Jump to content

Cruise with/without a mask


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, direstealth said:

They should run ships with and without masks.  Treat people like grown ups and let them choose.  If you feel you are at high risk even with the vaccination or cannot have a vaccination, then go on a ship with masks.

 

 

The main reason to wear a mask is not to protect yourself, it is to protect others in case you have asymptomatic Covid-19 and thus might infect other people.

 

Wearing or not wearing a mask is not a decision of if one is at high risk for catching the disease, but is a decision of one's willingness to possibly spread it to other people.

 

So to some extent I agree with you. Those who do not want to wear a mask should sail all by themselves so they will not be infecting other people on the ship with those who wear masks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 7:02 PM, nocl said:

If you read the CDC orders they reference the legal authority.  Basically it comes down to the power of quarantine at the national border.  They also have authority to utilize the Coast Guard in the enforcement process.

 

The CDC also has authority when it comes to state lines.  They can take action to prevent infection from going across state lines if they feel insufficient action is taken by local authorities.  They do not have authority inside each state.  The authority there rests with the state, not the Federal Government.

 

21 hours ago, d9704011 said:

That is not what was stated; it’s about preventing the spread of communicable diseases, not stopping interstate travel or ‘locking down’ states as you put it.  Here is a reference for your information:

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

 

17 hours ago, nocl said:

The CDC gets its authority from the Public Health Service Act.  The specific portions are defined in 42 CFR Part 70 (Interstate) and Part 71 (Foreign).

 

You can read part 70 here.  These portions as well as other portions of the CFR do and have been interpreted by the courts as giving the CDC the authority, if necessary to stop interstate travel, if it is necessary to stop the spread of a communicable disease if they feel that insufficient action has not been taken by local authorities.  It is under part 70 that they have restricted small cruise ships inside of the US from sailing with over 250 passengers on board if they cross state lines, which they pretty much all would.  For that matter they have even used that to put in place a moratorium on evictions (would cause increased interstate travel by possible infected individuals).  Though I consider that to be over reach on their part.

 

Again their enforcement powers are restricted to the state lines  and national borders and not inside of any state. Note that 70.2 uses the word including, instead of the words limited to. As such the actions go beyond the items listed.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/part-70

 

In specific part 70.2  

 

Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.

 

and 70.6

70.6 Apprehension and detention of persons with quarantinable communicable diseases.

(a) The Director may authorize the apprehension, medical examination, quarantine, isolation, or conditional release of any individual for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of quarantinable communicable diseases, as specified by Executive Order, based upon a finding that:

(1) The individual is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage and is moving or about to move from a State into another State; or

(2) The individual is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage and constitutes a probable source of infection to other individuals who may be moving from a State into another State.

(b) The Director will arrange for adequate food and water, appropriate accommodation, appropriate medical treatment, and means of necessary communication for individuals who are apprehended or held in quarantine or isolation under this part.

 

I am hearing what you are saying.  As far as I know no one has ever stop interstate travel in the history of the US nor will they ever.  Obvious a state can require a quarantine, but I doubt that they can even prevent someone from another state to enter their state.  
 

Just Bureaucratic B.S. in my opinion.  Although certainly well intended.  

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

 

 

I am hearing what you are saying.  As far as I know no one has ever stop interstate travel in the history of the US nor will they ever.  Obvious a state can require a quarantine, but I doubt that they can even prevent someone from another state to enter their state.  
 

Just Bureaucratic B.S. in my opinion.  Although certainly well intended.  

They have not concerning COVID which as impactful as it was still only has a .65% mortality rate and with its long incubation period, asymptomatic cases, etc.  would be very difficult to stop with border enforcement between states (except maybe Hawaii or Alaska and both of those states did take the equivalent action with their own testing and quarantine programs, so no lack of local action there). 

