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to others, even if you do not get sick.

 

If you are vaccinated against COVID-19, you may still be exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19. After exposure, people can be infected with or “carry” the virus that causes COVID-19 but not feel sick or have any symptoms. Experts call this “asymptomatic infection.”

 

For this reason, even after vaccination, we need to continue using all the tools available to help stop this pandemic as we learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work in real-world conditions."

 

 See:  Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

 

I think the three month time frame was how long the vaccine provided immunity from symptoms.  That time frame should increase as the length of time since the vaccine first became available.

In a similar way, when the vaccines first came out, a gap of 4 weeks between injections was  recommended, as that was the delay period in the original trials,  due to time restraints.

Now, it has been shown that a 12 week gap (for the  AstraZeneca vaccine at least) is more efficacious, as proven by the evidence from the UK vaccination programme. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I had to run a vaccination program for my employer many years ago.  The vaccine itself was only 7 years old at that time, so the literature would only state the vaccine continued to be effective for AT LEAST 7 years.  Now, many years later, they state the vaccine is effective for a minimum of 20 years as they have had more time to follow up.  At the time the 3 month figure came out, the Covid Vaccines had only 3 months worth of follow up so they can't play Karnak the Magnificent and predict the future results.  🙂

 

A recent post stated that the three months is the time period the CDC says the vaccine prevents "spread of the virus,"  I believe this is an incorrect statement since as of three weeks ago, the CDC stated:   "Although COVID-19 vaccines are effective at keeping you from getting sick, scientists are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to others, even if you do not get sick.

 

If you are vaccinated against COVID-19, you may still be exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19. After exposure, people can be infected with or “carry” the virus that causes COVID-19 but not feel sick or have any symptoms. Experts call this “asymptomatic infection.”

 

For this reason, even after vaccination, we need to continue using all the tools available to help stop this pandemic as we learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work in real-world conditions."

 

 See:  Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

 

I think the three month time frame was how long the vaccine provided immunity from symptoms.  That time frame should increase as the length of time since the vaccine first became available.

The CDC has put out guidance that if one is in a small gathering consisting of fully vaccinated individuals that have been fully vaccinated no more than 3 months earlier, that masking and distancing can be relaxed (no distancing or masks required).   

 

They do have longer data on vaccine immunity because they do have data from the original trial individuals. What is more limited is the potential for asymptomatic carrying of the virus.  The information coming out of Israel is probably the best data in that area so far.

 

Since the in this case the CDC is talking about specific situations in which individuals can relax the protective recommendations, they are not going to over reach the data.

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

The CDC has put out guidance that if one is in a small gathering consisting of fully vaccinated individuals that have been fully vaccinated no more than 3 months earlier, that masking and distancing can be relaxed (no distancing or masks required). 

Serious question (I say this because sometimes it is hard to tell if someone is being snarky) but why does the size of the gathering matter if all are vaccinated? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, HxFx said:

Serious question (I say this because sometimes it is hard to tell if someone is being snarky) but why does the size of the gathering matter if all are vaccinated? 

Probably because they don't want to undermine other levels of Government that are keeping social activities shut down (like cruise ships...)  At least it's a crack in the wall showing that somebody at CDC is now acknowledging that there are effective vaccines out there.  Hopefully they will come out with the guidance for return to cruising incorporating some of these concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, HxFx said:

Serious question (I say this because sometimes it is hard to tell if someone is being snarky) but why does the size of the gathering matter if all are vaccinated? 

The larger the group the more difficult it becomes to make sure everyone is vaccinated.  10 people (relatives and close friends) in your home not much of a problem. 100 people that are members of a group a bit more difficult.

 

It is also a matter of statistics.  10 people the odds are that at most only one person might not be protected.  Even if that person was infected the odds are that the other 9 are protected so spread will not occur.  Go to a hundred and you are dealing with 5 people that might not be so more chance of transmission.

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 4:30 PM, antsp said:

We have decided not to go on a cruise until mask/face coverings are not required 

my question is would you sail on a cruise were you had to wear a mask/face covering

 

YES or No answers please

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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!
      • 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...