Sky Princess implements new mask wearing rule … sip and cover!

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, Jonibme said:

It would be much more meaningful information if the full statistical picture were represented.

5,013 cases out of how many people tested? What’s percentage of the crossing population is this? If it is still below in local on shore outbreak rate, it matters… What itineraries were they on? Is it possible that specific ports should be avoided due to local outbreaks that exposed cruisers? Other trend related data… understanding the case count vs total population and vaccination status would be the best case scenario.

The key point is during one cases went from less to 200 to over 5000 in adjacent two week periods.  While might have been some changes in passenger numbers, most cases in both cases are identified in the crew which, unlike passengers are subject to testing every week.  Most passengers are not tested unless they are symptomatic and report to the med center, are on B2B, or need testing for travel to other countries. In some cases the cruise lines have moved on going travel to the pier and off the ship.  So those cases might not even show up in he numbers in the later period.

 

Based upon the testing I expect 80% are probably crew.

 

Note that the CDC does have access to the full data set and the ability to analyze it in detail and in looking at it raised the risk level.

Edited January 1, 2022 by nocl

[Jonibme]

22 minutes ago, nocl said:

The key point is during one cases went from less to 200 to over 5000 in adjacent two week periods.  While might have been some changes in passenger numbers, most cases in both cases are identified in the crew which, unlike passengers are subject to testing every week.  Most passengers are not tested unless they are symptomatic and report to the med center, are on B2B, or need testing for travel to other countries. In some cases the cruise lines have moved on going travel to the pier and off the ship.  So those cases might not even show up in he numbers in the later period.

 

Based upon the testing I expect 80% are probably crew.

 

Note that the CDC does have access to the full data set and the ability to analyze it in detail and in looking at it raised the risk level.

Also note that the CDC puts a ship on the “investigate and observe” list if one TENTH of one percent of passengers test positive. If there are only 500 or fewer passengers on board… 1 positive test would put knock that ship out of the green category. 
 

Without the full statistical picture they can really only feed our fear…

 

Everybody must decide for themselves… but so far I can’t find anything in the statistics we are provided with that causes me any alarm. I admit that we are vax’ed and boosted and both survived Covid-19 last year with no lasting effects. Even though we are in our mud and late 60’s, we have no pre-existing conditions and are in excellent health…

[nocl]

9 minutes ago, Jonibme said:

Also note that the CDC puts a ship on the “investigate and observe” list if one TENTH of one percent of passengers test positive. If there are only 500 or fewer passengers on board… 1 positive test would put knock that ship out of the green category. 
 

Without the full statistical picture they can really only feed our fear…

 

Everybody must decide for themselves… but so far I can’t find anything in the statistics we are provided with that causes me any alarm. I admit that we are vax’ed and boosted and both survived Covid-19 last year with no lasting effects. Even though we are in our mud and late 60’s, we have no pre-existing conditions and are in excellent health…

You seem to bringing out everything you can think of as to why you do not trust or do not believe that there is a reason for the CDC change in recommendations.  They only made a recommendation they are not forcing anyone to do anything. So do what you want.

 

I would expect that since the CDC also gets data on people testing positive after leaving cruises, if reported to their local health departments and it is indicated that they have been on a cruise, so I would expect more data than just the on board cases, based upon the number of people that have reported positive tests after getting home.

 

Certainly risk of serious illness is low for those fully vaccinated.  The issue is more how willing is one willing to put up with port cancellations, itinerary changes, travel inconveniences due to positive tests, impacts to on board services and entertainment due to cases with the crew impacting staffing, etc.  Which are far more likely than a serious case.

 

That said I am looking at a couple of cruises in January.  Both of which I can drive to, and therefore we can just drive home if a problem with embarkation or at disembarkation.  

