JeffB

I'd add this: I'll argue there's 99.9% chance that at start-up, to board, you'll require proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test possibly both. CLIA announced back last fall that all member lines had agreed on a requirement for COVID testing prior to boarding for both passengers and crew members. Several lines have announced all crew-members will be vaccinated. One line has announced all passengers and crew must be vaccinated. You may be able to use a post-sail RAPID Antigen test from your first cruise to board your 2nd cruise. But it gets complicated. See below. It is less certain whether the requirement for testing will be a PCR test or a RAPID test or even required if proof of vaccination is required. I've read several articles on governments, mostly in Europe, struggling with how to implement "vaccine passports." One of the technical issues identified in the public domain, among many that Europeans working on this are dealing with is that new variants, capable of re-infecting vaccinated people, are out there. I want to emphasize that whether you can acquire a variant after vaccination AND transmit it is far from certain. There is anecdotal evidence that can happen but (1) such re-infections are rare and (2) symptoms have been mild and that implies low viral loads possibly not transmissible at all. Lots of truly unknowns here that we'll learn more about in the next 3 months. if it is required for boarding, there is plenty of uncertainty and an equal amount of confusion regarding terminology even among infectious disease experts. For example, what kind of test, how far in advance can you get it, will it be provided by the cruise lines in the terminal at check-in, will there be an added cost to you from your cruise line. Again, lots of unknowns that are being called "technical issues." Regarding terminology review this here - its from the CDC and IDSA (Fauci's home and in this case he's precise). These are US Government official terms but you may not find them being used routinely if you ask a clinic, for example, what should be a simple questions, "what kind of testing do you do. You may or may not get the answer you need. https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/diagnostics/rapid-testing/ Where are you sailing from? Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale and Port of Miami have nearby, no appointment needed COVID testing clinics offering both kinds of RAPID COVID Tests. A Google search around the port you are leaving from will tell you what you need to know if you need to get a test on your own. The short of it from the link above is that there are both RAPID Antigen tests (results in 15-30 minutes) and RAPID Molecular tests that don't use the same Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) process but have the same diagnostic reliability as a test done using the RT-PCR process have. It's the RT-PCR process that takes up to 72h for results. RAPID Molecular tests that ID the same COVID RNA that RT-PCR tests do with the same reliability produce results in around 30 minutes. They should both be acceptable, hihg reliability, diagnostic tests. Terminology caveats apply. I've seen these advertised. Compared to a RAPID Antigen test that costs $50-100 and Medicare covers them (as well as the RT-PCR tests), the RAPID Molecular tests cost upwards of $250. Medicare probably doesn't cover these. Commercial insurance might. Sorry for this long post but none of this is simple and it deserves thorough explanation so you've got some of the facts on the question you asked available to you.

Sure. I spent 20 years in the USMC and commanded a fighter squadron before I retired in 1990. The best leaders operate with controlled boldness. That means you evaluate the facts at hand affecting a course of action, look at risks and benefits then embark on it. Most importantly, if your plan fails, you accept responsibility for it and make no excuses. In general today's leaders, and I include Fain in that group, are overly timid fearing the consequences and the need to be accountable for failure. No successful military campaign, no successful program implemented in the public or private sector was undertaken fearing failure and the need for accountability if such an undertaking failed. There isn't nearly enough of that around. So, RCL doesn't get a pass from me when it comes to telling a loyal following what's up. YMMV.

