Public Health Emergency Renewed effective 4/21/21

[Pratique]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

I picture the CDC as though it's 1910 and they insist horses are still much better than cars. Those newfangled machines are just too darned risky and dangerous, and there have been 2 car accidents. Two, I tell you! Somebody even died! Nope, too dangerous, no one's allowed to drive a car now.

Never mind

Edited April 21, 2021 by Pratique

[DCGuy64]

28 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

Guaranteed that the lines will be out of business in less than a year.

Haha, okay buddy, whatever you say. Just curious, what do you mean when you say "guaranteed"? Are you going to forfeit something if and when you're wrong? Otherwise, it's not a guarantee, FYI.

I await your answer. BTW people were saying the same thing a year ago and not one major cruise line has gone under. Not a single one. (tiny operations like Pullmantour don't count, FYI)

[DCGuy64]

4 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Yes but the Covid fatality rate is 700-800 per 100,000 versus 11 per 100,000 for automobiles.

And your point?

Mine is that CDC can't even be bothered to update its own recommendations. They still consider cruising to be especially risky with regard to Covid transmission. Seems odd give the .0125% incidence on cruises since last August. (400,000 passengers with 50 cases) And that's just number of cases, NOT fatalities. The CDC is a laughingstock to anyone who's paying attention.

[Pratique]

10 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

And your point?

Mine is that CDC can't even be bothered to update its own recommendations. They still consider cruising to be especially risky with regard to Covid transmission. Seems odd give the .0125% incidence on cruises since last August. (400,000 passengers with 50 cases) And that's just number of cases, NOT fatalities. The CDC is a laughingstock to anyone who's paying attention.

Well I got the numbers wrong but I was going to say that the Covid fatality rate is much higher. It will come down quickly, but we can't really compare automobiles to viruses. Until the number comes down, the CDC will be cautious.

[DCGuy64]

7 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Well I got the numbers wrong but I was going to say that the Covid fatality rate is much higher. It will come down quickly, but we can't really compare automobiles to viruses. Until the number comes down, the CDC will be cautious.

Oh please, stop defending them. Take a look at any graph you want, you'll see Covid cases peaked last year and have been declining ever since vaccinations took off (as expected, BTW). Yet despite this, the CDC hasn't changed its guidance one iota. The CDC will ALWAYS be cautious, but that doesn't mean their caution is warranted. Again, this is the same government agency that swears cruising is scary, all evidence to the contrary.

Anywhoooo, we're traveling later this year and the CDC can take an effing hike, as far as I'm concerned.

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

Oh please, stop defending them.

Oh please, stop trashing them.

 

See how that works?

[DCGuy64]

Just now, Pratique said:

Oh please, stop trashing them.

 

See how that works?

Apples vs oranges, buddy. I supported my reasons, you didn't. Try again. 😉

[At Sea At Peace]

25 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

 

Mine is that CDC can't even be bothered to update its own recommendations. 

 

The selectiveness of their regulations by industry are akin to arbitrary and capricious (at best, IMO, it is by design).

 

If, as they and their supports profess ad nauseum, that every life and precaution is based on the science (i.e., the Princess cruise ships virus data from over a year ago "still exist" today), the why not eliminate similarly the "middle seat on an airplane?"

 

The science, per the CDC, says that leaving the middle seat empty reduces exposure by up to 57%.  So, why is this not so ordered?

 

They also noted that 75% of those infected by an infected flight passenger sat with two rows.  So, why aren't the rows staggered also?  Good grief, we're already paying for the airlines to not fly.

[kirtihk]

34 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Haha, okay buddy, whatever you say. Just curious, what do you mean when you say "guaranteed"? Are you going to forfeit something if and when you're wrong? Otherwise, it's not a guarantee, FYI.

I await your answer. BTW people were saying the same thing a year ago and not one major cruise line has gone under. Not a single one. (tiny operations like Pullmantour don't count, FYI)

Would you like to work without income?  That's what my cruise agent (he is an owner of his cruise agency) has been doing since February 2020 except he works since than 14-16 hours every day including weekends vs 10 hours prior, because of constant cancelations and changes.  He is a fighter! 

[DCGuy64]

3 minutes ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

The selectiveness of their regulations by industry are akin to arbitrary and capricious (at best, IMO, it is by design).

 

If, as they and their supports profess ad nauseum, that every life and precaution is based on the science (i.e., the Princess cruise ships virus data from over a year ago "still exist" today), the why not eliminate similarly the "middle seat on an airplane?"

 

The science, per the CDC, says that leaving the middle seat empty reduces exposure by up to 57%.  So, why is this not so ordered?

 

They also noted that 75% of those infected by an infected flight passenger sat with two rows.  So, why aren't the rows staggered also?  Good grief, we're already paying for the airlines to not fly.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Pratique]

32 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Apples vs oranges, buddy. I supported my reasons, you didn't. Try again. 😉

The CDC used to be one of the most respected health agencies in the world. I understand that you don't agree with everything they have done in the past year, but to write them off completely because they won't reopen cruising seems unreasonable to me. But that's me. Don't tell me to stop defending them unless you'll let me tell you to stop trashing them.

[At Sea At Peace]

5 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The CDC used to be one of the most respected health agencies in the world.

 

Well, now we totally agree.  🙄🤨👍

[DCGuy64]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

to write them off completely because they won't reopen cruising seems unreasonable to me.

