LizzyBee23
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LizzyBee23
-
-
20 minutes ago, JeffB said:
This may be coming down to a state v. federal authority issue. There is somewhere in the applicable law that if the feds step in, in this case the state's right to regulate public health risks in state ports, they must first consult state PH authorities. I'm not entirely versed in the law to know. But I think this is a sticky issue. Ports are federally regulated I think.
They absolutely are federally refulated... That's why Florida chose the arguments which focus on the overly broad and seemingly capricious implementation of regulation rather than the CDC's right to regulate in the first place. I think that the scatter shot CDC response only came after the threat of lawsuits works against them, but what do I know.
-
14 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:
They would probably decline it out of fear of falling overboard.
Not a chance they would turn it down. They'd just board with a fake moustache and BCG's.
-
10 minutes ago, nate91 said:
Or dropped if it was unambiguous bad news. I would like to go by the mantra, "No news is good news." At least for now!
Same! I'll just keep refreshing for now, haha
-
11 minutes ago, danv3 said:
Usually you can predict the outcome from comments the judge makes during the hearing. Did any reporters attend (live or virtual)?
My assumption is the stock would have popped if it was unambiguous good news.
-
1 hour ago, twangster said:
Blah, Blah, blah. Accurate details don't sell newspapers. Gory headlines do.
"Luxury vacation for the rich stops vaccines from reaching poor people"
Yeah, and that's not going to change once cruises get started, either. My concern is that instead of acknowledging there will be overreactions at cases on board and moving on, we're letting the people with a motive to overreact frame the debate in such a way that crowds out reason.
- ChrisK2793 and JeffB
-
2
-
1 hour ago, JeffB said:
Vaccination equity is a huge deal right now.
Couldn't agree more... That's why headlines like this targeting the crew of several thousand misses the mark when the west is about to start vaccinating adolescents by the millions before the vulnerable in neighboring countries (let alone the rest of the world).
-
2 hours ago, twangster said:
Right now is the best time to take advantage of the data trend. Right now is the safest time to sail.
Gottlieb seems to understand this, re: indoor masks should go so if the risk does get high again, people aren't so resistant to putting the measure back in place. He's smart enough to see that the CDC risks turning in to chicken little.
-
1 hour ago, twangster said:
No worries, it is relevant even if the blogger who wrote it doesn't have a position we agree with or like to see.
Keep in mind the site is a revenue generating company seeking to gain subscribers and ad revenue.
Controversial blogs about cruise ships are nothing new.
I wish it were just a blog, but it's in Haaretz's news section underneath a shared byline.
-
8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:
Kind of a circular argument. Because some countries are having a hard time getting a vaccine, they're mad that Israel may sell vaccines to a company whose employees are largely people from those countries that are having a hard time getting a vaccine.
Couldn't agree more. Showcases that there is a hostility toward cruising that will not be tempered by reality.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I disagree. Public sentiment about cruise ships and cruise companies as expressed by a prominent newspaper in a country with an imminent startup seems relevant to me.
-
I know we spend a lot of time talking about potential headlines in an outbreak situation, just wanted to share one that illustrates the nature of the problem. This is unfair, particularly in the context of relative numbers, and especially considering we're talking about urgently injecting kids with the vaccine when they're at orders of magnitude less at risk than even the crew, but here is the headline all the same.
-
Look at the CDC's summer camp guidance if you want another reference point for how utterly out of touch they are. I don't think they're being intentionally cruel, but the road to h$@& is paved with good intentions.
-
23 minutes ago, twangster said:
At some point soon hopefully a politician in the right place will desire to declare "we won" or "mission accomplished". Once this occurs the public health emergency will be over and the CDC will be put back in the bottle, their magic powers once again constrained.
Silly me thought (hoped) that would be after Biden's 100 days. Might still be after July 4, but I'm not hopeful considering the CDC put out an analysis that already hedged falling cases at that date (high vaccine uptake AND adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions will be to thank, in case you guys didn't already know or dared to think otherwise). That's a recipe for keeping things as they are now.
-
9 hours ago, alamode123 said:
Its very easy to criticize scientists when you have no idea what they di day to day Without scientists there wouldn't be vaccines in the first place.
As for the CDC, remember there was a recent change in US government, and the previous administration stifled their ability to regulate many industries properly. We dont know how much of the higher ups in the CDC are new. or leftover from the previous administration, which appear to have drastically different priorities.
Im not saying one administration is better or worse, just that the adjustment to a new administration is probably not yet complete.
Why on earth should the CDC be regulating anything, cruising or otherwise?
-
23 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:
Pfizer said they would have their data complete by September, which means October at the earliest for EUA, which remains to be seen if they get it.
This. The FDA has said they'll amend the current EUA without consent from an advisory panel for adolescents, but will wait for an advisory panel to convene for the younger children. Make what you will of that.
-
-
4 hours ago, BarbieBell said:
One case is all the CDC will need to put the brakes on again!
If you really think that then prepare for failure... You also inadvertently normalize this response by saying the cruise lines should plan for it.
-
25 minutes ago, karl_nj said:
Yes, I think this is Royals concern. In numbers, the 0.5-11 year old passenger bracket may be low, but grandma may cancel her 75th birthday cruise, and the 6 cabins of passengers booked for this trip could decide to fly to a resort in Mexico if her 11 year old granddaughter is banned from the ship.
Yeah, and that would be the exact scenario playing out for two of our three booked cruises. If our kids can't come, four other cabins would cancel in addition to ours. Anchor babies of a different sort.
