Jump to content

JeffB

Members
  • Posts

    1,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by JeffB

  1. ....... 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.
  2. ....... 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. In response to JLMoran's post.......Make no mistake. My memories of cruising are way better than memories of any other vacations I've taken and your list of plus-ups to cruising v. land vacations is a good one, but.... ... our first cruise was in 2001 aboard Celebrity Mercury. In the 19 years since, we've logged 38 cruises with Celebrity and another dozen with other lines. The only itineraries we have not experienced are Northern Europe and the Middle East. My Daughter and her husband, an Italian, live and work in Switzerland. We've visited Europe 3X in conjunction with visits to see our grandchildren and them and had extended stays in Italy. Traveling and seeing the world both ways are distinctly different. Over the two decades of experiencing the cruising life, I've watched the cruise industry change dramatically. It's growth has been phenomenal and not all of it for the good. There's less glamor and more Greyhound with pizzazz of course but most people my age can remember what it was like to fly in the 50s and 60s aboard a Pan Am Constellation then 747 compared to what the experience is like today on a United or Spirit Airlines flight. There are huge differences from the boarding process to food service and the in-flight experience between Pan Am of the 60s and Spirit of the oughts. Cruising has been a lot like that for me. My expectations for cruising in 2004 or 5 have been dutifully lowered for these days. Still, we like ship life and have this sort of routine. We just like being aboard and after having seen many ports multiple times, we often don't even debark. Food service, at least aboard Celebrity has been maintained at a very high level. I find that amazing although its a step down from our dining experiences a decade ago. The elimination of the old cruise line themed specialty restaurants that survived into the Millennium Class ships but then finally disappeared a few years ago was a sad day for us. At least Murano has survived but we're not big fans of the direction dining has taken on the Edge class ships. No Ice Martini bar and a long list of memorable flair bar-tenders? Shame!!! I get the transitions though. Cruise lines are delivering what customers want ..... most of the time. Admittedly, it is the loss of some of the glamor of the Golden Age of cruising that when cruise lines returned in earnest in the late '90s attempts were made to preserve that. That's giving way to a much more family centric, theme-park sort of experience and I think this is especially true with RCCL. Still, there are options for more sedate and luxurious yet still value experiences aboard NCL brands such as Oceania. Celebrity targets sales toward a different cruising cohort than say Carnival so, there's always options - finding the balance between value and luxury on a cruise though is getting harder and harder.
  13. Looking at the health of an industry from a standpoint of profitability is going to skew projections downward for the cruise lines. The year 2030 as a return to 2019 level profitability is a WAG. There are multiple factors that will determine "profitability" beyond the levels of it that cruise companies experienced in the past. I don't think offering the analysis the author provides is particularly useful as a measure of cruise industry health. I don't think there is any question that cabin capacity will contract by thinning fleets. That's already happening. With reduced capital costs and expenditures, profitability can and usually will rise rapidly. One thing that this article nails is the decreasing spread that the cruise industry previously enjoyed between the cost of leisure activities. Cruising, IMO, has been a great value compared to say, all-inclusive resorts or a two week, land based vacation somewhere. The net effect is going to be decreased demand for cabins - without the value incentive, the cruise industry is going to be in a spot. Moreover, fewer died-in-the wool cruisers will want to pay a premium to cruise. I certainly won't. One thing I'm coming to grips with is that the post-COVID cruise experience is going to be markedly different and it's going to take a while for me to rebuild interest and confidence in cruising as the best means of traveling. As I get further and further away from my last cruise (March of 2020) I can feel interest waning and this is especially true when I consider what the cruise experience will be like during the first several months after a restart. I've got 4 bookings from March to early November, 2021 with Celebrity - 3 of them L&S'ed, the one in March booked in early 2020. I lost a New Year's 2020/21 cruise on Infinity when I L&S'ed to January 2022 and 2 weeks later Celebrity cancelled it - at that point I could only get a refund and I took it. That left a sour taste in my mouth. That I'm pretty sure the March 19th, 10d cruise on Reflection will be cancelled or modified isn't going to increase my enthusiasm for cruising either.
