British Isles cruises from UK - ports of call issue, visit ashore are restricted.

[ann141]

At the moment Princess only excursions have to be booked and I suppose Princess want to make that clear at the outset rather than people get upset about it onboard and say they didn't realise when they booked.However I wonder  that if the covid rate reduces dramatically that Princess may let people off independantly.They won't know yet but hopefully it may happen..I will probably end up booking one of the Princess excursions however expensive but will wait until much nearer the date of sailing in case things change.Princess may also put on some more cheaper excursions

[memoak]

8 hours ago, susancruzs said:

Thanks for your post, makes sense to me.  People complaining about it, saying it is a money grab, aren't looking at the big picture.  Big picture will fall into place this summer, things aren't set in stone, cruise lines will adjust to all the different rules country by country.  

 

I wouldn't expect anything to be exactly like it was before when cruising starts up, not in the least.  If one does, maybe wait until late 2022 to cruise.  This isn't about what passengers think should happen, it is about what cruise lines can do to bring a cruise experience in the safest manner.

 

 

If I can fly into Hawaii or New York and go to a restaurant why can’t I cruise into those places and go to eat where I want ?

[wowzz]

I have to say that I don't understand the logic behind Princess (and P&O) restrictions with regard to leaving the ship.

Every passenger on the ship will have had two vaccinations. So what difference does it make if a passenger walks into Liverpool city centre from the ship, compared to someone with the same vaccinations taking a bus to the city from, say, Preston. It's totally illogical.

[seapals2]

Its probably more to do with getting back on rather than allowing you to tour independently when you get off.  Instead of going home you are back on the ship with thousands of other passengers.  The vaccine is aprox 85% efficient so 15 in every hundred passengers are susceptible.  When you multiply that up you are talking possibly 300 people.  It would be ok if the port stop was towards the end of the week.  The last thing the cruise companies need is headlines and passengers being taken ill.  
I think looking at it from another point of view as an experiment it will certainly test the vaccine efficiency should there be any positive test results.  In fact we should probably be getting paid to cruise as Guinea pigs ... 😂.  Now there’s a thought.  

[caribill]

9 hours ago, dwhe said:

I have just been looking at excursions to Titanic Belfast, somewhere where I really want to go.

Ship excursion with a half hour drive around Belfast is $99.95 (£72)

The attraction is less than 2 miles walking from the dock and £19 ($26) if you pay on the door or pre buy your ticket like I would have done.

I'm gobsmacked, having been on loads of excursions with different cruise lines that is one expensive excursion for what you get and I haven't checked the rest yet.

 

 

Also, if you can go on your own, you can stay as long or short a time as you like (consistent with when you must be back on board), not forced to leave at a pre-determined time which may be too soon or too long for you.

 

By the way, does the Princess excursion allow you to also visit the SS Nomadic which is a Titanic tender? It is across the street from the museum and is included in the admission price. To me it is a fascinating part of the museum and not to be missed. (It was used to transfer passengers and luggage from shore to the Titanic and did not stay with the ship. Has first class and steerage sections that keep the different classes of passengers separated. First class section had a full service bar.  Steerage section had a water fountain. Many other differences between the two sections.)

[kevinyork]

9 hours ago, dwhe said:

Me to, having been to most places a cruise ship goes to in Europe, I now like to walk around a bit, have a pint or 2 and watch what's going on. Then back on ship for afternoon tea and a quiz. I never thought I'd miss it so much.

Oh happy days. Reading that made me a bit teary and very much missing our cruises. 

[seapals2]

My feelings are that the cruise companies are using these UK sailings to prove cruising is safe and to get the foreign office advisory lifted once international flights are allowed.  They will do everything they can to ensure there are zero cases onboard.  We are lucky we can sail in domestic waters.  The US are not permitting it as their ruling doesn’t allow it.  Ships must visit a port outside of the US as it stands.  🤷‍♀️   

[seapals2]

3 hours ago, kevinyork said:

Oh happy days. Reading that made me a bit teary and very much missing our cruises. 

Probably the reason the UK sailings have been so popular.  Not something we would have ever considered 12 months ago but now eagerly anticipating walking up the gangway again.  Even in a mask 😷!!!  

