JeffB

Some truth to that Twangster. OTH, I've derided the alternate reality painted by the left wrt the disease burden of C-19. I've provided context when I do that to lend weight to my position that it's mortality and morbidity are over-played. The media's approach, in my view, is highly political and intended to damage the president and every aspect of his handing of the pandemic. Reopening across all economic sectors - the cruise and travel industry included - is made to appear as a much less viable strategy in the face of the incessant harangue of "dire consequences" claimed by the press that reopening will precipitate - be it schools, bars, restaurants, places of business or cruising. If the president or anyone in his administration supports it, its bad. The knives come out to pillory whoever steps forward in the public space in support of reopening. The cruise industry is operating behind the eight ball to start with when advancing any argument for letting their ships sail from US ports. Think back to March when the press absolutely and IMO, unfairly and with few facts, ham-blasted the cruise industry for spreading COVID. The reality is starkly different. Yet that is what is conjured up by the left as a reason those greedy bastards should be kept shuttered .... FOREVER. Cruising? A symbol of a privileged life at the expense of the proletariat? Right out of Karl Marx's and Vladamir Lenin's play book.

........ the political aspects of the argument over whether to continue to shutter or restart cruse ship operations gets a little squishy. The left tends to ignore the costs while hammering home the spread of the virus and number of deaths. The right ignores most of that claiming the left distorts C-19 disease impact emphasizing the costs to the cruise industry and travel and leisure sector of the economy. In the polarized political climate the US is in right now, It is difficult to get accurate, fact based information to inform a rational view point. As is usually the case, a rational position considers both sides and a compromise is fashioned. Not gonna happen with the political players on stage at present at least this is true in the public space. You're on your own there. Hopefully officials that will actually decide the fate of cruising in 2020 in the next few weeks are better informed than we are. Some facts you may be interested in: FL's R(t) - a measure of virus control has been below 1.0 (indicates virus is not spreading) for 2 weeks. https://rt.live/ You can look at FL's COVID Dashboard and see that the counties where cruise ports are located (Broward, Miami Dade, for example) have daily positivity rates below 5% (indicates virus is not spreading locally). https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/ According to news reports, this is what decision makers at the federal level will look at to make a decision to extend or let the NSO expire. The two links above will help you to know the facts as reported by PH agencies instead of the hype, more often than not to be wrong or misleading, coming from social media and the mainstream press.

Ya'll know where I stand on re-opening in general and restarting cruise operations out of US ports. Opponents of restarting, like the CDC's Redfield, can offer reasonable arguments for not lifting the no-sail order. These are based primarily on the increased risk of congregate settings for the spread of the virus. There's no getting around that .... congregate settings increase the risk of viral spread. Supporters of re-opening, like myself, counter that while risks cannot be reduced to zero, they can be mitigated. (see the Safe-To-Sail Plan). With mitigation measures in place, the question of cost to the pertinent economy v. public health benefits comes into play (see the Trump administration's general approach to the pandemic). The foregoing pretty much summarizes where we are with restarting cruising. We're all trying to piece together information we see in the public space that signals which side of the argument is going to prevail. Will we be cruising, albeit on a limited basis, on December first or not? Here are some of the facts that bear on that question that I know of: Carnival Corp. has taken a decidedly more aggressive position on restarting from FL ports than RCG or NCL. It appears their plan, however and as we expected, is limited to a couple of ships and a couple of ports (Port Canaveral and Miami). A restart could be as early as the first or second week in November. Carnival Corp.'s brands, TUI and MSC are either already operating large cruise ships on a limited basis in Europe and Asia or will be operating within weeks. This gives MSC and Carnival Corp. a leg up in restarting from FL ports. To my knowledge and based on current information, only a few Caribbean ports will be open to cruise ships. I'd list the private islands, Cozumel, Cancun for sure, the others remain mostly closed or with disembarkation protocols in place that would prevent them from being viable ports of call. That could rapidly change and I suspect the cruise lines who are in contact with local health authorities know a lot more about Caribbean cruise port prospects for opening than are going to be known to us. There's plenty of chatter on social media that Navigator is recalling crew. This article from cruise critic talking about this has been linked to in this forum: https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5647 Business news is full of stories like the link to the video in this thread above that provide all kinds of hints that the administration, in this case in the face of VP Pence, is going to green-light the resumption of cruise line operations from US ports for economic reasons given mitigation measures inherent in the Safe-To-Sail Plan (STSP). To me, this is a proper approach dependent on the administration's, and mine, of a calculation of risks/costs/benefits. In other words, implementing the STSP off sets the risks that cruise ships pose a risk to the public's health inherent in congregate settings. This allows an important industry and an entire economic sector that the cruise industry is a part of to rebound. My view is that Redfield's argument and the CDC's position is not well founded but remains a viable one. That is the case only when the costs of continued shuttering of the cruise industry are ignored.

For those of you with your heads spinning over COVID testing as it relates to cruising, you're not alone. This is very complex stuff and I haven't gone into probably 75% of it. Just be confident that the Safe-To-Sail panel of experts who went though of all this to come up with testing plans absolutely know how everything should work or if they don't they know who to contact for help. I know how to find resources on line. I know how to interpret scientific studies and what their limitations are but I'm an amateur. Take what I say for what it's worth.