Understood ....... I should have been less specific when I named "execs" as being less than transparent. I believe cruise fanatics like us, the people the lines are depending on to keep making advance bookings in the face of COVID uncertainty, that we might get information more detailed than we are optimistic or that we are expecting technical information from the CDC any day now. It doesn't have to come from Fain's lips or any one in his immediate chain. It could come in the form of information releases in the COVID sections of the RCL web site or as personal letters to loyalists who want to feel like their continued loyalty is important to those execs. That we know virtually nothing about contingency planning or plans being considered beyond pop-up announcements via emails that your cruise has been cancelled or modified or whatever bothers me. On every cruise I have been on in the last 5 years or so, there's been a future cruise plans presentation that identified where ships would be, what itinerary's would be offered and what new plans were in the works. It was detailed. Now, you'd think ships movements and plans, upcoming itineraries and so forth a military secrets ..... and they may be for proprietary and competitive reasons. But, if I were in charge, I'd ease up on the secrecy if only to keep those advanced bookings coming. There's a way to do that I would think.

Yeah, it's definitely a trend driven by efficiencies in hull and superstructure design less so by looks. I didn't like it at first when Celebrity brought out Apex but I've gotten used to it and rather like it. I'm an avid sailor/racer. A good 5 years ago, mono-hull design adopted the X-Bow shapes. It made quite a difference in hull performance on the race course just with that simple design change.

That's a good question. Watch COVID metrics nationally and internationally - continuing declines in these will foreshadow changes in government public health policy. The opposite is also in play. Upward trends in the metrics, problems with vaccine distribution will cause retrenchment. The CDC will respond to those and different messaging from Fauci and Walenski will signal that the CDC may take a different stance on their no-sail-order. That will be well before RCL makes any major announcements if they make any. Assuming metrics are favorable, before RCL or any of the lines make major announcements, we will know when crews start moving from their homes back to points of embarkation for re-training and I'd expect this will be on a pretty small scale but large enough so that leaks on crew movement will make it to cruise blogs like this. I don't expect RCL to announce test-cruises, JMO. That's because what do they say if the make a major announcement about them and then the CDC fails a ship or 2? As ships pass muster, I would assume RCL will announce that and at the same time name ships and their itineraries. We're a ways off from that. For now, my advice is to watch COVID metrics nationally and internationally and then pay attention to the chatter on the various cruise web sites and blogs. Informative stuff will leak and be reported.....one way or the other.

Ahh yes, the squared off or X-Bow - another modern naval architectural feature. These hull forms have the advantage of allowing maximum length waterline for ships of comparable sizes which means the highest possible hull speeds. The Axe and X Bows, have less spray of water at entry and also have less pitching motions and slamming reduction is quite significant. This creates quite a comfortable experience for passengers. The fuel consumption is also reduced by a significant factor and this bow can operate quite efficiently in medium sized wave ranges mainly because of the larger part of the ship volume being above and upfront, directly impacted upon by the waves.

Finally, I still favor Celebrity's Millennium class ships for a number of reasons. They still feel smallish and intimate. They still look like nautical, sea-going vessels on the outside and retain an intimate feel on the inside. For a while, Celebrity maintained the specialty dinning option that was born on the Century class ships: Replicas of the dinning rooms featured on SS France, United States and Normandy. Those are long gone, again, sadly.

This is the first ship I cruised on in 2001. Celebrity Mercury. Like another poster here who liked RCL's Majesty of the seas, I found Celebrity Century class ships gorgeous inside and outside. Unlike today's monstrous and often gaudy interiors Mercury felt like a ship in the true sense of the word. When Century left Celebrity's fleet not too long ago, I was deeply saddened. Mercury (Mein Schiff) and Horizon are still sailing with other companies. A testament to both their continuing architectural appeal and good bones.

Interesting comments on the feel and look of a cruise ship - pools not being a defining point for a cruise ship at all for me. I'd call myself a traditionalist. This is the proper design for a cruise ship. SS Norway, previously SS France. From a design standpoint, it's a far cry from the current "hotels on barges." From a functional standpoint the old ladys of the seas are no match for the current technological marvels that sail the oceans. Of course it represents the nautical architecture of the time and that was a fleeting time for cruising and what turned out to be a short reincarnation of the Golden Age of Cruising.