[Jonibme]

Oh no… CDC in general is just losing credibility with many people based on their criteria. They appear to be singling out this industry without good scientific cause. The thresholds they use for reporting and determining risk levels are lower than criteria applied to on-shore resorts and businesses… 

We are looking at a February cruise and doing our homework… if we missed every port we would still be happy to be back on board…it’s all good to us…

[jimbo1683]

I was reading through some of the earlier comments in this thread, maybe because time has moved on but it feels odd to me that 'we' are getting wrapped up in whether the covid protocols are being followed onboard or not when they don't match - indeed they seem to exceed - the protocols on land anyway. I mean in the UK, i can go to (and have been in) crowded bars where no masks are required, i can eat in a restaurant with no mask required, i can go to private parties and gatherings without a mask and dance on a crowded dance floor, i can sit maskless in abtheatre with hundreds of people, i can sit in large meetings in an office for hours having travelled there on public transport. But i have to put on a mask to do my food shopping.

 

Clearly in the UK Boris is taking us on his journey to herd immunity as he wanted to do at the start of the pandemic  but is now doing so under a different guise.

 

If someone is going on a cruise in the genuine belief they are going to be safer than staying at home they are misguided. Equally if someone is seeing dancing onboard or people not wearing a mask properly in an onboard theatre and imagine this is an intolerably risky situation then you need to take a walk into town and see that life is happening and has been for sometime, and it's not in the masked covid safe way many of us would prefer.

 

It's a risk to go anywhere and one you weigh up for yourself, you can't rely on others to keep you safe.

[PrincessLuver]

26 minutes ago, jimbo1683 said:

I was reading through some of the earlier comments in this thread, maybe because time has moved on but it feels odd to me that 'we' are getting wrapped up in whether the covid protocols are being followed onboard or not when they don't match - indeed they seem to exceed - the protocols on land anyway. I mean in the UK, i can go to (and have been in) crowded bars where no masks are required, i can eat in a restaurant with no mask required, i can go to private parties and gatherings without a mask and dance on a crowded dance floor, i can sit maskless in abtheatre with hundreds of people, i can sit in large meetings in an office for hours having travelled there on public transport. But i have to put on a mask to do my food shopping.

 

Clearly in the UK Boris is taking us on his journey to herd immunity as he wanted to do at the start of the pandemic  but is now doing so under a different guise.

 

If someone is going on a cruise in the genuine belief they are going to be safer than staying at home they are misguided. Equally if someone is seeing dancing onboard or people not wearing a mask properly in an onboard theatre and imagine this is an intolerably risky situation then you need to take a walk into town and see that life is happening and has been for sometime, and it's not in the masked covid safe way many of us would prefer.

 

It's a risk to go anywhere and one you weigh up for yourself, you can't rely on others to keep you safe.

 

Please do not compare cruising to everyday local living.....people do not pay thousands of dollars to go to their local grocery store and grocery stores do not try and convince you or assure you that you will get sick if you use their stores.....cruise lines do and they are not in denial that there is a problem with Covid......

[PrincessLuver]

45 minutes ago, Jonibme said:

Oh no… CDC in general is just losing credibility with many people based on their criteria. They appear to be singling out this industry without good scientific cause. The thresholds they use for reporting and determining risk levels are lower than criteria applied to on-shore resorts and businesses… 

We are looking at a February cruise and doing our homework… if we missed every port we would still be happy to be back on board…it’s all good to us…

What is your hard evidence that they are singling out cruising?   They are just reporting what they know at a given time.....I tend to believe the CDC and not Princess or the other cruise lines.....cruise lines as has been reported numerous times are not monitoring or enforcing many of their protocols....we do not know how many crew are getting sick on these ships which is a concern to us.....

[jimbo1683]

5 minutes ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Please do not compare cruising to everyday local living.....people do not pay thousands of dollars to go to their local grocery store and grocery stores do not try and convince you or assure you that you will get sick if you use their stores.....cruise lines do and they are not in denial that there is a problem with Covid......

I didn't suggest that anyone is in denial about the problem of covid. I do believe that cruise lines are trying their best albeit probably driven primarily by the reputational risk to them when outbreaks happen. But what I was saying was that it is absurd for people to go on a cruise and imagine the safety protocols are going to be followed to the letter by every single person when this does not happen on land even when the rules are much less stringent, and every nationality onboard will have developed different safety habits based on what they've been told to do at home.

