LizzyBee23

I understand the sentiment, but as someone who has money wrapped up in FCC for a family cruise where children were definitely planned to be onboard, Royal better have a plan to refund that to us and everyone in our party who will no longer be travelling due to a restriction of this type. The FDA won't be in any rush to approve a vaccine for children since they are the one demographic where the broadly inaccurate and now gauche sentiment of "the flu is worse" is actually true. The fact that children don't seem to be as susceptible to severe forms of the disease is the reason a few pediatricians on the FDA council for the Pfizer EUA didn't vote to approve it: they had a problem with language approving it for use in 16 year olds since as a demographic they don't have much to gain from a vaccine that hasn't been fully approved (full approval won't come until Apr 2020). Most optimistic estimates put some children less than 16 years old being able to be vaccinated in mid-2022, with the youngest cohort and pregnant women perhaps beyond that (if ever). Requiring a vaccine to sail would effectively mean no young children on board for at least another 18 months. And all of that "is what it is", meaning I'm sure it's an exercise in what can be gained from operating at different capacity levels with or without families on board that accountants and bean-pushers are all running numbers on as we speak. I just hope RCL treats those of us who are effected by such a monumental change in policy fairly.

That would do a number on existing reservations (including ours), for sure. There's no way a covid vaccine will be available for kids until mid-to-late 2022 (our kids are up to date on everything else, and we are ardent flu-vaccinators). Could be that's part of the plan, though. Would certainly be one way to reduce capacity.

And potentially more coming... J&J isn't far behind. Honestly, not unexpected for one of the front-runners to stumble.

I don't think they have enough data to power the 50%/100% dosing and get an EUA. As for the rest, for all of its faults, this is what pharma successfully sells as the beauty of American pharmaceuticals: the ability to pour vast sums of money into new products (even though most of what they turn out isn't new, persay). I don't buy that this is the only way for things to be done, and the travesty with insulin prices should have every American banging on doors (not to mention other drugs). Just pointing out this isn't going to help make the case for more altruistic drug pricing, and we're going to have to decide if a breakthrough vaccine technology is worth the hundreds of thousands of people facing financial ruin over drug prices.

IMO, there's almost no chance the AZ/Oxford vaccine will be approved in the US... It's also not as conventional as you might think (I believe it's the first of its kind with respect to using an adenovirus vector). The efficacy is too low relative to its competitors, they didn't bother meeting the FDA's guidelines wrt secondary endpoints or inclusion criteria, and they had two serious adverse events (both related to the nervous system, which though uncommon, is not unheard of with adenoviruses you catch in the wild).

I think it would be an interesting experience to see the inner workings of a ship laid a bit more bare than when you're on a normal cruise, and I'm in the Pfizer vaccine trial so if I get infected at least it would be useful.

Even under the best circumstances, (IE PCR after one of the brain scratching swabs) testing in the early part of the disease is not conclusive. That's why frequent testing combined with rigorous contact tracing is a must.

If the expectation is no coronavirus on board, then we are doomed for failure. If the expectation is rapid detection and mitigation, then I'm not sure I see a problem in the context of adequate social distancing and contact tracing on board.

BioNTech and Pfizer are working on getting the temp down (or rather up). My understanding is that they chose a temp they knew would work, and are working higher storage temps in tandem with other things.

It might not be a slam dunk (it could still be), but it's definitely points on the board. In all likelihood, it is higher than 90% effacious and we were given a lower limit due to the power of the analysis at n=94 cases. It is possible that out of all of those cases, none were in the group that received the vaccine and the correct read-out would still be "greater than 90%" and not the "apparent 100%" that you might think. What is standing out to me is that 94 is much higher than the original 32 that we were told would be the benchmark for the first interim analysis. When I researched why that was the case, I read that Pfizer was negotiating with the FDA about moving the number to 64 but by the time the negotiation was finished they ended up with 94 cases. Changing a study's design like that is concerning, so I would expect to hear more details about that soon. It would be interesting if the FDA wanted to move the case count higher to lend more credibility to the analysis in the face of so much political pressure... That would be preferable to the alternative, which could indicate a systemic flaw in the trial design. Also editing to address the comment that this is the efficacy of the first shot: it's not. Pfizer's efficacy clock starts one week after the second shot is administered. Meaning anyone who enrolled in the trial, and caught COVID before the second shot would not be included in this data-set. They also wouldn't be included if they caught it within 7 days of the second shot.