Well, it goes back to the House now for their stamp of approval before it goes to the President's desk to get signed into law. Then, it will be official. It should get passed (D's have a 10 vote margin) but don't be surprised if there's some R shenanigan's designed to prolong passage. Unless the Biden administration can no longer stand on their caution about easing mitigation measures, even about sensible easing of them like Texas is doing and FL has done from the gitgo, unless there's unequivocal proof in the next week or so that, despite this state level easing, downward trends in COVID metrics are persisting, I don't think the messaging will change much. Just small hic-ups are going to cause over-reaction.

Thanks Matt for your front page post on S.593 - Representative Murkoski's push to get past the 1886 PVSA Law for her home state, Alaska. I can't disagree with others here who've posted that the bill has little chance of passing and fixing the technical problems in PVSA, unless it's a rider added in the House to the latest COVID Relief Package. The biggest thing for me is that presenting legislation like this continues to challenge the unnecessary and economically burdensome provisions of the CDC's no-sail-order. Fain's comments, although milk toast, coupled with the fact that RCL is still holding on to most of it's summer Alaska itineraries, tells me that, well, there's still a chance. Maybe he knows stuff he can't talk about. That would go right along with the secrecy and what I consider a lack of transparency about the state of cruising from RCG/RCL execs. Regarding an opportunity to start test sailings in May, I remain seriously concerned with the direction that the Biden administration appears to be headed with it's pandemic messaging via Fauci and Walenski (CDC). IMO, enough observational data from the UK, Israel, the UAE, even the US (third behind Israel and the UK for vaccine roll-out success), places that have had a high percentage of their populations inoculated, demonstrates the vaccines are reducing disease burden and spread of the virus. Moreover, after more than a year of this thing, there's a ton of facts and expert views that lock-downs and shuttering businesses don't change COVID metric outcomes greatly while the economic costs aren't off-set by benefits derived therefrom. Yet, the CDC, even Biden himself, pushes back when states start sensibly lifting them and waits for more studies before they can endorse such moves. That approach isn't helping to push the CDC off the turf they've staked out with the no-sail-order. Frustrating.

No question Twangster ....... still, my point stands. Anything that pushes the CDC off the turf it's staked out regarding the no-sail-order is a positive. I admit a strong bias toward re-openings in general but, IMO, the CDC's position on prohibiting the cruise industry from operating from US ports is becoming increasingly tenuous. Some may argue being exposed as making unreliable or scientifically unsupportable COVID recommendations and mandates hasn't stopped them from doing so in the past and even currently if it serves an administration's political purposes and they'd be right. Still, I think the cruise industry's willingness to explore sailing from less restrictive foreign destinations is a threat to a vital sector of the US economy that involves travel and leisure activities.

Correct ....... but I can see impetus for opening the ports in question should S.593 be passed say, as an add on amendment to the COVID Relief Bill. What's the economic benefit to Alaska's tourism industry of passing S.593 if the no sail order isn't lifted allowing cruise ships to sail from Seattle and into and out of Alaskan ports?

Having an Alaskan Congresswoman advocating for "economic recovery" from the COVID pandemic in her state is entirely appropriate. The bill, if it makes it out of committee, has the possibility of impacting the current no sail order positively. It could revive interest in H.R.871. That's because I can't imagine the port of Seattle along with Alaskan ports being opened should this bill pass without howls of protest from congressional reps of Florida, Texas, NY, NJ and CA advocating to allow opening of their state's cruise ports.