[nocl]

53 minutes ago, Jonibme said:

Oh no… CDC in general is just losing credibility with many people based on their criteria. They appear to be singling out this industry without good scientific cause. The thresholds they use for reporting and determining risk levels are lower than criteria applied to on-shore resorts and businesses… 

We are looking at a February cruise and doing our homework… if we missed every port we would still be happy to be back on board…it’s all good to us…

The CDC has nothing to do with land based resorts, those are under control of whatever state they are located in.  Cruising by nature is international and as such falls more under CDC enforcement then any land based activity.

 

Actually there is good scientific cause based upon a number of considerations, but some do not care to believe it.  Mostly due to measured RO of air borne illness in the relatively closed in spaces, large amount on mingling and other characteristics of cruising.  Combinations that are really not found in any other single venue.  The combination of close in spaces, density of passengers and crew, the intermingling of most while going through the course of a normal set of cruise activities, the entertainment venues, dining, bars, etc.  All with fairly high passenger and crew density, all of which last for multiple days.  

 

Most land based resorts are not inspected like cruise ships have for years under  the Vessel Sanitation Program either.   Yet most cruisers don't seem to be upset by that difference.

[nocl]

6 minutes ago, jimbo1683 said:

I didn't suggest that anyone is in denial about the problem of covid. I do believe that cruise lines are trying their best albeit probably driven primarily by the reputational risk to them when outbreaks happen. But what I was saying was that it is absurd for people to go on a cruise and imagine the safety protocols are going to be followed to the letter by every single person when this does not happen on land even when the rules are much less stringent, and every nationality onboard will have developed different safety habits based on what they've been told to do at home.

The difference is on a cruise ship each and every passenger has made contractual agreement to follow such rules.

[MishelleMcc]

These last few pages have been a very healthy and thought provoking conversation!  Thank you everyone!

 

A couple things come to my mind:

1.  The cruise lines and the CDC need to be transparent regarding the numbers especially if they expect us to make responsible decisions.  Tell us REAL facts.

2.  The Crew:  I wonder if they are panicked or concerned about the high covid test numbers.  Their choices are limited (as we know) so I wonder how they feel about what's happening.  Surely, being placed on a quarantine ship in the middle of the ocean is:  a.  Not fun (at best)  b.  or frightening as heck. 

[nocl]

29 minutes ago, MishelleMcc said:

These last few pages have been a very healthy and thought provoking conversation!  Thank you everyone!

 

A couple things come to my mind:

1.  The cruise lines and the CDC need to be transparent regarding the numbers especially if they expect us to make responsible decisions.  Tell us REAL facts.

2.  The Crew:  I wonder if they are panicked or concerned about the high covid test numbers.  Their choices are limited (as we know) so I wonder how they feel about what's happening.  Surely, being placed on a quarantine ship in the middle of the ocean is:  a.  Not fun (at best)  b.  or frightening as heck. 

Unlike the first go around where ships could not offload crew, they could not get home, many more serious cases, and the timeframe was unknown, I think that there is far less uncertainty.  The crew is vaccinated, the cases mild, they know when their quarantine ends, and they know that they can get home when their contract ends.  So while the quarantine is not fun, (boring) I doubt it would be frightening.

[caribill]

12 hours ago, nocl said:

The CDC usually does not put numbers related to cruises on their web site.

 

Will this do

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2021/12/30/cdc-cruise-warning-omicron/9055443002/

 

Between Nov. 30 and Dec. 14, cruise ships operating in U.S. waters reported 162 cases of COVID-19 to the CDC. Between Dec. 15 and Dec. 29, cruise ships sailing in U.S. waters reported 5,013 COVID-19 cases to the CDC.

 

Assuming 7-day cruises and about 90 ships in yellow status, that would average out to about 28 cases per cruise and would include both passengers and staff.

 

Since for most cruises passengers are not tested for Covid while on the cruise ship, the cases would have to be from people who visited the medical center with a problem and any tested reported close contacts. So most of those who had Covid with mild or no symptoms would not be in the CDC count.

 

Of course 28 cases/cruise is an average. Some cruises could have far less cases to report and some could have far more.

 

For people to make a proper decision to cruise or not, it would be helpful to know the number of reported cases on the ship one is booked to be on, information we are very unlikely to ever see.