  14. These are relevant questions. let me take them from top to bottom: Will the CDC demand that the pandemic is at an end before they greenlight a restart of cruising from US Ports? I think there is a risk of this with the proviso that no US economic sector has been singled out for the kind of draconian measures that essentially shuts down a business like the cruise industry has been shut down. IMO, there is a distinct possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will not be eradicated such that an end to the pandemic can be declared. However, I believe that disease burden will be reduced to the extent that it parallels that of say, heart disease or cancer; we learn how to manage and live with these. Given that and juxtaposed with what I consider to be an outstanding Safe to Sail Plan that is ready for testing and implementation, I can see a court challenge to the CDC's continued shuttering of cruise ship operations from US ports. It's impossible to say what criteria might be used by the CDC to greenlight cruise ship operations but the continued shut down by government fiat is unprecedented and unjustified given operating standards in other sectors of the travel and leisure industries. Will Inter and intrastate travel become unacceptable wrt potential for disease spread? To me, this becomes a risk benefit calculation that with over a year of the presence of a highly infectious virus taking an immense human, social and economic toll, authorities are just now recognizing that lock-downs, even lock-down light, while they work in reducing community spread of the virus, are not sustainable. Therefore, as macabre as it sounds, hard nosed choices have to be made. Yes, some will become infected, become seriously ill and die. But most will not. Death is inevitable and some level of excess death due to viruses are going to become a realty that the human race, if it is to prosper socially and economically, has to live with and manage the human toll as best that our technology and medical knowledge allows. Won't the CDC consider this effect knowing it is powerless to stop domestic travel? This is an important political question with significant implications. This question cannot be answered definitively without evaluating the world view that one has. Fundamentally, we know that the authority of government in the US to mandate behavior has been questioned. Can the wearing of a mask be mandated for the public good is just one example of many. Can the CDC implement regulations that prohibit domestic travel is another example? These kinds of mandates are coming under increasing scrutiny and governments are being challenged in the courts. For me, I think this is good. I believe governments have to show just cause and if they can't, like has already been seen in some court challenges to state wide mandates (Governors Whtimer in MI and Newsom in CA), mandates can be struck down. I think that continued CDC regulations that amount to unjustified restrictions to commerce are, in time, going to be found to be illegal and will be struck down. Others can disagree.
  15. Some facts that pertain to recent posts: There is no causation between the latest SARS-CoV-2 variant named G164 and the increase in new COVID case numbers in the UK. There is a presumed relationship but it is not scientific fact. At present there is no concrete evidence that steps being taken within the EU to restrict UK access are going to provide significant PH benefit for the EU that will outweigh their enormous economic and social costs to the UK. There are some very readable articles about SARS-CoV-2 mutations, their usually benign and expected nature and that none of the nearly 4000 observed mutations including the most recent render vaccines ineffective. This is one of them: https://www.jwatch.org/fw117348/2020/12/20/sars-cov-2-variants-uk-south-africa-cause-alarm The individual on the United Airlines flight who allegedly had COVID-19, to my knowledge, has not been declared as having it. He is believed to have suffered cardiac arrest and because of unsubstantiated statements from passengers who witnessed his demise he is being presumed to have had COVID by United Airlines. The airlines and the CDC are working together to contact trace passengers who potentially came in contact with the deceased pending the release of information regarding his COVID status.