[tokyo1949]

14 minutes ago, seapals2 said:

Probably the reason the UK sailings have been so popular.  Not something we would have ever considered 12 months ago but now eagerly anticipating walking up the gangway again.  Even in a mask 😷!!!  

I agree with you. The only problem I have is that now I have to renew my passport as I wont have 6 months left on when we return even though we arent technically leaving the country. Will renew online and hope its not too difficult

[WeeCountyMan]

12 hours ago, seapals2 said:

 The vaccine is aprox 85% efficient so 15 in every hundred passengers are susceptible.  

Is that what 85% effective actually means in practical terms ?

 

 

[susancruzs]

Passport process here is backlogged, mine expiring 1/22, trip Nov. 2021.  I sent it Feb. 2, arrived in Philly 2/26, have no idea where it was for 3 weeks.  Then it took until 3/22 to get entered in system.  Now they say 10-12 weeks. which is fine, I'm glad it arrived.  Hope you have good luck with yours.

[seapals2]

4 minutes ago, WeeCountyMan said:

Is that what 85% effective actually means in practical terms ?

 

 

That’s what  I take it to mean.  If it was 100% then none would be able to get infected.  If it was 0% then it would be of no use.  The vaccine has to prompt the body to produce antibodies ... in some and often the elderly the immune system doesn’t respond.  The flu vaccine has an adjuvant in it for the over 65s to make it more efficient.  

[seapals2]

There is no routine test for antibodies either from the vaccine or from being infected  .. only those included on surveys and studies have been tested to my knowledge.  

[WeeCountyMan]

2 minutes ago, seapals2 said:

That’s what  I take it to mean.  If it was 100% then none would be able to get infected.  If it was 0% then it would be of no use.  The vaccine has to prompt the body to produce antibodies ... in some and often the elderly the immune system doesn’t respond.  The flu vaccine has an adjuvant in it for the over 65s to make it more efficient.  

I took it to mean that any individual who was vaccinated was 85% protected from infection.

 

Is that the same as saying that 15 in a hundred are not protected at all ?

 

I'm no statistician !!!

[seapals2]

Possibly both meanings result in the same outcome regardless.  🤷‍♀️
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#:~:text=Like all medicines%2C no,should be less severe.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by seapals2

[seapals2]

What we have been told is that it’s 100% effective against mortality.  😊

However if there was any infection it could very easily spread to unvaccinated crew.  

[P&O SUE]

3 hours ago, tokyo1949 said:

I agree with you. The only problem I have is that now I have to renew my passport as I wont have 6 months left on when we return even though we arent technically leaving the country. Will renew online and hope its not too difficult

I renewed mine online a couple of years ago, was really easy and efficient. I was sent a couple of emails to let me know they’d received it etc, I got it back in about 5 days! The only problem I had was trying to get my photo done to their specifications! My husband took it with my mobile but we had a bit of an issue with light and background! After that the rest was easy 😊

[davekent]

1 hour ago, P&O SUE said:

I renewed mine online a couple of years ago, was really easy and efficient. I was sent a couple of emails to let me know they’d received it etc, I got it back in about 5 days! The only problem I had was trying to get my photo done to their specifications! My husband took it with my mobile but we had a bit of an issue with light and background! After that the rest was easy 😊

The UK passport services seem to be very much in control of things at the moment. We renewed ours at the end of January and received one back in 6 days and one in 8. For whatever reason one was processed in Durham and the other in the Peterborough office but for both as you mention we received email updates with regards the receipt of the old passport, the application being processed and the passport being printed. We used one of the online passport photo companies who validated the photos taken by us using our mobile and then provided a code to insert on the application which gave us some confidence as to the photos we provided. 

[P&O SUE]

2 minutes ago, davekent said:

The UK passport services seem to be very much in control of things at the moment. We renewed ours at the end of January and received one back in 6 days and one in 8. For whatever reason one was processed in Durham and the other in the Peterborough office but for both as you mention we received email updates with regards the receipt of the old passport, the application being processed and the passport being printed. We used one of the online passport photo companies who validated the photos taken by us using our mobile and then provided a code to insert on the application which gave us some confidence as to the photos we provided. 

That’s funny as mine went to Durham and my husband’s to Belfast!

[dwhe]

9 hours ago, caribill said:

 

Also, if you can go on your own, you can stay as long or short a time as you like (consistent with when you must be back on board), not forced to leave at a pre-determined time which may be too soon or too long for you.

