JeffB

Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or a serious question. I'm going with the later ....... This stuff is interesting tm me, may not be to others but I post it here mainly because there is so much misinformation about the SARS-2 variants, what they actually are, whether vaccines will be compromised by their appearance or whether or not they evade detection and produce more serious symptoms. The authors of the article where this chart appeared, along with being frankly honest about the risks a handful of variants present to controlling the virus, is that a mutation process known as "convergent evolution" dictates that more worrisome SARS-2 variants will be few instead of many. In practical terms it means that variants found in South Africa may be of the same lineage than those found in Brazil. The implication is that vaccines can be tweaked to handle just a few lineages containing multiple variants and will work fine against all of them. Something I took from this chart is that out of the hundreds of variants (not all of them are shown here) only 6 of them are of concern to scientists studying them and 1/2 of these come from the same lineage.

What I just said ..... stop worrying about extremely unlikely COVID risks. This is a Bloomberg opinion piece that's paywalled but is free content here: https://tylerpaper.com/ap/commentary...88d89ab63.html Props to Matt's mention of the July 2020 study that showed cruise ships were pretty safe places to be. That study got absolutely ignored in the rush to hammer and scapegoat the cruise industry. So wrong!

Well, today's messaging from Fauci and Walensky is anything but encouraging or words that might lead to local officials easing restrictions or the CDC greenlighting cruising. In fact, quite the opposite and, IMO, intended. According to these now public faces of the Biden administration's COVID experts, the rate of decline in new infections is slowing so, don't break out the Champaign just yet ..... or worse, don't start relaxing mitigation measures or letting the cruise industry get back to producing billions in global economic activity.Here's the basis of that. Epidemiologist think that the UK variant is going to become the dominant strain in the US. It has risen from 1% of new cases to 10% here. The UK variant is more transmissible because it spends more time in the human host compared to the original strain (13d v. 8d). Ostensibly, that leads to one person infecting more people that they come in contact with, IOW R(0) rises. So, R(0) must be rising, right? Is R(0) rising?I track three sources of data that are the basis for R(0) - the most reliable measure of trends in circulating virus; when it's below 1.0 it can be present but it is not increasing in sero-prevalence (% positivity). All of them are in agreement: the presence of the virus is declining*. There may be local increases but these are few and far between. Check your state here:https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/...united-states/* This data is collated and presented at this website on a weekly basis and is current as of 02/20/2021. The CDC does not get anymore accurate data than what the states report and they will report week-ending data for 02/26/21 tomorrow. Wslenski is shamefully premature and probably wrong in suggesting that circulating virus "could be" on the rise.Are deaths and hospitalizations rising? Nope...... and these two metrics are the best and most important measures of COVID disease burden.https://covidtracking.com/analysis-u...19-data-feb-25So, what is this, people? If I can go out and show that today's statements made by Fauci and Walensky are at best premature and at the worst, blatantly wrong and misleading how much confidence should Americans have in what they're selling? Is there any doubt why people are still scarred and won't go out? Why the CDC is holding out on allowing cruises to operate from US ports causing billions in losses to this industry? Any doubt why we will continue to have these unnecessary measures being foisted on us by local officials? To bring that point home, an article popped up in my local Sun Sentinel around 2p today. The author interviewed a handful of vaccinated people in S FL asking them if their behavior was going to change after they got vaccinated and as more Floridians got their shots? Everyone of them said they were still concerned about getting COVID and still wouldn't go out or socialize much ...... face palm follows. Once people buy into how they should behave, it is really hard to change that unless and of course you aren't following this advice like sheep.

....... an additional comment as my initial post took an over 65 view of matters. It's important to understand that EVERYONE benefits from a vaccination priority system that vaccinates the 65 and up US population. The cohort from 65 and up has produced 77% of COVID related serious illness and deaths. That's not to say that there haven't been under 65s who have suffered. There have been, and not just a few. But to simultaneously reduce SARS-2 disease burden and control the virus (R0 < 1 on a regional or by state basis or, % positivity < 5% by county) requires initially vaccinating the over 65 population when supplies are limited like they are now. With regard to "best bang for the buck" this is the right strategy and it is paying off handsomely in reduced hospitalizations and deaths - big time. Related to vaccination priorities is the news in the last two days that a large increase in doses from Pfizer and Moderna can be expected in the next 2 weeks. We're talking a plus up in the multi-millions of additional shots. Next, J&J got approval from the FDA today - as promised as the go/no go date by the FDA - for emergency use of their one shot vaccine. Those won't get to arms until late March. Side note: ignore the MSM's reports that the J&J vaccine isn't as "strong" as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines ..... bull hockey. It will work just as well and just as dramatically as the two mRNA vaccines and are much easier to transport, store and administer. Moreover, it is impossible to compare vaccine efficacy product to product because testing protocols and reporting requirements were different for each of them. Bottom line, if you are offered a vaccine, no matter which one, take it. If you are onboard the anti-vax ship to start, I can almost guarantee you, like Israeli public health officials are messaging to their citizens, "you'll be left behind." You're going to continue to be mostly homebound as far as travel goes if there is wide introduction of "vaccine passports." Over the next 2 months the availability of the vaccine for under 65s is going to expand exponentially. Don't not take it because you might think you really don't need it or have concerns about safety or side effects. First, the benefits far outweigh the risk (except for a few exceptions due to allergies) and second, yes, you do need it if we are going to reach herd immunity and all of us are able to return to a post-COVID normalcy that includes cruising.