  16. While it is true as Twangster points out that the mRNA vaccines (the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines currently in circulation) won't "neutralize" SARS-CoV-2 no vaccine in history has been introduced with eradication as an absolute endpoint. Disease eradication is a result of limiting the pathogenicity of a virus until it is no longer capable of producing a disease, e.g., polio, TB. If you read about such things, there are still polio and TB outbreaks that are a result of populations in sufficient scale not receiving polio or TB vaccines. Malaria is another example. The disease or pathogen seems to disappear until it reappears. There is no vaccine but it is preventable with widely employed mitigation measures and pharmaceutical prophylaxis. HIV is another - no vaccine but transmission is preventable with condum use and medications to reduce viral load in infected persons making them less likely to spread the disease. The cruise industry has laid out exactly how it intends to prevent and contain C-19 on its cruise ships if allowed to re-start cruising. That's a start. Think back to the WHO goal of "flattening the curve" articulated in February and March. The point of that was to keep hospitals and medical staff that were treating COVID-19 patients from being overwhelmed. It's a good thing to keep that in mind. The same thing applies with the current goal for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines with a slightly more ambitious goal. Keeping people out of the hospital altogether so that the disease that SARS-CoV-2 produces, C-19, is benign enough to be much like the common cold. That goal is entirely achievable with a vaccine just like it is with the Influenza vaccines that targets the H1N1 pathogen. The disappearance of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen may ensue, it may not. That all depends on it's survival trajectory which is only now being studied. Are we to expect the cruise lines to eradicate the virus on board it's ships for them to re-start cruising? Nope. he CDC asked the cruise lines to come up with protocols to reduce the risks that COVID would be introduced to shipboard life by passengers or crew and that if a case developed it could be adequately contained and the infected could be disembarked without causing undue burden on port facilities and local hospitals. They did that. This concept is important to understand as it relates to the question of whether cruise lines, upon resumption of revenue operations, will require vaccines to board a ship. I believe that they won't because they believe their layered approach is already pretty good. The cruise lines don't currently require immunizations for influenza or many other common pathogens still floating around out there. It is a passenger's responsibility to comply with local port of call immunizations should that passenger want to disembark in a local requiring specific immunizations to do so. There is, however, a larger question that bears upon restarting at all let alone the question of requiring or not requiring a vaccine. Will the CDC require the COVID pandemic to be at an end in the US before cruises can restart - vaccine or not? If so, when will the COVID pandemic be declared at an end? By definition, a pandemic ends when the virus responsible for it is no longer prevalent. Right now, although it varies by country, a community spread ends when prevalence is < 5%. Another way to look at that is the number of tests it takes to find 1 active COVID-19 case. Experts seem to think that if you're only finding 1 case in 150 to 200 tests administered, the virus is contained. The US has a long way to go before national prevalence rate is < 5% or we're only finding one C_19 case in every 150 or so tests. National prevalence is about 10% right now. Some states with very high prevalence rates skew the national average upward. New cases are running about one in every 50-90 tests nationally. In FL the state average is about 9% and in Broward County, home of Port Everglades, its between 6.5% and 8% most of the time. In Miami its close to the state average, in Orlando, closer to Broward Co. I point this out to illustrate how the restart of cruising shouldn't be pegged on national but rather local prevalence rates, vaccine requirements or not. The CDC may stand on a national prevalence rate, though, now that a vaccine is available. Local numbers would be better indicators for a restart. Local numbers < 5% are probably achievable but it's going to take a while. If we can get past the hysteria of the holiday surge, we're going to see numbers back under 5% in FL counties hosting cruise ports probably by mid-February, early March. Caribbean ports will be next and European ports will follow prevalence rates in US ports. I'd urge folks to watch these prevalence numbers by country, region, state and county then keep an eye on the mood of the CDC to find out when it's likely cruising will restart and when it does if there will be a vaccine mandate to board.
  17. Questions like this have been addressed many times in different threads but it is still relevant because about every 72 hours, things change! Right now, it appears that when cruising does restart from US ports, itineraries will be in the range of 3-7 days. Porting will be limited and if it does occur, it will be at private island facilities for a while to come. If you're keeping up, you'll have seen the Safe to Sail Plan that RCG, among other lines and organizations (e.g., CLIA), collaboratively developed. These were in response to CDC concerns about congregate settings common on cruise ships and the attendant risk of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within them. In turn, the CDC then lifted the cruise ship ban on sailing from US ports on October 30th and released a 70 some page document stipulating what cruise ships had to do to resume sailing from US ports. Well, nobody is cruising yet from the US and even cruising in Asia and Europe has been only on a limited basis. There are some lines that have already cancelled or stopped booking cruises in March, 2021 and even beyond that. The cruise line's ability to meet all the