It's been that way for at least a few months for me (also in NA).

Hey, if we're auditioning: It's not too far of a drive, and there's a 50/50 chance I've already been vaccinated... Alternatively, if I got the placebo and end up sick, well, that means Pfizer is one "event" closer to analyzing their data for efficacy. I see it as win-win, so pick me!!

Hey, thanks Matt! You're the best. If I was better about searching, I could have saved the forum space.

Hi all, we still have our April cruise on the books in 2021. We sat down and made criteria to so we could dispassionately judge whether or not to get on the ship when the time came. I'm about 80% sure our criteria will be met, but was wondering if L/S is even still an option. We're not so sure that we'd be able to go in April 2022, and May itineraries aren't out yet. I've seen some conflicting info about when L/S is ending (it looks like it may have already done so... I can't get to the RC website any more, but it was always kind of derpy so that may be me).

I think you're right... One of the articles I read with this analysis was pointing out that the calculus is very personal. Quoted someone as saying "no pleasure in life is worth giving up for two more years in geriatric care".

Some analysts looking at data out of India have drawn interesting conclusions, namely that strict stay-at-home orders for the elderly (don't ask me where the line is drawn, I think at 65) coupled with strong social support for that group has had an outsized impact on deaths there. I know mentioning that solution on a cruise board is probably enough to get an angry mob of retirees and pensioners set loose, but it is an interesting data point.

I'm wondering this too... We have an Apr '21 cruise that we're considering cancelling, but if L/S were available for an itinerary in May we'd probably just do that (April of the '22 isn't in the cards).

I'm getting my second shot as part of the Pfizer trial tomorrow! Trying to talk myself out of going in for an antibody test the week after to see if I actually got it or not... But the curiosity is killing me. All of the anecdotal stories I've read say that people report worse side effects after the second shot. Maybe then it will be more definitive (I feel all of my "symptoms" after the first shot could easily have been psychosomatic). One bad part about being a trial participant: I'm supposed to delay my flu shot by a few weeks after the last trial shot. Normally I'd have my flu vaccine by now (always early in Oct). Masks should help me dodge the bullet a little better I til I can get the flu shot. Thanks for posting such sound and reasonable advice here.

Not a GD thing... Love me some Imo's. People in this thread just hating on the culinary delights of the mid-west.

Imagine thinking that's a bad thing.

Oh lord. "Personal Responsibility" isn't going to get you the resources you need in a medical emergency... Especially when you've been misled about the resources available or given bad medical advice with no recourse. And your snide comment about another tragedy on a different cruise ship: there are even fewer details about that one, but surely you can acknowledge the difference between the possibility of negligence and an act of God. Well, my hugely insulting friend: you're the one that posed the binary hypothetical my post was an answer to. But anyway, to both of you inexplicably patronizing posters: I wish you nothing but good health, and smooth sailing (once this is all over). I have a feeling medical care on board will be much improved as a result of the times we're living through when we all get the chance to be back on the sea.

Then. Stop. Advertising. Cruises. To. Families.

Umm... Context is important. I presented that as a possibility for the type of argument the plaintiff's lawyer may try to make. Cute trick, though.

How kind. By the way, you're wrong about that... meningitis is the first thing you rule out in a child presenting with petechial rash and fever. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482331/ If you really were a medical practitioner, your account here is a perfect example of why someone qualified to care for children should be on board.

You're right... But for me personally it's been a lesson in expectations, and some of that is because of the cruise line's practices. I just assumed a doctor on board a ship with a nursery would be licensed at least in family practice, or the ship would make sure there was a pediatrician available for consult. Well, I've discovered that's not the case. It looks like only MSC has committed to having a doctor capable of serving pediatric patients on board. That's kind of a big deal to me as the parent of young children. Having read the second account I posted above, I think the doctors on board are the ones who failed this little girl. The fact that her parents couldn't readily get a second opinion is not reassuring though... I think if I had been in their situation, I would have used a telehealth service to try to get someone else to advocate for me, and hopefully many of these health concerns will be addressed when cruising resumes out of necessity for the realities of the world today.