 

I expect you would see different action, up to and including traffic stops at state boarders, if you had an outbreak with the characteristics of something like ebola.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2021 at 6:45 AM, direstealth said:

They should run ships with and without masks.  Treat people like grown ups and let them choose.  If you feel you are at high risk even with the vaccination or cannot have a vaccination, then go on a ship with masks.

 

Problem with that approach is that if you have a ship full of unmasked folks and then an outbreak occurs, what do you do with the resulting ship full of infected/exposed people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2021 at 8:45 AM, direstealth said:

Yes to vaccinations, no to masks. 

 

I wont being cruising anymore if I have to wear a mask.  Thats not my idea of a vaccation.

 

They should run ships with and without masks.  Treat people like grown ups and let them choose.  If you feel you are at high risk even with the vaccination or cannot have a vaccination, then go on a ship with masks.

Why should cruise lines run two different ships when it's easier for people like you to just stay home? If you don't want to wear a mask that's fine. People who want to cruise will wear one and you will do something else with your free time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously cannot believe this is still an issue a YEAR into a worldwide pandemic.

 

Wear a damn mask.  Yes, even after you've been vaccinated.  It's been proven to be highly successful in preventing the spread of a the virus.  I hate wearing them, too, but I like NOT getting sick from this insidious virus.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

Wear a damn mask.  Yes, even after you've been vaccinated.

why should I ??? if i should happen to catch the 'rona - it will be a very mild case

 

YOU wear a mask if you haven't been vaccinated - or choose not to - that's on you , not me

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, voljeep said:

why should I ??? if i should happen to catch the 'rona - it will be a very mild case

 

YOU wear a mask if you haven't been vaccinated - or choose not to - that's on you , not me

 

So you're ok with potentially infecting others who haven't been vaccinated yet.

 

Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

So you're ok with potentially infecting others who haven't been vaccinated yet.

 

Got it.

I have to ask that if you have had the shots, why would it matter?  After all, you are protected, correct?  Please understand that this question is asked not to start an argument, but to understand the logic.  If the shots protect you from the virus, it should not matter whether someone else wears a mask.  Those who are not taking the shots do not seem to be worried about catching the virus.  Why should those who have taken the shots be worried?  Am I wrong somewhere? 

 

Edited by Lazz
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, koolZip said:

Why should cruise lines run two different ships when it's easier for people like you to just stay home? If you don't want to wear a mask that's fine. People who want to cruise will wear one and you will do something else with your free time.

Agree.....the cruise lines will determine what will be required to sail and if people do not want to abide by the rules (like wearing a mask) then they miss out and stay home and can watch reruns of Love Boats.  Princess knows first hand what an outbreak of Covid - 19 on one of their ships can mean for them financially and to their corporate image..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Lazz said:

I have to ask that if you have had the shots, why would it matter?  After all, you are protected, correct?  Please understand that this question is asked not to start an argument, but to understand the logic.  If the shots protect you from the virus, it should not matter whether someone else wears a mask.  Those who are not taking the shots do not seem to be worried about catching the virus.  Why should those who have taken the shots be worried?  Am I wrong somewhere? 

 

But what about those who have not yet been injected? If you have CV19 but are asymptomatic,  and don't wear a mask, you will potentially be infecting all those around you that are not yet protected.

Edited by wowzz
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, voljeep said:

why should I ??? if i should happen to catch the 'rona - it will be a very mild case

 

YOU wear a mask if you haven't been vaccinated - or choose not to - that's on you , not me

Because even with the vaccine you still do not want either the vaccinated or unvaccinated exposed to someone that is infected.  

 

According to the Israeli data (the best we have on actual performance in a vaccinated population) mortality is greatly reduced (by 98%) but not eliminated.  Even then that is against the original and the UK  strains.  Performance is expected to be worse for the partially vaccine resistant South African strain, B.1.351

 

Also because every infection is an opportunity for mutation. An infection in a vaccinated individual is an opportunity for mutation with vaccine resistant characteristics. And if that individual is not wearing a mask it becomes more likely to spread than if a mask is worn.