gating criteria contained in the most recent CDC guidelines will determine when cruising can resume. Even if they do that, there's wiggle room for the CDC to say, nope not yet, based on such things as disease prevalence, for example, in FL ..... or Galveston, New Orleans, where ever cruise ships operate from. So, restarting sailings out of US ports is going to be hard as long as there is a level of community spread of the virus that is currently being experienced. I've already offered that I don't think that in the early months of vaccine distribution that we're going to see a decline in disease prevalence. In hospitalizations and deaths? Yes. So, if disease prevalence remains high in FL, for example, even though RCCL and Celebrity may have implemented protocols that will meet the CDC's requirements for mitigation measures and gating criteria, the company itself or the CDC may not allow a restart. Having said that and to answer your question, I think the survival of the cruise ship industry, including RCCL, depends on being able to re-start revenue deriving cruises by the end of the first quarter of 2021 - that would be March. I do believe that federal level decision makers are aware of the economic costs to the cruise industry of continuing to prohibit operations. There is plenty of evidence that shuttering businesses does not produce the public health benefits wrt the pandemic that are greater than the economic and social costs produced by them. There is some recognition of this starting to surface everywhere on the planet that is dealing with the pandemic. As well there is strong resistance to unregulated re-opening. There's a definite tension between these two pathways with trends toward fewer lock-downs or shuttering of businesses. There are exceptions, of course, and there are governors and local officials who have the authority to do so to order both varying forms of lock-downs and business closings. I think cruising can be done safely with layered mitigation measures. To demand zero risk of viral spread aboard a cruise ship is unrealistic. The industry has to convince regulating entities in the US that it can reduce the risk of spreading the virus and if there is an infection aboard ship it can be addressed and dealt with without endangering other passengers or crew or placing undue burden on local port facilities when they are asked to assist in the handling of infected persons. The blueprint is in place to do that. There is evidence from Asia and Europe that similar blueprints work. The hardest part, the biggest barrier to a restart from US ports right now, and seemingly in Europe and Asia, is viral prevalence. I think regulators and local officials involved in decision making are going to want viral prevalence - percent positivity of administered testing within counties hosting cruise ports - to be at or below 5% maybe a little higher. Broward county, the FL county that contains Port Everglades, for example, has been hovering between 6% and 10% over the last month. In addition, cruise ships will have to demonstrate that they can create as much of a bubble as possible before deciders will green light sailings out of any particular US port. That should come once the planned practice cruises start taking place. Does that shed some light on your question? I'm with Matt, "we just don't know yet." Stay tuned.
  18. Here are some mRNA vaccine facts but before we list them, some background on DNA and RNA. DNA encodes all genetic information, and is the blueprint from which all biological life is created. And that’s only in the short-term. In the long-term, DNA is a storage device, a biological flash drive that allows the blueprint of life to be passed between generations2. RNA functions as the reader that decodes this flash drive. This reading process is multi-step and there are specialized RNAs for each of these steps. https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/lists/what-are-the-key-differences-between-dna-and-rna-296719 To put this into the context of the question can an mRNA vaccine change your DNA? The answer is no. That is because mRNA has as no roll in altering DNA. It is possible to alter DNA by splicing in different base pairs made up of two nucleosides. RNA or mRNA vaccines can't do that carrying only multiples of single nucleoside - square peg in a round hole. Won't happen. The primary roll of RNA, specifically messenger or mRNA is building proteins essential for biologic functions of the human body. mRNA and traditional vaccines: mRNA vaccines represent a novel vaccine technology that does not rely on any type of traditional deactivated virus to provoke an immune response in humans. This approach to neutralizing a virus and limiting or eliminating viral epidemics/pandemics has never been treid before. As noted above, the mRNA injected into humans as a vaccine co-opts the regular cellular function of RNA (coding for the production of proteins) and produces the S or spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 that then circulates in the body. The body recognizes this as foreign and its presence provokes an adaptive immune system antibody response and an innate immune system T-Cell response. The human body is now primed for the real thing and when it arrives it is almost immediately neutrlaized. The AstraZenaca vaccine is a traditional one that contains a deactivated virus from monkeys (a vector) that has been infected with the common corona or cold virus. When injected into humans, the vector causes the cellular production of the S or spike protein that is common to SARS-CoV-2. The mechanism of action is the same as an mRNA vaccine. The body recognizes this as foreign and its presence provokes an adaptive immune system antibody response and an innate immune system T-Cell response. The human body is now primed for the real thing and when it arrives it is almost immediately neutralized. More important vaccine facts: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