On the start-up of cruises (any kind) from UK ports...... I read Matt's comments on this which pieced together quotes from various sources. Pure speculation on my part but here goes: The UK is paralleling Israel's and the UAE's vaccine success in terms of shots in arms. This is a striking review of what Boris Johnson and his administration have accomplished so far. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833 What struck me was that every UK entity has vaccinated over 90% of its over 65 population. Upwards of 30% of UK citizens have received at least one shot of a vaccine with the AZ vaccine leading the way. Given the rough estimates of actual infections being in the 30% range of total population together with data that supports previously infected people have some level of immunity to re-infection, that might mean the UK is approaching herd immunity. So, what might this mean? Given RCL will start sailing Odyssey with revenue producing pax from Haifa, Israel in May, that signals to me that RCG will be looking to re-start cruising from whatever ports and on whatever itineraries/port calls in the countries that are rolling out vaccines the fastest. RCG will also look at accompanying declines in COVID metrics. Southampton comes immediately to mind with typical sailings East bound to St. Petersburg or North bound to Scandinavia having plenty of appeal. Another interesting port of possibility? Amsterdam in the Netherlands.....a country paralleling the US COVID experience with, IMIO, a much more relaxed and practical approach to pandemic risks. Will there be a vaccination requirement to travel internationally and within Europe for US passport holders to get to a cruise port? You read it in Matt's post: "there will probably be a hybrid model (for boarding) using testing and (proof of) vaccination. OK, I'll admit, I have a bias for this argument. My wife and I have both been fully vaccinated. I recently booked a Celebrity Reflection 7n cruise out of Amsterdam that departs July 11th and travels to 4 Norwegian ports. Crazy? Maybe but ..... if you've been reading my posts you know (1) I am a fact and science based optimist. (2) I am a strong re-opening advocate. I'm also a bit of a risk taker and am putting my money where my mouth is. My take on the global pandemic is this: in Asia, North America, Western & parts of Eastern Europe - the EU states in general, falling COVID metrics, in conjunction with increasing numbers of vaccinated citizens in those places, will precipitate easing COVID related mobility and social contact restrictions. I predict this based on my view that these governments being more sensitive to and favorably disposed to re-opening of businesses in the travel and leisure sector, will do so. Governments not so disposed, e.g., Australia and New Zealand will probably hold back on re-opening. Fair enough. If you want data that supports that view, go here: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#coronavirus-country-profiles then select a country of interest and explore the data that interests you. Look here https://covid19.healthdata.org/global?view=infections-testing&tab=trend&test=infections for projections of the various data sets - COVID metrics globally or by country - into the early summer. By that time, SARS-2 won't be eradicated but it's disease burden and it's economic and social impact will (or should have baring politics) declined substantially. JUNE!!! If what I am predicting among others who know a lot more about SARS-2 than I do, in 60d (first week in May), you won't be able to book air travel, a hotel or a cruise because agents will be swamped with bookings, prices will skyrocket and availability for the best of them will dwindle rapidly. We'll see, I guess, but don't wait a whole lot longer to book if you feel comfortable traveling in what will amount to a lowered risk, post pandemic environment and want to get to it. I've predicted sharp declines in pandemic metrics as vaccines reach saturation levels in countries likely to host restarts of cruising. Based on that, I have four cruises booked going into December, two involving ports in Europe, two out of FL to the Caribbean. I'm prepared mentally for all of them to get cancelled and offered readers here to come back and pat me on the back or shoot me in 2 months time as I'm completing pre-boarding tasks for my next booked cruise in June.

Hmmmm...... good guestimating. It peaked my interests so, I found what I needed at the web site I linked to below. I can interact with this graph displayed below at the link and can look at the daily case count. The 7d moving average as of 03/02 was 5 new cases/d so, after 20d, you'd hit that 100 case threshold. I'm good with that. Fair enough. But, the problem with that is, why didn't Curacao get a Level 4 designation from August through early December? It looks like that PH authorities there did a swell job of controlling the virus and what do they get for that from the US? A slap in the face. Politics are funny. I would not be surprised at all to see Curacao prohibit US passport holders from entering their country. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/curacao/

Welp, not me, I'll let 'er rip ........ Twangster's thought is spot on. The problem is that Congress is tied up with getting some important stuff done so, introcuding a bill like that would probably be a non-starter. Still...... An EO might work but me thinks restarting cruising is not high on Joe Biden's list of things to do despite it being a perfectly reasonable and highly effective way to stimulate the economy at no cost, as Twangster points out, to the Feds...... and ye[, it would be politically dangerous for him to swim upstream on this with an EO. Or, maybe he could send a personal message to Ms Walenski, head of the CDC, a message signed by the president himself, that he wants her to "think" about, strongly "think" about sending the "technical guidance" the cruise industry is waiting on the CDC for to start test cruises and then opening up some cruise ports based on local COVID data so that test cruises could begin with an eye toward resuming cruising with passengers, probably to now where to start with, oh, let's say in May!