 

By the way, does the Princess excursion allow you to also visit the SS Nomadic which is a Titanic tender? It is across the street from the museum and is included in the admission price. To me it is a fascinating part of the museum and not to be missed. (It was used to transfer passengers and luggage from shore to the Titanic and did not stay with the ship. Has first class and steerage sections that keep the different classes of passengers separated. First class section had a full service bar.  Steerage section had a water fountain. Many other differences between the two sections.)

I don't think it does caribill, no mention at all in the gumph.

Also there is other Titanic stuff in the area like its dry dock that you don't get to see, it's a 4 hour excursion, 1 hour driving around half an hour getting there and back (according to them) and 2 and a half hours in the exhibition, all for $99.95.

If anything they should make the excursions cheaper to compensate us having to take theirs, not exploiting us.

[caribill]

37 minutes ago, dwhe said:

 

Also there is other Titanic stuff in the area like its dry dock that you don't get to see, it's a 4 hour excursion, 1 hour driving around half an hour getting there and back (according to them) and 2 and a half hours in the exhibition, all for $99.95.

 

 

For many 2.5 hours is enough at that museum. When we went on our own several years ago we expected to spend about that amount of time there and then head downtown and finally take a Princess shuttle back to the ship.

 

We are no doubt not the typical visitor to the museum, but we ended spending six hours there that day and skipped going downtown (which we had visited on previous port stops there).

[ann141]

4 hours ago, P&O SUE said:

That’s funny as mine went to Durham and my husband’s to Belfast!

My passport went to Peterborough and my husbands to Durham.I received a new blue passport, hubby received an old red one! (We applied for new passports last June or July)

[tokyo1949]

6 hours ago, P&O SUE said:

I renewed mine online a couple of years ago, was really easy and efficient. I was sent a couple of emails to let me know they’d received it etc, I got it back in about 5 days! The only problem I had was trying to get my photo done to their specifications! My husband took it with my mobile but we had a bit of an issue with light and background! After that the rest was easy 😊

Thanks will have to have a go at doing it closer to the time

[nocl]

11 hours ago, WeeCountyMan said:

I took it to mean that any individual who was vaccinated was 85% protected from infection.

 

Is that the same as saying that 15 in a hundred are not protected at all ?

 

I'm no statistician !!!

The efficacy numbers merely represent how the vaccine worked in clinical trials at a given time.  

It gives a measure of performance at that time which may or may not transfer to real world use but is a good indicator.  The trials were run using symptomatic disease as a measure.  The number of patients that actually were infected was relatively small - less than two hundred.

 

While there was no fatalities in the trial with an illness with about a .65% mortality rate you would have expected 1 at most out of a group of that size of infected participants. So while the vaccine is expected to reduce the number of serious cases and mortality I would not count on the 100% figure people claim due to the trial.

 

For Moderna and Pfizer (which also had no mortality in their trials) data from Israel monitoring of vaccinated individuals indicate with those 2 vaccines that Asymptomatic infections were reduced by 94%, symptomatic cases reduced by 96% and mortalities were reduced by 98%. So for those two vaccines that would take the mortality rate from .65% down to .013% of cases. This was with the original strain and B.1.1.7 (the UK strain).  Unfortunately no data is yet known on the partially resistant  B.1.351 (South African Variant)

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by nocl

[Ombud]

14 hours ago, WeeCountyMan said:

I took it to mean that any individual who was vaccinated was 85% protected from infection.

 

Is that the same as saying that 15 in a hundred are not protected at all ?

 

I'm no statistician !!!

Im confused too. Excerpt from:  

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/how-

"Johnson & Johnson’s jab appears to be 100 percent effective, like Moderna and Pfizer’s, at preventing severe COVID cases that lead to hospitalization and death. The lower top-line number may be because it was tested against emerging variants from the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa not circulating during the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials. And on the plus side, its side effects tend to be milder." So its 100% against hospitalization & death but only 72% against asymptomatic version. Flu vaccine is only 40-50% effective so far more effective.  Mask still needed until 85% of population vaccinated 

 

Making it my choice ..... now if they'd just release it in my county. Apparently we don't have enough cases to warrant it

Edited March 29, 2021 by Ombud