  19. I think this is an accurate summary. Let's talk about vaccine facts involving the two vaccines we'll see in the US over the next 30 days. Both are mRNA vaccines. They are a new development on the vaccine front. Their composition includes incorporation of synthetically manufactured mRNA that once injected into a naïve host, appears to the adaptive and innate immune system as SARS-CoV-2. This provokes the production of antibodies in the adaptive response and has proven to provoke a robust innate immune system response in the form of T-Cells. If you have a predilection for the science involved in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, this is a good scientific paper that is written well enough for lay persons to understand. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201125091456.htm Mutations: Researchers have found over 12000 variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus involving mutations of the virus RNA. There is anecdotal evidence that the virus mutates and can infect hosts other than humans. The lay press has extrapolated this evidence to incorrectly conclude and report to the public that the virus is more dangerous or lethal and can be transmitted by hosts other than humans. Transmission of the virus from an animal, for example, can occur but is exceedingly rare. The current news regarding minks and workers at mink farms, for example, contracting COVID-19 lacks controlled studies. Infected workers could have contracted C-19 by human to human transmission and this mode of transmission is probably more likely than it being transmitted from the minks. Experts in the field of virology and immunology have argued against the culling of commercially raised minks as ineffective with high economic costs and few public health benefits. Whether SARS-CoV-2 mutations confer longer virus life or lethality has been aggressively studied. According to this paper released in the UK, none of them have created circumstances where the life of the virus is extended/made more resistant to containment or eradication or makes it more infectious/lethal. Morbidity and mortality produced by C-19 is a function of viral load and the human immune response to exposure to SARS-CoV-2, not mutations of the virus. Mutations in a virus are to be expected, not feared. The core targets of vaccines (the S or spike proteins) predict that regardless of common RNA mutations, the SAR-CoV-2 virus, exactly like the H1N1 family of influenza viruses and it's variants, will remain susceptible to degradation and by extension, severity of C-19 or Influenza symptoms through vaccination. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201125091456.htm CDC vacccine facts: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits/facts.html
  20. Disclaimer: I'm not a virologist or immunologist; I'm a Physician Assistant, now retired after 22 years of Emergency Medicine practice. I write about the SARS-CoV-2 and COVID in a completely unrelated blog that I manage. If there is something to read about the virus and the disease it produces, I've probably seen it and have reviewed it with a medical eye. I want to make sure that if I am asked about the virus or the disease it produces, COVID, and write about it, I'm not passing bad information. Researchers believe that an infected individual will infect others in proportion to the viral load of that infected person. Multiple factors are determinants of a given viral load. Super-Spreader events are believed to have circumstances where very high viral loads are present and more people are easily infected in a ratio that exceeds the accepted R value of 1-3 (the average number of people one infected person will infect). Theoretically, the lower the viral load (virions) of an infected individual, the less people he/she will infect. It is also believed that COVID severity is a function of the quantity of virions a SARS-CoV-2 infected individual actually make the trip from the infected persons exhalations to then be inhaled by and find a home in the respiratory tract of the naïve person. The more virions received by the new host, the faster and more plentiful the replication and this is especially true in a naïve host with no immunity at all to the virus.* By extension it may be accurate to say that a vaccinated person, having already been prepared by the vaccine to build antibodies will respond much more rapidly to invading virions diminishing their number and potentially making that individual less infectious......theoretically, and asswering your question, diminishing asymptomatic spread. TBF, we just don't know if this will actually occur outside of a lab where these theories are developed. The lack of certainty here is what has made vaccine producers reluctant to make claims that the vaccines they developed will stop or slow the spread of the virus. They might. They might not. It will be a while before scientists and medical researchers will be willing to say, yes, the vaccine is slowing the spread ..... and if that is the case, then, like some diseases, SARS-CoV-2 will be eradicated. But, lets take one step at a time. The goal right now is to reduce disease burden as defined by hospitalizations and deaths. * A comment on the human body's immune system. There are two parts: adaptive and innate. Vaccines target the adaptive system directly prompting antibodies to be developed and prepared to meet and defeat the real thing should it be contracted. Vaccines also have a stimulating effect on the innate system. There are several classes of innate cells. You may have heard of Killer T Cells. These are examples of an innate immune system cell. They can be provoked by the presence of a manufactured, synthetic look-alike virus (a vaccine). In part, the presence of these in a competent immune system can meet the virus, recognize it as foreign, neutralize it and completely prevent or lessen COVID symptoms. Replication of the virus is impeded, less virions are reproduced in the host, less illness ensues. The 96 year old grandma who tested positive for COVID and was supposed to succumb to it but didn't get sick at all is demonstrative of this phenomena. Unfortunately not everyone has powerful innate immunity to SARS-CoV-2 but most healthy people have some; its thought that in the absence of a vaccine, the degree of innate immunity may determine, in part, the severity of COVID.