Link? Love to hear people's takes, positive and negative.

Started this new thread topic spurred on by the news of Azamara canceling cruises through June, 2021. If I'm not mistaken, Azamara ports predominantly in locations other than the US (they list Miami as a port of call). I'm not taking much from this news because of that as I think the tendency is going to incorrectly associate Azamara COVID decision making with RCG. I think Azamara will work closely with RCL wrt health protocols but not undertaking test and restarting revenue sailings from US ports with Azamara not sailing from any of them. Having gotten that out of the way, back to the thread title: IT'S COMING. I started to title the thread It's Happening but that wording suggests things are underway or will happen imminently. Instead, I think ..... The CDC will green light test sailings from US ports by mid-May at the latest. Given a green light to start test sailing, all the majors will slowly restart revenue sailings during the first week in June in combination with additional test sailings. Each ship is required to do these to obtain technical certification from the CDC before each ship is allowed to embark passengers. Initial itineraries will launch from a select number of ports in FL and TX - that's because (1) These states are politically more liberal wrt mitigation measures and lifting them. (2) Governor Desantis in FL has already said his state is ready to welcome back the cruise lines to ports in Fort-Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa and Orlando. The first region to have cruise ships sail within it will be the Caribbean Basin. Three and four day cruises to no where or just as likely to private islands will predominate until the cruise lines work out details with countries that have cruise ports within the Caribbean basin to include Mexico. When that is achieved we'll begin seeing 7d and ultimately longer itineraries but still in the Caribbean. Australian, Asian and European itineraries with US citizens on board are less certain in my mind and that is because of the perception by health authorities there that US travelers are higher risk for disease spread than EU or Asian citizens. As for Australia and New Zealand, I doubt cruising will resume from there anytime soon. The UK could be an exception. Land based tours and river cruises in the EU and Asia will happen before mega cruise ships carrying US passengers return to the major foreign ports - maybe smaller ships carrying under 1000 passengers by June/July 2021. September is a more likely time frame for the aforementioned regions, not including Australia and New Zealand, for large ship cruising to resume there. What do I base this on? To be clear, other than my medical background and the amount of time I spend researching and reading COVID related medical literature, I have no special insight. I have a re-opening bias and have since February of 2020. I was stupendously wrong about the length and social, economic impact of SARS-2 but I attribute some of the damage done to certainly politics and just as importantly to overreacting to the virus when it hit the US. US public health authorities used the proverbial sledge instead of scalpel. Rather than scientific facts driving public health policy, fear and a "do something" mentality prevailed and a lot of "something" at the local level was flat-out wrong and unnecessary. . There's room for debate here and I acknowledge that but barring unnecessary overreacting and politics, IMO, the US could have avoided a lot of COVID deaths, got kids back in school and avoided the shuttering - social and economic - that did take place. You have to be hiding under a rock to not have heard that the introduction of vaccines to what should be the primo target population - over 65 - has dramatically lowered all three standard measures of COVID disease burden - death, hospitalizations AND, surprisingly, new infection absolute numbers and rates of infection (R0). If one is strictly following the emerging scientific data, vaccinated people should be granted increased mobility and be subject to less stringent mitigation measures. In a mixed group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, sensible, layered mitigation measures (limited access - to include negative RAPID testing for entry, capacity control, distancing and masking) will keep everyone safe by reducing risk, not to zero - as it can't be - but good enough...... the later being particularly applicable to the cruise industry. I'm 50/50 on a vaccine mandate to cruise (or travel for that matter) for a lot of different reasons. But you can bet someone at RCL has asked how many bookings do we have for over 65s and what is the estimate of how many of those have been vaccinated? Can we cruise and make money with just that population? Given my optimistic bias take all of this FWIW. I'm also, admittedly, reading between the lines of recent cruise talk from cruise line executives to knowledgeable cruisers. For example, the Biden administration and it's two main public health spokes persons (Fauci and Walenski -CDC) are purposely articulating easy to reach COVID goals for political purposes. You have to believe these people have a much clearer understanding of a likely return to some level of post-COVID normalcy than they are letting on and will spring it on the electorate pronouncing a job well done, exceeding all the goals and beyond expectations by the present administration and President Joe Biden. Or, take for example, Fain ..... "we should be getting technical guidance from the CDC any day now" or, this ...... at least in the case of RCL, shoring up the company financial ship to, IMO, secure a viable approach - insuring the cash is at hand to return ships from warm storage and assemble/train crews, all on short notice. It's coming. Check back with me in 60d to see how wrong or right I might have been with this post.

