Jump to content

MrMarc

Members
  • Posts

    469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by MrMarc

  1. I I wonder why people trust cruise companies to run the ship, but not about COVID. Either they know what they are doing, or they do not. So if you do not trust them on their COVID decisions, I totally agree you should not go on their ships, obviously they have no idea what they are doing.
  2. I think things will remain the same through the end of the year. Right now the possibility of a large outbreak and the resulting bad press is too much of a risk, and many of the ports will have to change their requirements before it will even be possible for the cruise lines to change. But as we all know, covid changes can change quickly and often. I have an august 10 cruise to Alaska scheduled, and I'm not expecting any changes.
  3. I know it's not RCCL, but there are a bunch of MSC cruises available.
  4. I agree it wouldn't be the same, but they claim to be filling the ships with the vaccine requirement in place. Why even risk the publicity generated by a single bad case? Cruising is different than other forms of travel in both the environment onboard as well as the scrutiny of the press. I think at this point I would cruise without the restrictions in place, but honestly they make me more comfortable whether they are actually needed or not. I do not think we will see anything change until the crew issues are resolved and they stop filling the ships, assuming they actually are right now.
  5. In considering how many people will not cruise if the vaccine is required, you also have to look at how many people will not cruise without the requirement. Not to get political, but realize that we are all tending to think that whichever way we feel is what the majority of people feel. I would assume that the cruise lines have enough resources to estimate which will benefit them the most. I think the same goes for the testing requirements. It is not a question of right or wrong or anyone's health(well, maybe the crew's), but what market research tells them will be most beneficial.
  6. This issue is not new. There were questions regarding the liability of Cruise Lines for using the facilities and questions regarding the excursions falling outside of the guidelines at the time. The cruise lines decided to take a chance. They may end up regretting it. I do not see a plotical issue, but a Court doing what it is supposed to interpreting and enforcing laws and contracts.
  7. You might call because they might not take pre-paid cards at all. A lot of hotels do not. In this case, sending the actual cash is much better.
  8. I've thought of it. The only time I looked at the numbers would have been for this month. Another cruise line keeps sending me offers for $0 cruise fare (admittedly for interior rooms), so I looked at it. I actually run a store, so I could not be away that long. The other problem is my lack of will power. The "free" cruises always cost me more than I intend to spend, at at 5-10 pound weight gain per week, I would have to have multiple sizes of clothes and my cardiologist would not be happy with me (nor would my body).
  9. You are absolutely correct, while personally I would selfishly like the booster required, I realize it is a much more complex question than the initial vaccine. It may be that the lower passenger volume lines will do it, but the larger passenger lines (like RCCL) may not. I am willing to bet there are meetings with medical, PR and marketing people going on about this daily right now. The cruise lines, and even a small business like mine, are caught between a rock and a hard place. Whatever is done, a significant group of people will be angry at it and think the person making the decision is crazy or stupid. I wish a lot of these people making these pronouncements owned a business and had to make these decisions in areas where there is no government mandate and no real agreement among the people in the surrounding area. People on both sides think a majority of people agree with them, which is of course impossible.
  10. Why do people keep making statements like this. no protocol is 100% effective, that does not mean it doesn't work. Come on Smokeybandit, even you know this is true. If you use that standard no medicine, medical treatment or vaccine works. There may be disagreement about how effective the vaccine is, but no one is saying it does not work. And please don't put that partially quoted statement by the CDC director where he misspoke and has explained it over and over. Now on masks, I will agree that there are some that say they are totally ineffective, although I disagree. But there is definitely support for that position, but none for a claim that the vaccine does not work at all. I don't want to convince you to think I am correct, but if we are going to discuss it at all, let's at least be realistic. They don't stop everyone from getting covid, but they do stop some.
  11. You and so many other make statements like that as if they are factual. They are not. The truth is that there is no valid study on the effects of masks and social distancing in general, much less with COVID. There are studies, all of which many researchers find significant flaws in their design, results and interpretation. The blunt truth is we are not sure, and the best evidence at this point shows at least a minimal reduction. Even without a study, simple common sense tells you that whatever you are exhaling is at worst slowed, dispersed and redirected by a mask. Blow on your hand without a mask and then with a mask. You have just proven that the mask dissipates the energy behind any dispersion, and that is an absolute, unarguable fact. Studies have continued this whole time, and the best and most trusted support masks and vaccines, although there are some that do not. There is also the idea of being safe rather than sorry. And yes, it will take very unambiguous and overwhelming data to change what we are doing, because the risk if we are wrong involves loosing hundreds of thousands of more lives. At this point the data supporting your views has not nearly risen to such a level. And the entwining of politics makes things even more difficult.