I've never written them off completely. Not ever. In fact, I've mentioned on several other threads that I respect the CDC when it comes to its role in promoting good health, hygiene, and fighting disease. I've no quarrel with them when it comes to what its role is. What ticks me off as a cruiser is the way it has singlehandedly stopped all cruising from the USA for over a year based on outdated information, and the way it has singled out cruising in a way it hasn't done to other industries, including the domestic tourism sector. You appear to believe that it's "trashing" them (your word, not mine, FYI) for a taxpaying citizen of the United States to criticize a part of his own government. Last time I checked, that was allowed. Now, for your part, I don't see you doing any criticizing at all, whereas I've stated where I support the CDC. So I would appear to have the more reasoned approach.

[Pratique]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

The CDC is a laughingstock to anyone who's paying attention.

 

4 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I've never written them off completely. Not ever. 

OK if you say so.

[DCGuy64]

6 minutes ago, Pratique said:

 

OK if you say so.

Ah, you seem to believe that poking fun is the same as writing off. Got it. Wrong, but got it.

 

[Pratique]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

Anywhoooo, we're traveling later this year and the CDC can take an effing hike, as far as I'm concerned.

 

6 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Ah, you seem to believe that poking fun is the same as writing off. Got it. Wrong, but got it.

 

OK, so it's poking fun now, is it? Nice spin but I'm not buying it. You are mad at them, that's fine with me.

 

I also believe that the CDC has been unreasonable with the cruise industry. But just because I'm not "poking fun" or whatever you are doing doesn't mean you should tell me to stop defending them any more than I should tell you to stop trashing (ahem, "poking fun at") them. We can both have our say here.

[DCGuy64]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

 

OK, so it's poking fun now, is it? Nice spin but I'm not buying it. You are mad at them, that's fine with me.

 

I also believe that the CDC has been unreasonable with the cruise industry. But just because I'm not "poking fun" or whatever you are doing doesn't mean you should tell me to stop defending them any more than I should tell you to stop trashing (ahem, "poking fun at") them. We can both have our say here.

Dude, you take things WAY too literally. Seriously, chill out. We definitely both need a vacation. 😁

Calling the CDC a laughingstock because of its stranglehold on the US cruising industry while successful cruises sail abroad is obviously hyperbole, not spin. It has a job to do and I think, on this score, it's not doing it well. But that doesn't mean I write it off entirely, although you seem to think I do.

And when I say "stop defending them" it's not a literal imperative that you must stop. You don't have to do anything I say. It's a way of saying that, in my view, their behavior in this realm is indefensible.

That's all for now, I have to go and likely won't be back online the rest of the day. Have a good one and take care!

[bouhunter]

21 hours ago, Ukigirl said:

Here in Michigan hospitals are at 95% capacity 

It's really not surprising.  Restaurants and casino's are loaded with elderly and obese people.  I'm sure a fair number also have diabetes, high blood pressure etc.  I guess they're tired of staying home and willing to accept the risks.  It would be interesting to know how many of them are vaccinated.

[ONECRUISER]

2 hours ago, NightOne said:

 

Sounds like you need to expand or build more hospitals.

 

Unfortunately that is difficult because Michigan is a Certificate of Need state where the existing hospitals get to prevent their competitors from growing. 😞

As I stated yesterday the actually Bed Capacity in Michigan is 78%, lot Covid Patients but still many empty Beds

[grandgeezer]

2 hours ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

Didn't forget to mention (i.e., educate) on the protocols, just believed that, at this point since August resumptions in Italy on the Grandiosa, that most CruiseCritic readers would be quite familiar with such elementary requirements as reduced capacity, masks social distancing.  Also rigorous testing requirements.

 

"No ports" in Italy is simply false; as well as Malta.

 

 

 

Well, the 3 largest cruise lines stocks are trading at almost their all time year high when adjusting for the dilution of new issuances and convertible debt?

 

Their debt is trading at par or above par?

 

Doesn't look like the financial market investors, advisors and ratings professionals are expecting "out of business in less than a year."

 

Also, if that were, in fact the case, the Independent Auditor's would have had to give a "Going Concern" qualification on their annual financial statements.

 

That didn't happen either.

 

Hmmm.

If you would have read the post closely, you would have seen where I said IF they didn't change the protocols from what they are now, they would go out of business in less than a year. The stock market thinks they will eventually get back to normal. My point was that the basis for the initial post wasn't worth comparing to where they needed to be profitable.

Hmmm, ho hummm.

[jean87510]

6 hours ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

and don't forget how prescription drugs cause weight gain. Big pharma is fattening up America too.

yep.  Another factor.

[Pratique]

53 minutes ago, ONECRUISER said:

As I stated yesterday the actually Bed Capacity in Michigan is 78%, lot Covid Patients but still many empty Beds

Are there enough staff to handle the cases, and are they burning out? I don't think the empty bed metric is enough to consider. But I don't know the answer for Michigan.

[Pratique]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

Have a good one and take care!

Thanks you too.

[ONECRUISER]

38 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Are there enough staff to handle the cases, and are they burning out? I don't think the empty bed metric is enough to consider. But I don't know the answer for Michigan.

Doing ok considering. Multiple Family Members work for 2 of the Larger Hospital chains. They got lucky with slowdowns in between the 3 Surges over last 12months getting little relief. Less then 1/3 State ICU beds are CV Patients

Edited April 21, 2021 by ONECRUISER

[Pratique]

16 minutes ago, ONECRUISER said:

Doing ok considering. Multiple Family Members work for 2 of the Larger Hospital chains. They got lucky with slowdowns in between the 3 Surges over last 12months getting little relief. Less then 1/3 State ICU beds are CV Patients

Hats off to them. Challenging work.