I touched on this problem in my original post above. On Friday, the NYTs did a surprisingly apologetic piece on the damage being done by journalists (and scientists) contributing to the the nihilism you speak of. It carries over to anti-vaxer thought as well, that is to say, "if the vaccines have so many caveats about effectiveness, possible side effects, and worst of all the potential for re-infection by a variant even if you have been vaccinated, why bother." First none of this stuff - and it's coming out of the mouths of respected sources like Fauci, for example we're making great progress, the vaccines are working ..... but, but, but, are factually accurate. It's also misleading. These "experts" (and they are) send a message that we aren't sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to understand details. Here are the facts: the vaccines already in circulation to include Pfizer's, Moderna's, AZ's and as far as trials go, J&J, all have efficacy v. all three known and studied variants (there are actually over 200 of them but the variants being studied the most are ones that have mutations in the spike proteins and demonstrably increase rate of transmission or R0). I can't speak for the Chinese, Russian or Indian vaccines. Casual and cursory looks indicate these vaccines are working too. What large scale studies being conducted in Israel by apolitical, public health agencies have already demonstrated or early and small scale studies point to is that NO ONE is getting seriously ill or dying regardless of the genomic structure of SARS-2 that is the infecting agent. NO ONE! There are RARE occasions (although the press will make you think it's in the millions) of vaccinated people that get re-infected. Serology studies of these people indicate that SARS-2 viral loads are very low (reduces shedding) and that symptoms on re-infection are similar to the common cold - this is a coronavirus after all. You'll catch a cold by the same means that people were catching COVID a year ago. Vaccinated people just aren't getting sent to the ICU and dying anymore There is also considerable evidence that vaccinated people - even after the first shot - are protected, don't need to mask or distance in all circumstances and many of the state and local patch-work mitigation measures can be safely ignored. That doesn't mean its a free-for-all. All levels of Illness from seasonal Influenza have been significantly suppressed. That is because of human behaviors being followed for COVID by a lot of folks. It is one of the reasons, along with the normal trends of viruses and the introduction of vaccines that every COVID metric is on the decline and downward trending and not just by a little. Those kinds of sensible measures should continue to be followed - wash your hands, even wearing a mask in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces where people gather is a good idea that we should continue to practice as most Asians do.

There are multiple factors involved in successfully manufacturing vaccines at scale. The risks to vaccines into arms get broken down in detail in the article at the link below. The author provides ways to mitigate the risks and bottle necks. They can be overcome but it's not like flipping a light switch on and suddenly billions of vaccine doses are rolling off the assembly line. Getting to scale, though, is doable. I've got my fingers crossed that the Biden administration understands this and is publicly low balling goals and talking about delays because it's better to do that and resolve delays and exceed goals than to fail and cast doubt about success.https://www.mckinsey.com/business-fu...ccine-rollout#This link is to an interview with UCLA MD Virologist done by an MD interviewer from Johns Hopkins. What's interesting about it is the explanation of the spike proteins in the typical viruses hounding us today, including SARS-2, and how these RNA viruses mutate and why it is so important to bust our asses to get COVID vaccine in arms. I think it can be done and a lot earlier (late spring/early summer) than some pessimists think (late fall)......and I think Fauci is purposefully raising vaccine concerns and low balling. There's a strong argument that the negativity and long list of caveats coming from scientists, medical professionals and journalist writing about it is affecting willingness to get the shot ..... not good.https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/91026

