MrMarc

9 hours ago, VACruiser said:

If this is about a mask conversation it is nothing more than a placebo to lessen the fear of humans. The best you can get out of it is that someone your talking to won't spit on you accidentally when talking to you. How do I know, because I have to wear a mask at work at all times and this gentleman that I speak to daily at work got Covid and spread it to me. I did all the right things based upon, yea Science, and still got it.

RCL can follow the CDC guidelines to stay in business, and I'm good with that, but to say masks are the panacea for the spread of Covid is like applying a  bandaid on a carotid artery bleed. It still gets around the supposed cure.

We are almost two years into this in American and a lot of the so-called people who say that they are Science act as if it is still March 2020. We've learned a lot since then but to get them to change is like getting a 5 year old to take and bath - it's difficult.

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. 

4 hours ago, PPPJJ-GCVAB said:

Not sure this is an appropriate question but going to ask it anyway.  Does anyone feel as though Royal will ever remove the requirement of vaccination?  I know there are several on this blog who have had to forego their love of cruising because of this.  I have members of my family also not vaccinated and it pains me to think they cannot experience this vacation dream due to the current mandate.  I am not asking this to start a debate or political discussion…I just wonder if vaccinations will ever be not required! 

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.

9 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I don't think many would say "ditch all protocols" but I think many want realistic protocols that match the current state of things.  Most protocols (other than vaccine requirements) developed by CLIA and CDC are from summer 2020. 

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.

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.

On 1/16/2022 at 4:45 PM, KJ1231 said:

Umm.... why not just have everyone sign a waiver that they won't sue if they contract covid. Anyone that would get on a cruise ship and think they won't get covid should not be cruising... you can't sue vaccine manufacturers - even if it kills you! ..... did anyone ever sue if they got any of the other flu variants ?

I saw the news pop up on my phone and thought I'd make a reservation for Alaska in 2023. Then read this and just saved about $10K. Will continue to hang out in the Poconos on my own cruise ship - 20' Bentley Pontoon!

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.

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.

10 minutes ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

Unfortunately, this means nothing as the cruise lines (Royal, at any rate) has already said that they will comply with the CSO even if becomes voluntary.  The CDC made it very clear that there would be OTHER ways that they [CDC] would make life difficult for the cruise lines if they don't.  I don't see anything changing soon....voluntary or mandatory. 

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.

7 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I'm sure there's a lot of back door handshakes that make both sides come out looking good.

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.

13 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

A rare wise move by the CDC.

 

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.

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.

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.

5 hours ago, LinRon2 said:

There's obviously something going on with that CDC that's NOT science when it comes to cruising.  It's just plain out 'negative bias' and anyone can see it when all other modes of travel are compared to cruising.  There should be an accounting when all this over and assessment as to just what has done the most damage [the Virus or...media...or?...CDC?].

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.

10 hours ago, MaryCS62 said:

1700 /1.1 Million = 0.15% positive (excellent by any standard), 41/ 1.1 million = 0.004%  cruisers went to hospital. 41/1700 = 2.4% of positive people needing hospitalization

 

You can't use any of these figures without realizing that this virus is infecting vastly more people at the same time.  So however acceptable you feel these figures are, when you realize these percentages apply to tens or hundreds of millions of people is when you realize the scope of the problem and the stress this puts on whatever medical resources are available anywhere in the world.  It also does not factor in the number of oeople suffering or dying while ignoring other issues out of fear, issues not taken care of do to lack of resources and the unpredictablity of the short or long term consequences of COVID.  It's so much more complicated then simple percentages.

What I really cannot figure out is why we continue to see posts like this everywhere.  It's not like the poster doesn’t know about the purpose and various opnions on masks.  Some people agree with you, while others (like me) do not, although those words are not nearly strong enough to express the depth of the disagreement.  No one on these boards is going to change anyone's mind.  I am willing to argue about it much more than most, and even I am tired of it and realize the futility.  In my opnion your opnion on masks is wrong at every level,  but you do you.  Just not on a cruise ship until the rules change.

9 minutes ago, Ampurp85 said:

I don't think it is right that ports can change, and we just have to agree but it's in the legal document I signed. I was told in business, might makes right. I didn't bring up whether it was wrong or right, just that people aren't entitled to a perk. It was not as if those who needed the test were charged for them. In respect to the situation, those tests are specific to certain countries rules and aren't the burden of cruise lines. 

But I also get what you mean and agree to some extent. I guess my issue is the entitlement. RCG gives them the option of a refund; they don't have to from a legal standpoint but choose to do so. I guess also I have little sympathy for people who have no back-ups when it comes to testing, vacation and traveling in general. I honestly believe if Covid didn't continue to expand they would have kept this perk. But with the current situation, it is not feasible, nor is it conditional. I am not saying those affected shouldn't be upset. I am saying that RCG is not to blame in this instance. Lots of businesses have had to make adjustments during this time, our only recourse is to either accept or not. 

And I understand your point of view also.  However, I don't think it's "entitlement" to expect what was sold as part of the cruise and the decision not to provide it is totaly within RCCL's control.  In the case of port changes, those are decisions made outside of RCCL's control, although to a certain extent it is indirectly in their control by how they change or enforce certain protocols onboard, how full the ship is, etc.  But even then, they do not have a visible target, the ports are making these decisions on a ship by ship basis.  So to me, it is about what is and is not within RCCL's direct control.  But I know this is moot, that wonderful cruise contract gives them the right and might.