I think there is something to that first part. Maybe less so, the second. If I had the time and interest to dig into the data I talked about up thread so I could verify the how's and wherefores that the CDC put Curacao in the level 4 part of the grid, I'd do it. This entire COVID pandemic has gotten so political that it would not surprise me at all that data was fudged or interpreted differently to support messaging from the US Government that, wait a minute, it's not safe for American's to travel yet even though vaccines are becoming widely available and SARS-2 infection risks and serious consequences developing from it, always pretty low, are being sent lower. Actually, the US is doing pretty well but you'd not know that from most things everyone is reading or listening to. Even Fauci and Walenski (CDC) the current faces of the US Governments public health policies are adding a lot of rejoinders to positive COVID news.... or, hey, we're not ready yet, keep hibernating. Have a look at this Johns Hopkins University COVID tracking display for new case numbers (something I believe to be too easily misinterpreted when looked at out of context). Only a tenth of US states have upward trending new case numbers. The greener the background the steeper the decreasing case numbers trend lines, the redder the background the steeper the increasing trend lines:

I just looked at Curacao's public health web site. On March 2nd, the government conducted 278 tests and found 5 positives. That's a one day positivity rate of 1.79% (recall below 5% the virus is considered controlled/not circulating. The site I had access to did not have total tests per day or per month and you need to know that and the total population of Curacao (156,000) to fit Curacao into the grid that determines what level CDC assigns them found here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/how-level-is-determined.html Curacao, like most Caribbean destinations, has strict protocols for entry and from what I can tell an able public health system that insures compliance. I simply can't imagine how this tiny country has reached a level 4 designation by the CDC. I don't have all the data I need to indicate they are mistaken but it seems to me, this place is pretty safe if you are taking basic precautions. I'd really like to know the numbers. I have so little trust in the CDC right now but would hope that Curacao fits into one of the boxes on the CDC grid that warrants a level 4 designation. I simply cant imagine it does based on the small amount of data I did see and the miniscule numbers of positive cases it looks like this country has on a daily basis....... but what do I know.

"EU Announces Plan for Vaccine Passports." It's coming. Cross boarder EU travel is going to be available at some point when objections to the discriminatory nature of these things either get sensibly over-come or simply rolled over despite those objections. It's not clear in the article how US citizens who have been vaccinated will be treated. Looks like for now, anyway, it's EU passport holders who will be getting the green light. https://www.thedailybeast.com/europes-covid-passports-coming-to-an-airport-near-you-in-march

Correct on several counts ...... if you are booked in May or beyond, you're absolutely right, you have to pay attention. I agree that there's going to be a ship by ship, port by port restart. I believe the Haifa announcement this morning presages what is to come out of global sailings to include from US ports. RCL wants to get back to it and it is going to do everything it can to do that given what they are seeing from the CDC. I think someone posted somewhere on this forum his/her concern that European (or Mediterranean) ports might replace US ports if those became available before US ports did because the CDC continues it's obstinance and convoluted, ship-by-ship re-start technicals. That means ships normally sailing out of US ports would be moved to support that plan. There is no question that Italy and Greece (have not heard about Black Sea ports within Eastern European countries) want tourists back and cruise ships will bring them faster than boatloads of airplanes both countries have had less restrictive approaches to the pandemic. I think the UK and Germany will join them and may allow more cruise lines to operate from their ports with vaccinated crew/pax very shortly. With the exception of Dubrovnik - which I have heard is concerned about "over-tourism" and cruise ships dumping thousands into that port/city - Italian and Greek cities with ports aren't pushing back like, for example, Key West has, ending that port as a cruise ship stop-over. The writing is on the wall ...... ports will re-open sequentially and one-by-one to cruise ships based on local R(0), sero-prevalence (positivity) and to what level public health officials in those countries will ease travel restrictions. Then, you'll need a vaccination to board. The cruise lines aren't going to wait on the CDC to make up it's mind and that could hurt FL and several other states in the short term. I know that Governor Desantis has argued for opening FL's ports to cruise ships. It's a big part of his whole approach to the pandemic which hasn't shut down much, has few mobility restrictions and has targeted almost exclusively the elderly, especially those in LTC facilities and done a bang up job keeping that group alive and reducing hospitalizations and deaths.