We've learned recently that Crystal Cruises (owned by Genting Hong Kong) is going to require C-19 Vaccinations to board. No exceptions including for children under 16. In response to questions from others I converse with on these subjects about the legality or constitutionality of requiring vaccinations to engage in certain activities (travel, leisure, things like getting a drivers license or similar government required documentation) I found this: In the US it is legal and constitutional to require vaccination in a public health emergency (we are in one) Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 - US11 (1905). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/197us11 Anecdotally, the Israeli government, that leads the globe in percent vaccinations of their citizens (about 40%; 70% in over 65s) is messaging that to participate in the reopening of the state that is going to follow in the next few months, you'll have to get vaccinated or "you will be left behind." Even though it is entirely reasonable and should be required to get vaccinated if one wants to return to many activities we enjoyed pre-pandemic, especially those involving congregate settings (sporting events, concerts, cruising), I'm not confident that will happen in the US. Doing so would be a political nightmare regardless of the correctness of doing it. Political side shows involving questions of equity would surely develop and cloud sensible thinking about good public health policy. Frankly and on the other hand, I don't see how the cruise industry can resume operations without requiring it of passengers. Certainly they can ...... through a complex and burdensome set of protocols that continue to be unclear and of what we do know of what they might be, are expensive and highly unpopular...... but why not just require vaccinations. That the CDC has apparently not moved forward on providing guidance to the industry on what the lines need to do to start sailing again suggests to me that they are considering a directive that requires passengers and crew to be vaccinated. They will probably abandon the crazy stuff they ginned up after the "No Sail" order expired in October, 2020. That boarder closures globally are continuing and only being eased in countries that demand proof of vaccination before entry suggests to me that health authorities that ultimately determine who can visit their countries via airports or sea ports will demand the same for cruise ships wishing to port at facilities where they have the authority to control access. We're in uncharted territory with the current SARS-2 pandemic wrt how you go on with life given the likely continued global presence of the virus at some level of circulation, and for a long time to come. Confounding factors include the huge increase in pre-pandemic mobility people enjoyed compared to, say, the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. I don't see governments critically thinking about how to move forward and the stymied cruise, travel and leisure industry in general is a reflection of that inaction. My take is that the cruise industry should proactively declare they will require vaccinations for passengers and crew in order sail. Next, they should file an injunction with the appropriate federal court having jurisdiction over such matters asking for relief from the CDC's unfair and discriminatory strangle hold on their business operations given the industries requirement for cruise passengers and crews to be vaccinated. Ask the court that the date for the start of said relief be based on R0 (the accepted measure of circulating virus) to be < 1.0 in a US port facility from which the line wishes to embark. From that point, it should start working collectively to negotiate with foreign health authorities in ports they wish to call on. Start by stating they will only do so at ports where the local R0 value is < 1.0, health authorities approve a port call and will disembark only passengers or crew that have been vaccinated AND have received a negative RAPID C-19 Test result in the 24h preceding the port call. I'm ready to cruise but am increasingly frustrated by the lack of critical thinking on how to go about doing that at a time certain, in the SARS-2 pandemic environment. We've waited long enough. Too long. A safe to sail date in late May or early June is possible. Governments have unfairly hobbled and caused massive losses in an industry that provides billions of dollars in economic activity and millions of jobs globally. Vaccines to prevent serious illness, death and transmission are here. It can be done.

Correct ........ effective treatment does require early recognition of signs and symptoms and targeted therapies based on physical exams and labs. There's also a butt-load of caveats for specific drug therapies which are beyond the scope of my post. If you're interested and have a sense for the medical science, these are credible links. The NEJM link is pretty current: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365905/ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2026131

The reason for the apparently wide variance in symptoms following inoculation with any of the mRNA vaccines is the multitude of factors that define the human innate (T and CD cells) and adaptive (Ig) response. There really is no practical way of knowing in advance how you will react to a vaccine in preparation for the likelihood that the cruise lines will require these to board in the coming months (JMO, YMMV). There are blood tests that can be run to assess Ig (allergy testing for example), T and CD cell populations in your blood but these aren't routine, they are expensive and are used more in management of severe allergies and immune compromising diseases like HIV. Researchers doing studies might use them as well. Many people have been exposed to the coronavirus (common cold). That SARS-2 is a coronavirus, you may have developed CD4 and 8 cells that will recognize inoculation with a SARS-2 vaccine. It is generally understood by immunologist that a strong T-Cell response (the intel gatherers of the innate immune system) will produce a stronger inflammatory (cytokine mediated) response - fever, body aches, etc.). That's not a slam dunk reason but it is a reasonable explanation. You may have heard of "cytokine storm" - the body's over-reaction to an assault by a pathogen. Early on in the pandemic this was killing people infected with SARS-2. The treatment, simple enough, was prednisone - an immune suppressant and more complex therapies involving immune-modulators. Thus, if either you don't have a strong innate immune system to begin with or you've never developed CD4,8 memory cells from a previous exposure to a coronavirus in the past, you are probably more likely to have a stronger inflammatory response as your body's immune system explores and learns when exposed to the SARS-2 vaccine. The bottom line on the immune system: There is a lot that isn't known with scientific certainty about the human body's immune system. It's complex with a lot of moving parts working together so that humans can survive the thousands of pathogens that assault us. NB: This is a post based on the science as I understand and can explain it. I support Matt's efforts to keep discussion to cruising ..... I did mention cruising ?