JL ..... Abbot Labs does have a cassette based product just recently FDA approval under EUA called BINAX-NOW. While I'm just guessing about the testing devices, and even though I might not need to know, I want to be convinced that a sequence of tests RCG might use during the boarding process is appropriate. After all, I'm defending what RCG is doing to mitigate COVID risks. I'm facing the same situation in travel planning right now where the kind of test and the time frame I would get it is important. It is illustrative of how important it is to know what COVID tests is most appropriate and where you can find a lab or pharmacy that will administer the one that you need. I'll be traveling to MI to see my son and his family of five. He's a Dentist and is in a high risk of COVID exposure job. We are at COVID risk by age and are traveling by air to MI at a relatively increased congregate setting risk - an airplane. Who should get tested? All of us, the highest risk individuals? When should we get tested. In that you will be most infectious 3-5d after being exposed, what good does it do to test us air travelers right after we arrive in MI? All of this is hard.

It gets a bit squishy here although I have a strong sense the RCG isn't squishy on this at all. In trying to figure out an answer to this question, the one thing we don't know that they do know is the testing device that RCG intends to deploy for it's first screen and second confirmatory test. My guess is that the device they'll use for the first test is an antigen test using one of many cassette based products that provide results in under 15 minutes. Keep in mind, Antigen tests can be considered diagnostic per the CDC when the subject is symptomatic. They are considered screening tests when the subject is asymptomatic as our cruise embarking cohort would be we would hope. To be diagnostic, to be confirmatory of COVID diagnosis, a second test is required in this cohort. The second test could be the Abbot labs, ID-NOW. It's a "molecular test" but to my knowledge it is not a Reverse Transcriptase (RT), Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test - the gold standard for COVID diagnosis. It simply amplifies the RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so it can be detected. What it does do is provide a second testing platform, using a different technology with a rapidly produced result ...... it is also in the 15 minute range. So, two tests in around 30-40m. Abbot claims that the ID-NOW test can be used as a diagnostic test in a screening or surveillance mode of asymptomatic subjects. In researching the likely testing devices RCG would use, I cannot confirm that a second test using Abbot's ID-NOW test meets the same CDC criteria as RT/PCR tests to be diagnostic. It may, however, be moot. IOW, RCG considers screening by antigen testing that results in a positive test, followed by a medical evaluation and a second confirmatory test, both done within 30-40m time, is all they need to declare the guest is COVID positive and deny boarding or allow boarding if that second test is negative. In this circumstance, it seems to me, the question you ask and quoted above isn't relevant because it won't happen in the longer time frame I think you are considering. A guest denied boarding within a 30-40 minute COVID screening/embarkation process is just like any other guest denied boarding ..... except as a confirmed positive by RCG's method of determining that, additional measures defined by local COVID regulations, would pertain to how the guest is handled by local public health authorities once he leaves the terminal. I would think RCG would both compensate the guest denied boarding and will have already coordinated with local port and public health officials on how that guest will be transported, quarantined and if necessary receive appropriate medical care. Does this make sense? Given other layered mitigation measures and additional surveillance testing, I could certainly argue RCG has created a bubble on a cruise ship with a very small but still a non-zero risk of having an outbreak. From what I gather from the Safe-To-Sail plan, RCG plans to make arrangements with locals for handling COVID positive guests, should it be necessary to disembark them. Is all that enough? I think it is. Will the CDC green light restarting cruising using this among other layered mitigation measures for cruise ships? That seems to be the issue and, I will admit, it is arguable either way.

In a reduced capacity setting, I suspect Diamond and Suite guests may have special access. I could just as well see, under the circumstances, an egalitarian approach where everyone gets treated without regard to status. Great time though for the lines to support their loyalists with special access perks. Yes, I am in the medical field. I practiced as a Physician Assistant for 22 years in Emergency and Internal Medicine. I've been retired from practice for a bit over three years. I also write on a whole range of COVID related topics on several blogs ..... my passion is to counter, when it is appropriate to do so, the media's, politicized and generally negative narrative. That narrative is often filled with misinformation, flawed interpretation of data points and, many times that flawed interpretation is taken on knowingly to advance a false narrative.