What can we take from RCL's announcement that Odyssey will sail from Haifa on May 21st as Matt just posted on the front page? Well, if ports in FL and TX can lead the way in getting their COVID numbers right, we could see those ports getting sequentially greenlighted by the CDC. This thinking based on the experience in Israel may not translate to the US but I could see the CDC looking regionally and locally with lifting sailing restrictions instead of lifting the restrictions entirely. Besides that? Getting on an RCL cruise ship that's debarking from just about anywhere is going to require a vaccination.

I don't disagree with this, after all, influenza has been absent this flu season mostly because of mitigation measures such as sanitizing surfaces. Both H1N1-influenza and norovirus are both known to be transmitted by fomites - the epidemiologic term for fingers > touch a contaminated surface > touch mucous membranes (mouth, nose eyes) > develop disease symptoms (fever, body aches, vomiting, diarrhea). My point was that it is now within the body of SARS-2 scientific knowledge that SARS-2 is not transmitted via fomites. Public health officials have advanced the notion that hand washing, use of hand sanitizers, sanitizing surfaces with products like Clorox or Lysol is an effective mitigation measures for stopping the spread of the virus from the beginning and continue to emphasize it now. It isn't and amounts to little more than virtue signaling. Masking and distancing to stop the spread of the virus by it's primary mode of transmission - airborne droplets and aerosols - is very important. While there is no doubt that increased sanitizing of surfaces in public areas has decreased disease from viruses spread by this mode of transmission, emphasizing it as a effective mitigation measure for COVID is counter-productive. That is because people learn it doesn't help and that develops mistrust to public health guidance and fuels antipathy toward measures that do work.

Why is the Points Guy wrong about calling the number one thing to watch to signal a restart of cruising is new case numbers. Well. he's right in one sense since too many simply don't understand the science and the facts. But Public Health Officials deciding on what metrics should guide easing of mitigation measures should look at R(0) or the number of people one infected person then infects others. When that number is <1.0, the virus is receding, circulating and increasing when it's > 1.0. This is a graphic depiction of R(0) by state followed by a listing of each state's R(0). If I counted correctly, 3 states have increasing numbers of cases (R-0 >1.0) https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/united-states/ If you want to dig into this and see national data current through today go here: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/united-states/ A couple of take-aways from these charts: R(0) at the second link shows a real and forecast upward trend - this is where Fauci and Walenski are getting information to suggest that new cases may not be declining as fast as 2 weeks ago or are rising. There are multiple caveats to the data. If the testing circumstances change (e.g., less aggressive testing, more aggressive testing) it affects the reliability of the data sets rendering forecasts unreliable. So, I take with a grain of salt Fauci's and Walenski's warnings on Friday and Biden's pessimism on Saturday evening. That is because, in the US, as vaccines become available, public health resources are being diverted from testing sites and moved to vaccinations sites - less testing is happening. As well, fewer people are requesting to be tested. I'm more inclined to look at data 7-14d ago as being more reliable than the last 7d. IOW, the trend in virus circulation is downward and will stay that way as long as getting vaccines into peoples arms is front and center. I'd add that augmenting the R(0) metric with hospitalizations and deaths - both declining in absolute terms and trending downward in rate terms - supports the take that the virus is receding not that it is accelerating or will accelerate.