  21. Just to be clear, no one that I am aware of from any of the pharmaceutical companies that will have vaccines in circulation by January or from reputable virologists are talking about "eradicating" the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What vaccine producers and public health officials are hoping for is a reduction in the disease burden of the virus secondary to the introduction of vaccines. I can see a scenario where new case numbers continue to increase at a lower rate but hospitalizations and deaths decline. These two data points - hospitalizations and deaths - are key markers for disease burden. If they decline, the vaccine is doing what experts thought it would. Yet the media will be rife with reports that case numbers aren't declining as anticipated and the "dire consequences" of vaccine failure. State and local governments will continue to renew or implement new, more useless and unnecessary mitigation measures with little public health benefit derived from them. Cruising won't restart because the CDC is unlikely to end it's warnings for Americans to avoid cruising until such time as the US prevalence rate is well below 5% and probably below 3%. I hate to be a buzz killer but people need to understand that the introduction of a vaccine, even at scale, is not a guarantee that the virus will be "eradicated." What we need to be tuned into and cheer is that fewer people are getting hospitalized and a whole lot less people are dying from COVID-19 complications. I think we are going to see measurable declines in both of these data points in 45-60 days. Get ready to obtain your COVID vaccination or antibodies present passport to board a cruise ship. The requirement is probably legal. CLIA, the CDC and possibly DHS (which would require it through regulatory authority) will recommend it. It's coming.
  22. I think it is really hard to predict what RCL and Celebrity are going to do heading into March, 2021 and through the summer. The situation is terribly fluid. Some factors: If vaccines are actually distributed around 12/15/20 you're 10 weeks into distro by March 1st. There's ample evidence that the vaccines will be available on ever-enlarging scale. That is going to have a major impact on the cruising landscape. While, at first, who gets the vaccines will be limited in numbers and targeted, as production scales up - and when there is a huge market for a product companies will go out of their way to match or exceed demand producing big profits - it will scale up very rapidly. Keep in mind, there is already vaccines produced and on the shelves at all three companies that are in the lead to receive EUA. Once all three are in full-scale production mode and the Feds have got distribution down, it will be reversal of the exponential spread of the virus in that vaccinated persons, not new infections will increase exponentially. The numbers of new COVID cases will decline steeply. Then we have J&J saying they will be seeking EUA as early as February, possibly earlier - a 4th company in max production mode. I also can see other foreign companies seeking EUA for their vaccine products in the US. So, there could even be more vials of the vaccines available and more rapidly expanding numbers of vaccinated persons than we imagine right now or could have even thought possible 6 months ago. Free markets can do that. What is the CDC going to do wrt their restrictions and protocols directed at the cruise industry as vaccines become more and more available. I can't imagine that the protocols they've designed won't be modified as potential cruise passengers become vaccinated and the CDC can no longer demand compliance when a ship full of vaccinated otherwise healthy people, a lot of them 65-80 year olds who will probably be first in line, sails. We should see a steep reduction in mitigation measures as early as March and definitely as vaccine reaches full scale production and distribution in June/July. I think you can already see Celebrity - the one I'm keeping close track of - hedging their bets thinking that there's no need to undertake major re-jiggering ships or itineraries after July 31st because vaccines will be out there at scale. While they aren't booking 8n and longer cruises right now and some have been removed altogether, some of them are still on the books - like my August 7th, 8n itinerary. I've been overly optimistic in my takes before and this may be a repeat but if vaccine producers jump in with both feet like I believe they will out of sheer profit motive, if the Fed has planned wisely and it turns out they have the infrastructure and can efficiently execute vaccine distribution at scale throughout North America, we may see a faster return to full scale cruising than Europe will obtain - I feel like the EU is going to get bogged down with boarder closings and distribution efforts complicated by Brexit. North America won't have to deal with that mess.