On 12/27/2021 at 10:42 PM, twangster said:

To play an unpopular game of devil's advocate for a minute, if tests have to be bundled in by a cruise line, should a guest who doesn't need a test receive a credit in lieu of a test?

Royal is a business.  Tests costs money.  That money has to be covered somehow.   Not everyone need or wants one.

Like any discussion about bundling, why should everyone pay more so a subset of guests can receive something included? 

You can argue that having Voom makes all the data entry into different COVID related apps much, much easier.  I lived this when I had to leave a ship early.  Thanks goodness i had a Voom plan.  That made my life much easier.  

Should everyone get free Voom right now?  If so that cost has to be paid for somehow.  Satellite internet is not cheap. 

Make everyone pay by increasing fares so anyone who wants Voom and tests can have them "free"?

They are not turning a profit right now.  They are operating in the red.  

 

I agree with your logic, but in this case all the parties are asking for is what was offered at the time of booking.  There was not an offer for the costs of the test if you didn't need it.  You could look at it like the loyalty perks, only passengers that meet certain criteria get them.  In this case only passengers that needed tests were offered them, and everything about the change is within the control of RCCL.  The cost should have been accounted for at the time of the booking, not at the time of sailing, as a liability attached to the booking.  But I also realize what the cruise contract says, so I am also just playing the game.

On 12/27/2021 at 12:00 AM, Ampurp85 said:

In all honesty I am a little tired of people that behave in such an entitled manner. Sue!? Really? There would be no legal grounds for a lawsuit. Getting a free PCR test was a perk and a privilege.

The cruise contract states, polices, port etc. can change at will. There was no bait and switch. 

I agree that the cruise contract allows RCCL to change anything at any time, however just because it's legal does not make it right.  I have no problem with no compensation for missed ports, canceled shows and such.  However in this case everything relating to this is totally within their control.  They could easily determine which bookings were made before or after they decided to no longer provide something that was essential to the initial booking.  I usually defend RCCL on these types of things, but I think they are wrong in this case.  I don't think a letter  from any lawyer will help, these cruise contracts have been fairly well tested in the courts.  However if enough of the individuals got together as a group, they could possibly get RCCL's attention, but just as possible that it wouldn't.  And for those blaming the country requiring the test, this was known by everyone at the time of the booking.  I think it would be different if the requirement started after the booking.  I don't think it's bait & switch, but I do think it's deceptive advertising.

Honestly, you don't really need that t-shirt or cute shell animal that badly.

Actually I have found that many times I have to enter it twice to get the offer.  So like so many other things at RCCL.  If you don't like the first answer, ask again.

51 minutes ago, infosec123 said:

I did re-read your post and am still confused as to what you are angry about, that is why I am asking.

I am trying to keep this focused on the crew.  

25 minutes ago, infosec123 said:

Ok, several of my daughters friends have had COVID over this year and I wouldnt be surprised if both my kids have had COVID. What does that have to do with making you angry that crew members are being frustrated by lack of mask compliance? Dont they have their own channels to escalate issues?

GO re-read my post.  One thing has nothing to do with the other.  If I am angry about anything related to the crew, it's the disrespect and assumption that they are stupid.  But this is not about me being mad, it's about looking at this subject in ways other than it's effect on us.

8 minutes ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

OH NO !  Very sorry to hear it.  Will it adversely affect any holiday plans ?  I hope not.

Yes, my daughter is devastated.  She has worked over the years to get my ex-wife to be less bitter and to get my older child to speak with me again.  She has succeeded, and the 4 of us were going to have dinner together on December 26th.  I've tried to make her understand that she has already succeeded, because she has.  But she has chosen to focus on that dinner.  I even found and was going to rent a tele-presence robot for her, but she was angry about the cost.  I have promised to make it happen at some point if I have to fly everyone somewhere to make it happen.  But she says it wouldn't be the same.  So I am helpless to make things better in any way.  As a father it's a horrible feeling.  And, rightly or wrongly (I will not argue, because I don't think I am capabile of being even close to civil right now) I blame the ant-mask, anti-vaccine, covid deniers and their ilk.  I was drunk when I found out and came close to being kicked off or out of a few places.  So for now, I will not discuss it.  That's why you really have to believe how sincere I am when I say this thread is not about that.  This is basically what every crew member I spoke with said.  And now you know I share too much.

18 hours ago, TickledBlue said:

Watched a youtube video on this and the place looked great except for the murky water.   The video was a couple of months old.  Is the water always like that?

They are having a lot of onshore winds where they are, so the water clarity is suffering.  The reef is about 500 yards offshore.  They offered to set me up in a Kayak with an anchor if I wanted to go out there though.

16 hours ago, infosec123 said:

Why are you so angry about this topic?

I just found out my daughter, many of her friends and a few cousins in my family have COVID.  

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

Most of the time a "system glitch" is code for "a human screwed up"

I would normally agree, but this is RCCL IT we are talking about.  They have kind of earned a reputation.