The CDC is now the Biden administration's CDC. I don't see any reason for Dr. Walenski, the new CDC Director, to back off the Safe-To -Sail protocol. This is an onerous bar for the cruise industry to rise above. If the NCL move to repatriate most of it's crew members is an accurate reflection of corporate survival strategy to reduce costs, that. seems to me to be a white flag. I think there is going to be some political pressure to not see cruise lines that are operating from US ports to fail. There is too many jobs associated with the travel and leisure industry, especially in Florida, that any idiot can make a good case that these jobs out to be protected/ saved. To save them, cruise ships have to sail. RCG, out of the gate was in a better cash position than NCL but that doesn't mean troubled waters aren't ahead. Divesting Azamara was a red flag. I've argued elsewhere that a corporate survival strategy may be to hope that the EU and Asia, despite the apparent problems with vaccine roll-out in Western Europe, will feed revenue needs before North America. The cruise lines going in that direction would hurt us. The one wild card is the actual, not fantasy facts, circumstance that the vaccine brings sero-prevalence rates in North America, primarily in FL's ports, below 5% by early May. This might allow the cruise lines to work toward and actually meet the CDC's stated bars to cross. If that actually happens a late June, early July restart is possible. I'm not optimistic.

This is not accurate as it is phrased. I'm not sure what you mean by "only good for people that have compromised immune systems.......," I assume you mean to keep immunocompromised persons out of the hospital. What you imply is that the vaccines have no effect on people with competent immune systems. Do I have this right? First, most people, regardless of age or immune status do not initially mount an immune response to SARS-2. For the naïve host, that host's immune system doesn't recognize SARS-2 as foreign until several days into the infection. After that, the innate immune system mounts a response, in varying degrees, recognizing that the virus cells are foreign. Immunocompromised hosts either by age or disease, take longer for recognition and response to occur. For most people, this interval is when COVID symptoms appear, primarily in the lungs, again in varying severity depending on the robustness of the hosts initial response to SARS-2. There are signaling cells (Specialized B-Cells and T-Cells) in the host (you) that then create an inflammatory response (cytokines among others) and stimulate the adaptive immune system to respond to the foreign viral cells. In some, the cytokine response can be so great, it worsens symptoms. In some cases, it does not occur at all (e.g., an immunocompromised host with AIDS or cancers that subdue the T and B cell response). A normal cytokine response has a positive effect on COVID-19 while allowing time for the adaptive immune system to produce specialized types of T and B cells that target the spike protein of the SARS-2 virus preventing it from attaching to human respiratory tract cells, reproducing and then eliminate it. The benefit of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer's and Moderna's already being used is that it primes the hosts innate immune system to recognize SARS-2 virus right away and stimulate an immediate innate and adaptive immune system response. The net effect is a reduced inflammatory response, a reduced time the virus is being hosted by you and a muted development of COVID symptoms - or, in the best case neither of these......you don't get sick at all This is a correct statement. In the context I presented above, you can see that when the SARS-2 virus infects the host, it's still a time dependent process where the virus is alive and reproducing in your body (you can still transmit it during this period). It tries to survive and resist getting killed by the hosts immune system. But now the immune system has been primed by a vaccine and the process of infection is greatly reduced in time. This equates to less of an inflammatory response and significantly reduced COVID symptoms. The trials that both manufacturers went through demonstrated the capacity of their vaccines to prevent serious COVID symptoms to a near 100% level. What these trials did not show was whether the vaccine reduced the transmission of the virus. The Israeli's have several studies underway to determine if the vaccines do, in fact, reduce transmission. The results made public indicate that they do - 33% after one dose and 70% after two. Caveats apply but this is very encouraging news. What does this mean to cruisers on a practical level?: If vaccinations end up being a pre-barding requirement, if you become infected on the cruise, you have a greatly reduced probability of developing serious COVID-19 symptoms or dying from it. All factors taken into consideration, I'd estimate that probability is < 1% of becoming infected and a near zero chance of dying. If you've been fully vaccinated you have a greater probability of serious injury or death in an accident on your way to the cruise port. Taken in the context of what I presented above, you might become infected on your cruise but you're' unlikely to develop symptoms anything worse than a cold or flu. Based on early studies in Israel, transmission appears to be reduced by up to 70% in fully vaccinated persons. Hope this clarifies important information about the mRNA vaccines currently being offered.