  12. What they are doing is working, despite the vocal opposition demonstrated on Facebook and various cruise boards. However, if I were to base a decision on the boards, there is a very clear majority that want the current protocols or even stronger ones. However, my guess is that the cruise lines have done actual market research and actually know what they are doing better than any of us do. If the cruise lines are as inept as many people now consider them to be, I cannot believe that they would trust them enough to cruise with them. I have come to the conclusion that they know what they are doing, no conspiracy, no political agenda, just a desire to provide the safest cruise with what the majority of people who cruise consider acceptable requirements. I understand the few that want no vaccines and no masks are very loud and claim to be in the majority, however I think there is ample proof that is not the case. I think the cruise lines are going to have to be very sure that dropping any part of the current protocols is demonstrably safe, not that someone thinks or believes it's safe, before they will loosen the protocols. They cannot afford to just try it and see what happens, not to mention that doing that would be incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to passengers, crew and shareholders. I do not think any of us here, including myself, are smarter than any individual cruise line, much less all of them.
  13. And you don't think that they have taken any of the changes into consideration and are just "blindly following the CDC" as so many people say? Honestly, I think they are using the most up to date information. I think they are looking at it from a health point of view (both passengers and crew). However I admit that they are also probably considering political and marketing information as well. I think they are making the decisions that they think are most beneficial to their industry. But you may be right, I may be crazy. But I don't think you are looking for a lunatic, and that would be a bit harsh for my point of view.
  14. Before all the posts complaining about this start, think about this for a moment. The cruise lines (including RCCL) are a multi-billion dollar industry. Is it realistic that they would almost all follow the same protocols based on some political agenda or outdated information? They are blindly following the CDC, otherwise they would not be sailing. These are the protocols developed by people with far more knowledge and resources than any of us. They were actually developed by the CILA before anything was required by the CDC. We all have our opinions on the subject, some want stricter protocells, or at least stricter enforcement (like me), others want no protocols. However, I have realized that what they are doing is working, so even without the strict enforcement I would like to see (which involves expecting people to follow rules even when they don't like them as much as any safety concern) what they are doing is working. So I really have no basis to argue that I know more than they do, but neither does anyone else here. Whether or not to cruise under these conditions is an absolutely personal decision, but it's more than a little arrogant to assume we know more than they do.
  15. How about including a clause to hold the passenger liable for any cases contact traced to them if they are not following the protocols? The answer to both is that liability is not the issue, health, the ability to sail, and being able to disembark at ports are the real issues.
  16. With all of the resources available to the cruise lines and the fact that they ALL seem to be doing very similar things, why not consider the possibly that they are not the ones who are wrong or crazy? And while we are at it, why is the press at fault for not looking at all of the data when so many people are making decisions about vaccines, masks, etc. based on a few random internet posts? Just a thought.
  17. I think to do anything else at this point would be a suicidal move by any cruise company. And I base that only on the public's perceptions based on reporting from all news sources. This might be one of the only stories where there was no difference on how it was (mis)reported by FOX and CNN and maybe even MSNBC and NEWSMAX.
  18. I think that they have already succeeded at getting the spotlight off of the case, and it will be quietly dismissed at some point after the 15th, or at least there will be a motion to dismiss. For me, the question is whether and how vigorously Florida will fight it. The TRO will become totally moot, so the question may no longer be properly before the Court.
  19. I think this may make the Florida lawsuit moot, so the underlying legal question will not be answered based on this situation. I think that is a good thing, because I did not want the courts looking at this important issue based on a question regarding a recreational activity. Better to wait for a subject with a lot more meat on it.
  20. I agree we need to get the real info out to help rhe industry, but the selfish me wants to tell everyone to cancel so there are fewer people on my cruise. But I won't do it.
  21. I think the CDC warning will prevent that from happening by lowering passanger counts and increasing the cruise lines vigilance. It may also make people's expectations more reasonable.
  22. Or the CDC is worried about a worst case scenario, that probably won't happen, but could. They have to act proactively, not reactively. I think that the warning will itself help by lowering capacities, which I think it is fairly clear were increased too fast, and get the cruise lines to start taking their own protocols more seriously, since I don't think they were and were becoming more complacent. Flame me if you want, but at least consider how such a warning could prevent things escalating to a shutdown or effective shutdown due to lack of ports.
×
×
  • Create New...