Obviously good news on the vaccine front today. After what seems like the 15th approval in a long list of news of, "it's approved", the J&J vaccine will begin distribution from manufacturing sites tomorrow. It's a one shot vaccine with trials underway to determine if two shots of it are better. Trials are also underway for teens. It's a "cold virus analog" carrying the SARS-2 spike protein that stimulates a protective immune system response. This, unlike the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer, is a prototypical vaccine similar to AZ's and both the Russian and Chinese versions or your annual flu shot. The biggest advantage is that it can be stored in a fridge for up to 60d. Side effects are comparable to the Pfizer and Moderna shots - arm soreness, flu like symptoms. It's considered 85% effective in preventing serious disease and death v. all 6 of the troublesome variants that I posted about above. It's 66% effective when moderate disease is included - the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines never included moderate disease in their trials. Comparing the effectiveness of the 3 isn't possible due to trial designs. Don't refuse one to wait for another you think is better. Take whatever is available as soon as it becomes available to you. 20M doses immediately available for distribution, 100M "by summer." If I've got this right, the US will have enough vaccines distributed by the end of May to have inoculated everyone over 18 who accepts it.When herd immunity is reached depends on the rate of vaccine acceptance. Obviously, the more people that refuse the vaccine for non-medical reasons, the later herd immunity will be reached. Anywhere close to 60% gets us there by the end of April.But still we have this pessimistic messaging that I've derided elsewhere:“This is exciting news for all Americans, and an encouraging development in our efforts to bring an end to the crisis,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “But I want to be clear: this fight is far from over,” he added, encouraging people to stick with masks and other public health measures.Look, I'm not a virologist, an epidemiologist or an expert on this but everything I read, you know, the scientific facts, tells me that providing pessimistic messaging like this is counterproductive and encourages and continues the fear factor that is keeping people tethered to their homes and avoiding social contact while public health officials refuse to ease mitigation measures.FACT: You can't get COVID from touching a surface yet we persist with this sanitizing of surfaces in public venues. The risk of getting COVID outside, even in congregate settings, is lower than being involved in a serious car crash with injuries. Do we stop driving? Nope. Are there places where COVID mitigation measures include no public gatherings of more than X number of people and masking outdoors? Yes, a lot of places. In a gathering of vaccinated people, no one needs to mask or distance yet, in FL, because of the kind of messaging coming from Biden among others, fully vaccinated retirees living in community settings, won't play cards, dance or gather with each other. In their "golden years" they are sacrificing what is most important for their mental health, face-to-face socialization. Ridiculous. I'm more reluctant to discard masking and distancing for the unvaccinated under 65 crowd when out and about although I can make a case for that based on risk/benefit analysis. It's not because I think increased disease burden in the US will occur in this population. It won't. I do think the potential for increasing new cases and positivity counts is real. There was an article yesterday at the Points Guy website that said, "the one number to watch for the restart of cruising is (absolute) case numbers. I'll get to why that's wrong in a subsequent post. Of course, people in the under 65 age cohort will mostly be asymptomatic or have a cold. But, if this population pursues testing and because of it case numbers rise there's a problem with that. The problem is that public perceptions and how PH officials view this will harden, e.g., the CDC won't green light cruising from US ports. The MSM will augment the fear factor by reporting the rising case numbers as a new wave of the virus - the fifth! An increase in case numbers/positivity (sero-prevalence) will prompt a refusal to ease mitigation measures, mobility restrictions and restrictions to congregate settings. People will continue to needlessly stay home, won't shop, won't eat out, won't socialize, won't gather responsibly. Stoking the fear factor will increase pressure from the public to keep unnecessary mitigation measures in place - and for Pete's sake, don't let cruise ships operate. Everyone will nod their heads in agreement.