Point taken. The AZ debacle in Europe is certainly problematic and supports your position. OTH, The US and Western Europe while very similar in terms of total population, are culturally dissimilar. One thing that characterizes the societies of most Western European nations is that, aside from Italy - an outlier generally except for the pandemic response - they trust their governments in the pandemic. They are more likely to comply with directed mitigation measures. Outside of Asia, Germany and Italy were the first countries to dip their toes in the cruising waters signaling a more accommodating public health environment when it comes to assessing the risks and benefits of allowing cruise ships to sail from their ports. Germans, before the most recent outbreaks, had their SARS-2 sero-prevalence rate down to around 3% - the government continues to deploy much more stringent mitigation members than North America, especially compared to the US, CA being an exception. Western European citizens are complying instead of protesting to the extent that US citizens are over the infringement of liberties that mask mandates represent. This leads me to speculate that Western Europe will achieve control of the virus faster than the US once vaccines become more readily available there - and they will. I predict this outcome even though the US appears to be racing ahead right now. We already know Asian nations are maybe a full year ahead of the US in a return to normal economic activity. Governments there will probably be more accommodating of cruise industry operations from Western European and Asian ports. Occam's Razor solution to generating revenue for the cruise industry is therefore to send ships, en masse, to these ports - the more the better.

....... and surrender market share in the outyears to upstarts scrapping up what the majors, you seem to imply, perceive as table scraps? Not buying it. I'm convinced that if the US falters with getting the virus under control for any number of reasons and Europe and Asia are successful, RCG, and I suspect others in that category, will move quickly to secure market share in those regions. Shedding 75% of their capacity would be counterproductive IMO. Asia, and I include China, are potentially huge markets for future cruisers in a COVID free, or mostly free, region potentially dwarfing that of the US if current economic trends continue. I can see bankruptcy a more viable option for RCG, and others, than sheading capital equipment as you suggest will be the outcome. In that scenario a judge determines what creditors get on the dollar realizing that crippling cruise lines by making them sell assets would be counterproductive for both sides.

....... some revenue is better than no revenue. I don't disagree with you in principle, Twangster. I'm just reading the tea leaves here. If the CDC of the Biden administration continues to make it impossible for the cruise lines to operate from US ports, the industry will go elsewhere to survive. This is a corporate survival strategy not intended for the long range. I also think the industry is looking to tap into the Asian market and, if travel restrictions ease in Europe and Asia before they do in North America, assuming the mRNA vaccines are as effective as the recent Israeli studies indicate they are in preventing new infections (there's a new study released today from another public health unit studying this that asserts a 70% decrease in new infections among the control group receiving two shots), the industry isn't going to sit on it's hands waiting for the CDC to greenlight sailings from US ports. JMO.

I would assume that RCG is considering a porting strategy that is broader and will include Caribbean ports. Routine planning? I doubt it. My sense is that this is a strategy to get sailing again regardless of what the CDC does with it's complicated return to sail hoops that the lines have to jump through - costly. The December 21 start up time frame is instructive. The start signals to me that the lines may be thinking they are going to get out of Dodge and hit Asia and the Caribbean basin running. To them, they reason, whatever happens in the US ports is clearly out of our control and seemingly can't influence an outcome favorable to the cruise industry. We'll move to ports that are welcoming us, are reasonable with mitigation and virus control measures and we can operate smaller ships from. Something else to ruminate on, the big guns have sold a lot of their older ships to small companies who appear to be gobbling these ships up. Why? There's going to be a market for safe traveling and, IMO, sailing on a cruise ship, contrary to the conventional and hugely wrong conventional wisdom is safe. Caveat it has to be done safely and the Safe to Sail plan I've seen from the majors produces a very safe shipboard, ship life and port safe travel experience. The market is going to explode first in smaller ports with low sero-prevalence of SARS-2 that can't accommodate mega ships. I spoke of Tortola in another thread as being one of the those. Off the top of my head, I can't name others but, man, there should be a ton of them. I could see Celebrity porting one of it's Millennium class ships there and/or moving one from SJPR. US ports that are big into the cruise industry, aren't going to take this lying down ..... more leverage on the CDC's BS. Emphasis on has to be done right and the end results has to be safe. Not sure if the entrepreneurs buying up smaller ships will comply with CLIA's recommendations. One screw up, one death on board from COVID and it's over. So, there's leverage on these smaller companies to do it right out of the gate. Besides, I've actually had 3 cruises on Grandeur. Lovely, I'll take it.

Apparently, I can't keep up. I thought Spectrum had started sailing out of Shanghai a month ago. Nope, First scheduled sailings are in March, 2021. Quantum is still sailing out of Singapore on cruises to no-where, Singapore residents only, right? I think I just confused these two.