It is all a numbers game, so I would understand being on the wrong side of it. I'm more worried about getting back to normal generally (see above re: wonky risk calculus), and am fine if cruises are a little slower to the table. I truly am worried about the new return to normalcy conditioned on masks being worn indefinitely or continued school shutdowns until vaccines are available for a population that honestly doesn't need them with any urgency. Not to mention the ethical ramifications of rushing through the process of administering vaccines to children who don't suffer the ill effects of the virus while the elderly, vulnerable unvaccinated populations in other parts of the world suffer the burden of immeasurable loss and illness.
-
10 minutes ago, twangster said:
I can already hear pushback to the idea of differentiating between guests but the alternative requires they assume no one is vaccinated and all Singapore protocols apply to everyone. I don't want to sail like that, that's not why I chose to vaccinate. I should not be penalized because someone else hasn't vaccinated.
I like this for the most part, but if it's about risk mitigation then you get into this hairy situation where people over a certain age should be masking and social distancing regardless of vaccination status. I'm just not sure we want to venture into this world where the cruise lines (or anyone else for that matter) are responsible for safeguarding your health beyond some level of reasonability.
-
I'm worried about a resurgence of other viruses alongside COVID for the simple fact that humanity's risk calculator is already so screwed up from this... There were people all over my social media accounts pulling their support from a very popular museum in my very red state because they were going to resume an outdoor event with optional and situational mask requirements rather than a blanket mandate to wear one. It truly is absurd, and a bad flu season will only embolden people to make the argument that we should never really take them off or go back to normal.
I'm not sure what the best move is... Matt and Twangster are right that there will be a media circus if an outbreak happens on a cruise ship, although to my mind that's a matter of "when" and not "if".
-
22 minutes ago, icf75 said:
I couldn't care less if I were on a ship full of unvaccinated people (as it used to be). The risks are minimal, and those at greater risk should be vaccinated. I don't like the idea of this mass coercion into getting the whole world vaccinated (that's a another topic), we need to live with this like we do flu! Not making people scared of the 'unvaccinated'. There is now no reason in my mind why cruising cannot resume immediately.
I've come to realize more and more that this is essentially my position, especially as cases continue to follow a seasonal trend despite containment efforts. It seems obvious to me that this is here to stay, vaccine or not. A lot of the arguments we're using right now to frame the problem will set us up for a future where we can once again be told to put our lives on hold if cases begin increasing again (as they likely will this fall). The only argument that has any lasting power is essentially the one you made: COVID is here to stay, people have the power to make choices which will limit their personal risk to a great degree (IE vaccines), and we are prepared to care for the ones who come down with serious cases of the virus.
I also think the coming fall will be a bell weather of sorts for future cold/flu/COVID seasons. The earlier than expected and more severe onset of RSV cases in Australia suggests that we may have inadvertently done harm to young children by locking down and depriving them of the opportunity to get infected and train their immune systems with commonly circulating viruses. If we have a worse than normal flu season, I can forsee a future where an emboldened CDC uses the last year of experience with COVID to continue recommending some of the same precautions that exist today.
- jticarruthers and icf75
-
2
-
7 minutes ago, 12thman said:
I'm guessing your okay with fake vaccine cards and people coming on board carrying the virus? Did I say sink all the boats? NO ALL I SAID WAS I WOULDN'T BE HAPPY TO HAVE MY CRUISE END THAT WAY!!
No? In a perfect world, there would be no virus. But so long as virus is circulating in people in any measurable degree, it will find its way on a cruise ship. A vaccine mandate and testing may mediate it to some degree, but given the level of virus circulating here in the US today it truly is an inevitability. I'm saying it's a mistake to set the victory conditions at "zero COVID" on board because the headlines are coming anyway.
-
12 minutes ago, 12thman said:
It only takes one person to have covid-19 and the cruise comes to an end in Singapore right now. Wouldn't be happy if paying thousands of dollars for my cruise and someone uses a fake vaccine card to get on then comes down with covid. You know the CDC will be all over that and shut down cruises as the media will be all over it.
So long as virus is circulating on shore, there will be infections on cruise ships. Just like there are breakthrough infections now in nursing homes and elsewhere. The plurality of breakthroughs occurred in people over 60, and they still required hospitalization at about the same rate as non-vaccinated cases of COVID (meaning if you come down with symptomatic COVID post-vaccine, you have about a 6% chance of needing to be hospitalized if you are over 60 regardless of whether or not you've been vaccinated. The vaccine reduces your chances of being infected by 90%, which drops the overall risk factor by the same percentage).
I say all of that because your hypothetical news headline is coming anyway "BREAKTHROUGH INFECTION ON FULLY VACCINATED CRUISE SHIP!!!! SHOULD WE SINK ALL THE BOATS NOW OR LATER?". We can't change the media's appetite for hyperbole, and it shouldn't stop us from making appropriate decisions based on our own comfort with risk.
-
7 minutes ago, twangster said:
That's likely a worse case scenario for the cruise lines.
It puts them in a position of operating with no vaccine requirement which will lead to a case of COVID-19 at some point, or the illusion of a case and the media goes hysteric. Even thought that alleged case will likely be mild and most likely not involve death, that doesn't matter. The fact that the case can't actually be traced to the cruise won't matter.
The CDC imposed vaccination requirement gives them a cleaner and safer (from media hysterics) path forward.
We need to stop making room for the media to do this... There should be no expectation that cruising is any safer than any other vacation. The truth is there will be COVID cases on cruise ships, vaccine requirement or not.
State of Florida Sues CDC Over Cruise Shut Down
in Royal Caribbean News and Rumors
Posted
Just thought I'd share where some of these public health officials are coming from. They act in a matter that is not consistent with a reasonable understanding of risk... This survey would seem to say it's endemic to the profession, and it's exactly what we're up against in the struggle to get back to normal.