  23. Celebrity is in the process of formalizing multiple changes involving 8-10n itineraries. I had an 11n/10n B2B that spanned most of March out of Fort Lauderdale. I had decided that booking was unlikely to sail in it's present configuration. So, I looked to see if the Equinox - the only ship from the RCG that is sailing the Caribbean during the traditional hurricane season (not sure about Silver Sea) was doing those two itineraries or something like them in August. Nope. Surprisingly, I was able to cancel the first leg of the B2B and rebook (same fare, different ship, same class but different cabin, no penalties) an 8n Equinox sailing out of Fort Lauderdale but not a sequential 8n sailing right after it. Go figure??? I did not rebook the the second leg of the B2B, a 10n March sailing that probably won't go. I want to see what Celebrity is going to do with this - final payment due second week in December and no changes yet. I doubt that one will sail but it's close. Just 30 minutes ago I logged in to the Celebrity site and located a page showing about 15 itinerary changes most of them shortening 8 or longer night cruises to 7n and giving 6n cruises a 7th night. They had just been published. According to the letter on the page that I will probably receive late tonight I'm getting a $100 CC and a refund on a prorated basis for the lost day. I'm fine with that. It appears that Celebrity is re-jiggering a whole slew of ships and itineraries in 2021. Lots of changes up to August. After that, no changes..... yet. I have an 8n Equinox Cruise out of Fort Lauderdale sailing August 7th. The changes stopped right before this sailing. In this re-jiggering, I got jobbed on a cancellation of a 5n Infinity Cruise that was a L&S from a cancelled Infinity Itinerary over New years leaving 12/28. I don't know where Infinity is headed but it's not doing the previously scheduled 5n/4n sailings in Caribbean waters through April. Then, a week later they cancelled the sailing that I had L&Ss to. I was not happy. I lost a ton of perks and a very good fare. I took a refund as you can only L&S once (you know this). I got over it. Hard times and Celebrity is doing its best. Bottom line if you are booked anytime between January 1st and July 31st keep a sharp eye out for itinerary changes. You don't want to cancel anything on a whim as it's unlikely you'll be able to find a cabin on a Caribbean sailing during this period. If you do want to change, make sure you can cancel and rebook successfully and at the same time before you pull the trigger.
  24. Try this ..... sort-of a combination of "this is not a personal attack against you" advice you got up thread and then lay out these facts on the table. Write them down and let your in-laws read them: What was described as a cruise line debacle in March 2020 by the press anxious to lay blame on the spread of the virus to something, accounted for < 0.05% of global COVID cases over the month of March. Italy, China and a few weeks later other countries in the EU followed by NYC were epic debacles where thousands of people not only got COVID but died in droves. 5 people died from COVID that could be traced back to becoming infected on a cruise ship. Despite what the press makes cruise ships out to be, right now, given the adoption of mitigation measures recommended in the STS Plan, congregate settings like cruise ships will present an environment with a lower probability of becoming infected with COVID than the family gathering we are at right now, any large gathering like weddings, house parties or spectator attended sporting events, most restaurants and bars, going to the grocery store or ay retail store. Misinformation and disinformation is the bane of my existence and it is everywhere. Disinformation is purposeful. There is a need to be aware that it is out there and designed to seed fear and lack of trust in all things official. The best advice for your in-laws is to always endeavor to seek alternative viewpoints or answers to all issues you have interest in or wish to comment on....see all sides.
  25. Comments on my post above: First, we should dismiss the issues on Sea Dream if, as I have seen posted is true, that they weren't using the STS protocols. This just proves, yeah, we should be using those. On testing: I think from the Economist article above we can derive that RAPID Antigen tests aren't ideal for screening or surveillance given the basis upon which they are intended to be done for pre-boarding screening. The chance of a leaker who is infected getting through that process is fairly high. I have posted previously that it was my belief that RCL would be using RAPID RT/PCR tests such as BINAX NOW for pre-board screening. I also think part of the STS protocol was going to back up positive RT/PCR tests with a second confirmatory test. That protocol - two tests - seems to be pretty solid, first for making sure leakers don't get through and second, identifying true positives and handling them in accordance with local procedures. The good news out of the Economist article is that by mid-2021 a RAPID, saliva based, antigen test is going to be available. One test, one result, with 99% accuracy for positive and negatives. I'd feel very good about boarding a ship and sailing on her given that sort of screening accuracy. Finally, the grandstanding as it has been properly named here by members of Congress is crap, not based on any realistic evidence and completely uninformed. Unfortunately, that is what we are going to be dealing with as the cruise industry starts to gear back up and restart. I do think, as stupid and uninformed as it is, this kind of thing is going to keep delaying a restart. COVID politics as usual, not to mention the negative impact of a restart due to what I believe is the CDC's designed to fail gating process (hoop jumping) the cruise lines have to deal with.
×
×
  • Create New...