I can't enlarge the graph but I have seen the source study and am familiar with the results. The Israeli's are leading other countries in vaccinating their citizens as a percentage of total pollution. In the under 65 cohort its hovering just below 30%. In over 65's it's over 40%. The study you cite is a narrow study that looked at two arms. One control arm had no vaccinations and the study arm had at least one vaccination but only some had two. The groups were not particularly large by virtue of availability of study participants in a small country to begin with. It is also a pre-publication/not peer reviewed study and these are prelimnary results as the study is ongoing so as to look at the end point after two shots. Regardless, I know how to look at a research paper and judge it's findings as reliable or not. They are reliable. I still have issues with the mainstream press announcing findings as fact, which they do too often, without the caveats that study authors always include. The study arm that had either one or two shots of the Pfizer/Bio-Tec vaccine produced an overall 7% decline in new infections before the 2w point (as determined by discovery of a new infection in close contacts this group had) in comparison to the unvaccinated control arm. After the 14d point the decline was about 1/3 (33%). Caveats include it's a preliminary result; the study is not concluded. Not everyone in the study group had two shots. Israel is essentially locked down so that is a confounding factor in terms of how much the vaccine v. lockdown contributed to the decline. They'll deal with this by weighting outcomes to reduce or eliminate the effect of uncontrolled variables. Nevertheless the Pfizer/Biot-Tech vaccines are doing something in Israel and it is believed as the study continues and the study group all have two shots, the 33% decline will end up being more like 70% - what models have predicted - when variable are controlled for. Keep in mind that the study is looking at new infections - this is new and important because Pfizer never predicted it's vaccines would prevent infection only serious illness. It appears that it does but as far as the study results so far, only by about 30%. The study was not conclusive with regard to hospitalizations as the rate of hospitalizations didn't decline in the study group.

The UK is not alone in that concern. Ray. I hate being an alarmist and that is not my forte or MO. But the variants are going to affect vaccines in some way going forward. There effectiveness is dependent on blocking the spike protein of SARS-2 from attaching to human cells. Viruses mutate to survive when they are under pressure (mitigation measures and vaccines). We're seeing that. I do not think vaccine will be rendered useless. They can be tweeked much like H1N1 virus responsible for seasonal flu is tweeked every year. We will learn to live with SARS-2 much like the flu doesn't stop us now. It's going to take a while to sort all this out.

I think we are going to see more of this from Caribbean ports, Tortola could be next among others. I wrote about the very thorough arrival protocols that Tortola is using that started on 12/01 here: Tortola is currently a CDC Level 1 region meaning no circulating C-19. Barbados is Level 4 (high prevalence don't go there). I'd want to be vaccinated within 6 months of embarking on a Grandeur cruise out of Barbados if that held up even into 2022. No clue about vaccine programs in Barbados but that country is a member of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) https://www.paho.org/en Less wealthy countries are suffering right now from lack of resources to get enough vaccines for their citizens. Unless we see significantly decreased sero-prevalence of C-19 in the US as a result of the accelerating vaccine programs as we get into the third quarter, the Biden Administrations' CDC is not likely to greenlight cruising from American ports. Moreover, there will be issues if, Barbados for example, remains a level 4 region per CDC that if you go there, when you return to the US, you'll have to quarantine if you are unvaccinated, possibly even if you were vaccinated or had C-19 and recovered (have ABs). Right now, research supports immunity from C-19 for 6 months (with the vaccine or with innate infection), not any longer. More studies are on going and may prove that immunity lasts longer than that. But, man, travel is going to get complicated as we move forward into late 2021 and on into 2022. Vaccines distribution and sero-prevalence are going to vary widely region to region, country to country and that is going to affect how a country's public health organizations open or close boarders and entry points.

Symphony corrected to Spectrum. Spectrum is sailing regularly out of Baoshan (Shanghai) China on 4 and 5n sailings in Asian ports. Obvious restrictions on visas and boarding, generally Chinese citizens only. https://www.royalcaribbean.com/cruise-from/shanghai-china But, yes, tracking bracelets are used aboard ship from what I understand from other posts in this forum.