 

At this level of disease incidence vaccine is the last line of defense, once the incidence rate is much lower that the other methods can be reduced and vaccine can move up to the first line of defense.

 

Get the incidence rate down such that there is little to no risk of encountering an infected individual, then masks can go away.

 

If on board ship everyone is vaccinated (both passengers and crew), if they are all tested prior to boarding. then in that environment they might consider not wearing masks because the risk is low, but that changes if there is a port stop depending upon the incidence of disease at that stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lazz said:

I have to ask that if you have had the shots, why would it matter?  After all, you are protected, correct?  Please understand that this question is asked not to start an argument, but to understand the logic.  If the shots protect you from the virus, it should not matter whether someone else wears a mask.  Those who are not taking the shots do not seem to be worried about catching the virus.  Why should those who have taken the shots be worried?  Am I wrong somewhere? 

 

 

'Cause.... this:

 

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

But what about those who have not yet been injected? If you have CV19 but are asymptomatic,  and don't wear a mask, you will potentially be infecting all those around you that are not yet protected.

 

And this:

 

38 minutes ago, nocl said:

Because even with the vaccine you still do not want either the vaccinated or unvaccinated exposed to someone that is infected.  

 

According to the Israeli data (the best we have on actual performance in a vaccinated population) mortality is greatly reduced (by 98%) but not eliminated.  Even then that is against the original and the UK  strains.  Performance is expected to be worse for the partially vaccine resistant South African strain, B.1.351

 

Also because every infection is an opportunity for mutation. An infection in a vaccinated individual is an opportunity for mutation with vaccine resistant characteristics. And if that individual is not wearing a mask it becomes more likely to spread than if a mask is worn.

 

At this level of disease incidence vaccine is the last line of defense, once the incidence rate is much lower that the other methods can be reduced and vaccine can move up to the first line of defense.

 

Get the incidence rate down such that there is little to no risk of encountering an infected individual, then masks can go away.

 

If on board ship everyone is vaccinated (both passengers and crew), if they are all tested prior to boarding. then in that environment they might consider not wearing masks because the risk is low, but that changes if there is a port stop depending upon the incidence of disease at that stop.

 

Anyway, back to the question at hand:  Hell yes I'd wear a mask.  It's about being responsible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a cruise line requires it. Do it.
 

It is too soon in the vaccination process to know what can happen.

 

things change as we learn about this virus and varients that follow. 
 

with the few cruises set to start up in 2021 we will see how things are handled. Some require passengers & crew to be vaccinated & others only require it for passengers. 
 

I will wear the mask if required or I see risk of spreading virus after vaccination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure will. I'll probably wear it in close quarters around the ***** no matter what moving forward. Even if to just avoid average germs and avoiding catching a cold. Definitely will cruise if masks are required. 

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

Princess knows first hand what an outbreak of Covid - 19 on one of their ships can mean for them financially and to their corporate image..  

 

As will be shown in a film on HBO Max starting March 30.

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24603-hbo-to-premiere-documentary-on-diamond-princess-s-covid-outbreak.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going back to read the entire thread. so maybe this has been addressed. One has to consider that like many vaccines this vaccine seems to have a life span that current research puts at about three to four months ( hopefully longer time will tell) . Kind of like your flu vaccine. now flu season is just a few months every year. so one vaccine occasionally two will carry you through the season.  We all need to remember that we have potentially been vaccinated for the next 3 -4 months. So what then? Will you Sail on YOUR cruise within 3-4 months of your vaccination? some will , some will not. What if, when you sail you no longer have the level of protection that you once had, what if there is a variant that is more virulent. you may be sailing with nothing more than a piece of paper that says you were vaccinated at one time for  SARs COVID and that's it.  Another point to consider, the flu season is just about over for the US,  what have you heard about the flu this year? the flu numbers are down and likely secondary to the use of extensive mask use and hand hygiene. To each his own mask, no mask. But it appears that the mask did limit the flu this year. Also, with more virulent strains presenting. with weakened virus protection over time, and even if vaccinated fully you can still be the host to the virus and although not sick you can be the spreader. Now you are on a ship, a floating island so to speak, with a very finite population and I am sure very stringent contract tracing ( for heaven's sake the coin in you pocket, you precious medallion tells someone somewhere every place you stood and every other medallion you came in contact with!) do you want to be THAT GUY! just something to consider in the interest of all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, charlie murphy said:

Not going back to read the entire thread. so maybe this has been addressed. One has to consider that like many vaccines this vaccine seems to have a life span that current research puts at about three to four months ( hopefully longer time will tell) .

 

There have been no reports that I have seen about those enrolled in the vaccine tests last August and September (6 - 7 months ago) losing immunity.  Those participants are being followed for a few years at least if I remember correctly.

Edited by capriccio
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Pamster said:

 

Problem with that approach is that if you have a ship full of unmasked folks and then an outbreak occurs, what do you do with the resulting ship full of infected/exposed people?

The same thing they have done for years when there has been an outbreak of norovirus onboard.  Quarantine in cabin.

Edited by rljan
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, rljan said:

The same thing they have done for years when there has been an outbreak of norovirus onboard.  Quarantine in cabin.

This is not norovirus   This kills

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

The same thing they have done for years when there has been an outbreak of norovirus onboard.  Quarantine in cabin.

Got to be careful how things are phrased. First read of this statement made me think that everyone had to quarantine in their cabin. My experience with a norovirus outbreak is only the person infected has to quarantine. The rest of the ship goes into some kind of color code (I forget the actual color) where food is now served to you at the buffet, salt and pepper shakers are removed from tables, the staff insists more firmly that hands be washed upon entering meal areas and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, memoak said:

This is not norovirus   This kills

Norovirus kills too. One of our more popular CC members lost his wife to norovirus a couple of years ago while on a Princess cruise in the area of Australia. It was absolutely tragic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, charlie murphy said:

Not going back to read the entire thread. so maybe this has been addressed. One has to consider that like many vaccines this vaccine seems to have a life span that current research puts at about three to four months ( hopefully longer time will tell) . Kind of like your flu vaccine. now flu season is just a few months every year. so one vaccine occasionally two will carry you through the season.  We all need to remember that we have potentially been vaccinated for the next 3 -4 months. So what then? Will you Sail on YOUR cruise within 3-4 months of your vaccination? some will , some will not. What if, when you sail you no longer have the level of protection that you once had, what if there is a variant that is more virulent. you may be sailing with nothing more than a piece of paper that says you were vaccinated at one time for  SARs COVID and that's it.  Another point to consider, the flu season is just about over for the US,  what have you heard about the flu this year? the flu numbers are down and likely secondary to the use of extensive mask use and hand hygiene. To each his own mask, no mask. But it appears that the mask did limit the flu this year. Also, with more virulent strains presenting. with weakened virus protection over time, and even if vaccinated fully you can still be the host to the virus and although not sick you can be the spreader. Now you are on a ship, a floating island so to speak, with a very finite population and I am sure very stringent contract tracing ( for heaven's sake the coin in you pocket, you precious medallion tells someone somewhere every place you stood and every other medallion you came in contact with!) do you want to be THAT GUY! just something to consider in the interest of all. 

While it is still early in the process, since even the first individuals in the Clinical trials were vaccinated less than a year ago, the expectations are more in line with a year timeframe, not 3-4 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, caribill said:

Wonder if they are going to include any of the information from the Japanese documentary which included a lot of detailed information from analysis on spread, crew training, etc. that gave a lot of information on exactly what happened or if they are going to focus more on interviews and commentary.  Hopefully they will include both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Crystal Cruises - New! Luxury Bahamas Escapes
      • 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...