[MissP22]

13 hours ago, jimbo1683 said:

I didn't suggest that anyone is in denial about the problem of covid. I do believe that cruise lines are trying their best albeit probably driven primarily by the reputational risk to them when outbreaks happen. But what I was saying was that it is absurd for people to go on a cruise and imagine the safety protocols are going to be followed to the letter by every single person when this does not happen on land even when the rules are much less stringent, and every nationality onboard will have developed different safety habits based on what they've been told to do at home.

That is so true and just because they have to sign the contract before sailing really doesn't change their habits all that much. 

[wowzz]

I wonder if the attitudes will change on European cruises this summer, when those tested positive , plus close contacts, even if testing negative,  have to disembark and quarantine in a fairly basic hotel for 10 days ? 

Not sure how many US/Canadian cruisers are aware of the European protocols.  

[1965]

12 minutes ago, SargassoPirate said:

When conducting your own risk assessment for cruising, it's important to remember that each "case" is a positive test.  The person tested may not even be showing symptoms - meaning the vaccines work at preventing serious illness.  It's also important to understand two terms the press loves to use "outbreak" and "skyrocketing".

 

I'm sure there are some here who would never even think about riding a motorcycle. Yet, I do.  I assess the risk, wear a helmet and leathers, and ride sensibly.  But I have friends who feel the need to let me know about every motorcycle accident within a hundred miles.

 

Reinhard Heydrich said something along the line of "first you instill fear in the population and then they are easier to control"

 

Get vaxxed, get boosted, and get on with life.

Well said. 😊

[SargassoPirate]

5 minutes ago, 1965 said:

Well said. 😊

Thank you, 1965.

 

BTW, I'm in my 70s and still ride a Harley.  I don't, however, jump out of perfectly good airplanes.  Everyone should be able to make their own risk assessments.

 

Ever see a Harley parked outside a psychiatrist's office - unless it's the doctor's?

[1965]

25 minutes ago, SargassoPirate said:

Thank you, 1965.

 

BTW, I'm in my 70s and still ride a Harley.  I don't, however, jump out of perfectly good airplanes.  Everyone should be able to make their own risk assessments.

 

Ever see a Harley parked outside a psychiatrist's office - unless it's the doctor's?

Gotta share. My DH always wanted a Harley. Finally got one at age 75. He doesn't ride far or fast, but he joyfully rides, & loves it. I'd love for you & he to meet. I don't suppose you're booked on the Grand for Alaska, May 11, or the Regal TA, Nov. 6? 😊

[GonzoWCS]

2 hours ago, SargassoPirate said:

When conducting your own risk assessment for cruising, it's important to remember that each "case" is a positive test.  The person tested may not even be showing symptoms - meaning the vaccines work at preventing serious illness.  It's also important to understand two terms the press loves to use "outbreak" and "skyrocketing".

 

I'm sure there are some here who would never even think about riding a motorcycle. Yet, I do.  I assess the risk, wear a helmet and leathers, and ride sensibly.  But I have friends who feel the need to let me know about every motorcycle accident within a hundred miles.

 

Reinhard Heydrich said something along the line of "first you instill fear in the population and then they are easier to control"

 

Get vaxxed, get boosted, and get on with life.

Well said!

[SargassoPirate]

3 minutes ago, 1965 said:

Gotta share. My DH always wanted a Harley. Finally got one at age 75. He doesn't ride far or fast, but he joyfully rides, & loves it. I'd love for you & he to meet. I don't suppose you're booked on the Grand for Alaska, May 11, or the Regal TA, Nov. 6? 😊

 I won't be on that cruise.  Tell him Harley riders form an instant affinity group on cruises and to wear some Harley T-shirts.  I've even exchanged dealership T- shirts with riders from other countries after the cruise.

 

[1965]

12 hours ago, SargassoPirate said:

 I won't be on that cruise.  Tell him Harley riders form an instant affinity group on cruises and to wear some Harley T-shirts.  I've even exchanged dealership T- shirts with riders from other countries after the cruise.

 

Wearing his Harley shirt on the Regal. 😁