I'm less and less inclined to believe cruising will resume in the third quarter of 2021 (July). That's becasue the Biden administration is going to be much more aggressive with controlling entry to the US. The idea that the CDC's Conditional Sailing order release October 30th, 2020 is a de facto no sail order is probably correct and won't be changed by the cdc. It could become more restrictive. What could future cruises look like? I've been working on some articles that I post in several other forums, one of them is a travel forum that has a BVI section. The BVI is a Level 1 travel region according to the US CDC - there isn't any C-19 that's circulating. In fact, I don't think the BVI has any C-19 cases and wants to keep it that way. The BVI opened it's boarders to tourism on 12/01/20 but protocols to enter are extensive. First, you have to apply for entry approval at the BVI tourism web site. The form for application require you to up load proof of a negative C-19 test by PCR (not Rapid Antigen) that has been done 3d before your flight into the BVI. You must provide, in advance, your itinerary and where you are staying. You can only enter through the one airport (EIS) as of now. Ferry service from St. Thomas, a popular way to get to the BVI, will restart depending on what happens with just one port of entry - the airport. Once your documents are approved by the BVI government, you'll receive an email with a printable, official entry approval letter. This must be presented to your airline upon departure and again at BVI customs. Once through BVI customs you will be tested again, this time by RAPID antigen test. A negative result and you proceed and pay your $175 entry fee that covers testing costs incurred by the BVI government. Next you are issued a GPS equipped tracking bracelet. For your first 3d in the BVI you cannot go anywhere - you're quarantined. At the end of the 3rd day, you get tested again. If negative, on the 4th day you are free to travel unrestricted throughout the BVI although you've been wearing a GPS enable tracking bracelet since you arrived to insure you quarantine and then to track your movements while in the BVI. I'm aware of similar if not less restrictive protocols in other Caribbean countries. Is this sort of protocol possible for cruise lines, one that might include a 3d quarantine in your cabin followed by testing and release from quarantine on the start of the 4th day? Tracking bracelets already in use on Spectrum sailing out of China? Possibly highly restricted activities for 3d, then retest then free to roam and enjoy with bracelets? From the standpoint of viral spread and as close to a bubble as one could get to start a cruise, maybe this is the way to go. OTH, I think the cruise lines and many potential passengers would find this sort of approach, as good as it is in preventing the spread of the virus aboard a ship, unworkable. Maybe the step down approach of just highly restricted movement during the first 72 hours would work. Anyway, we're moving in a direction where, at the very least, there will be strict controls and mitigation measures in place and these are going to get tougher as we get further along in the Biden administration. I tend to think a vaccination passport is going to be required to board if the CDC greenlights cruising from US ports and I can't see revenue cruises starting before July best case. It will certainly be required for international air travel and movement within the EU, Eastern Europe, Asia, the ME and just about any cruise destination I can think of. I don't see travel to Europe or anywhere else from the US to happen before September and that early date would require upwards of a 60% vaccination rate of the US population and the US becoming a Level 1 Country (no circulating virus) per the CDC. I have 4 cruises booked - all of them on L&S from June - late December, '21 with 2 already L&S'ed to 2022. One of these involves air travel to Europe and a West Bound Translant from Barcelona to Fort Lauderdale in October extending into early November. I don't think the June cruise will go, I think the August cruise is doubtful even though both of them are Caribbean itineraries out of Fort Lauderdale. I'd say the October Translant cruise is 50/50, my 5d NY Holiday Caribbean cruise out of Miami is probably 60/40. My plan is to cancel all of the 2021 cruises before the 90d mark and hopefully get a refund. I'm not even sure how that works for cruises that have been L&S'ed once. I'm assuming you just get a 100% refund, no other benefits. Being realist we've lost 18 months of cursing maybe 2 years.

Within the last few hours the coroner's office responsible for determining the cause of death previously assigned as Cardiac Arrest by the ER attending where he was declared deceased did, in fact, die from respiratory failure with a secondary cause of COVID-19. While many will conclude from this single incident that airline travel is unsafe and the news media will breath oxygen on this story, the millions of passengers that have travelled safely on aircraft and the hard work the airlines have put into reducing the risk of COVID spread will not be recognized. What this does do is shed light on the importance of individuals taking responsibility for themselves in the current COVID circumstance. It is layering of mitigation measures, including taking person responsibility for recognizing illness and not going out when such illness suggesting COVID is recognized, that will reduce spread of the virus and keep us all safe.

Just found this thread. I'd compare this presentation similar to the Adler profitability piece. Also noted DunwoodyDad's post which is informative. The perspectives in both these presentations is business and investment oriented. I've been skeptical of modeling in the area where I have some experience - medicine. I put more weight and by extension value into what practitioners that have a lot of clinical experience when it comes to patient management. There is evidence that the conclusions the author arrives at are based on modeling not actual experience. Therefore, recognize that they are models, subject to the vagaries of them and often horribly wrong. So, talking about clinical experience as it might apply to the question when does cruising re-start???..... until health authorities, and I include the CDC but there are other players with the authority to impact re-start dates, see an appreciable decline in COVID-19 prevalence regionally where cruise ships will operate, a re-start isn't likely. Caveats apply. The CDC will tell you up front, it's not their job to find balance between economic, social and public health costs when advising what measures are appropriate to reduce the impact of a serious public health threat like SARS-CoV-2 presents. They are interested in one thing: data driven public health interests. The cruise lines are going to battle this reality for some time. However, caveat, other factors are starting to weigh on that premise. It is a good sign that officials are starting to look at the economic costs of continued mitigation measures that presumptively confer little public health benefit - completely closing restaurants, for example, instead of limiting hours. Vaccines bring a new calculation to the balancing equation though. That is a reduction in disease burden. So, while prevalence of infections may remain high for the next 90 or so days, I believe we will start to see deaths and hospitalizations decline. Possibly sharply once vaccines get wider distribution among the 65 and older populations. While these so called models may predict hard times ahead for avid cruisers, my take is that they won't be anywhere near as awful going forward. That is because the armamentarium in the tool box for combating the pandemic is increasing rapidly.