Great question/points, JLMoran ........ I'd have to go back to the 77 page Safe-To-Sail plan and find it but I think this situation was specifically addressed. After I post this I'll go back and look. There's also been some other sources out there talking about how MSC and TUI are doing this sort of thing. If I'm reading your post correctly, your question involves the hypothetical of a passenger with negative pre-embarkation COVID test within the last 3-5d, entering the terminal, testing positive on a RAPID POC test in the terminal and pending the results of the second confirmatory test, right? You want to know what they are going to do with that guest. First, quarantine would apply to a PAX entering the terminal and getting screened who tested positive on a RAPID POC test even if they had received a negative result on a pre-boarding test 3-5d earlier. Those PAX, as I read the Safe-To-Sail plan, would receive both a second test and additional medical screening by medical staff. That wasn't described in anything I've read. A boarding denial decision would be made during that process. I would imagine the threshold for denying boarding is going to be low. For example, if any COVID like symptoms are present and there's a positive on the first RAPID test, that PAX isn't going to board. At this point I'm speculating because this kind of detail wasn't provided in the Safe-To-Sail plan. High risk PAX who test positive on a RAPID test pending results of a confirmatory test and are also asymptomatic are probably going to be told they can't board. I suppose asymptomatic low risk PAX could be given the option to board and remain in their cabin until pending 2nd test results are received. That is going to be a medical staff decision with an MD involved in it. I think it would be rare - better safe than sorry but why have a second test if you didn't intend to allow a low risk guest with a positive RAPID test awaiting a confirmatory 2nd test board? I suspect that contingency has been considered - hence the 2nd test. If such low risk PAX granted boarding and remaining in their cabin receive a confirmatory positive on their second test before the ship sails, perform an expeditious disembarkation. This could be to another cruise ship in the fleet designated for that purpose still on the pier. If another cruise ship, this operation would have been pre-planned, practiced and would be executed trained under cruise line supervision and personnel. If to a local hospital, continue the quarantine, notify local authorities by pre-planned arrangements. disembark under local public health personnel supervision and follow local COVID protocols. Such protocols that I'm speculating about have already been tested in Europe with crew members. To my knowledge there have been no actual guest evacuations or immediate disembarkations for COVID infections during European cruise operations. If a guest remaining in a cabin awaiting results receives a confirmatory positive on their second test while underway, again, as I understood the Safe-To-Sail plan, an expeditious evacuation similar to any other medical evacuation would be undertaken. The difference here is that protocols for receiving the COVID infected person at a local medical facility would have been pre-arranged and approved rather than ad-hoc. As for PAX that tested negative on embarkation but subsequently tested positive while underway, immediate cabin isolation and contact tracing would begin. Depending on symptom presentation while underway, care would be provided up to the medical management capability of the on board medical facility. If exceeded, a medical evacuation would be undertaken and this would have already been pre-planned for, reviewed and approved by the receiving port facility and/or local hospital. If the illness is mild, guest would be treated symptomatically and upon disembarkation a pre-planned protocol for handling such cases would have already been approved by local public health officials and would be executed according to that plan. How many COVID positive people might this involve? Hard to say but I bet the lines have a good idea and they believe it is a manageable number. The 3d pre-embarkation testing requirement helps to limit the numbers of guests that are going to actually enter the terminal, be processed, re tested and subsequently come up confirmed (by two tests) as COVID positive. There are organizations, including cruise lines operating in Europe, that are implementing and continuously QC improving this approach so, it's not completely new. I hope I've addressed questions you and others may be asking. Some of it is informed speculation. None of this is perfect. None of it reduces risk of infection on board to zero. But I am absolutely convinced that the Safe-To-Sail panel talked about every one of these things and probably more that I haven't even thought of, developed approaches, some of which were not made public, and have this in hand. I also believe, and this is in the Safe-To-Sail plan, that the cruise lines will release very detailed documents regarding the risk passengers are taking if they decide to cruise and in very clear terms how they are mitigating them as well as planning to handle things if a guest or guests become infected.

rjac .... I'm reading staggered and enforced terminal arrivals. Trained ships medical staff to administer tests with CDC guidelines for conducting, processing and reporting testing data. We live in Fort Lauderdale and cruise frequently out of both Fort Lauderdale and Miami terminals. Both are big enough to allow spacing and crowd control. I'd say a flow of around 100 guests with 20 time slots each about 20m apart. That's around a 7h boarding process - a little longer than now but there is nothing sacred about 4 or 5pm sail times.

I'm hesitant to start a new thread but I've not seen this posted on this web site so, here it is....... CLIA ocean cruise line members worldwide have agreed to conduct 100% testing of passengers and crew on all ships with a capacity to carry 250 or more persons – with a negative test required for any embarkation," Bari Golin-Blaugrund, vice president of strategic communications for Cruise Lines International Association, said today." It was actually yesterday at a virtual CLIA sponsored cruise industry wide conference held about this time every year. There's a ton of misinformation about "testing" out there. I hope to clear the fog with this post: First there are several general categories of testing. I'm only going to talk about two of them: Diagnostic testing and Surveillance testing. These are the ones you will come across when we start cruising again. Within those categories, there are different types of tests and different manufacturers of them. The ones currently in use in the US are FDA approved, most of them under what is called EUD or Emergency Use Authorization. That process makes it easier to get FDA approval not by lowering the quality bar for them but rather reducing the red tape. You've probably heard that the FDA is being prevented from doing this or that. Not true. They continue to do a great job protecting the public. Diagnostic tests are molecular tests abbreviated as RT/PCR tests. These tests look for a set of specific markers that differentiate the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from its more common corona or common cold viruses. They are both more sensitive and specific than surveillance tests and this is by design not by fault. You will have had one of these if you had a swab placed in you nasophayrngeal cavity to obtain a sample. Right now, if everything goes smoothly, the sample gets packaged at the testing site and sent to a lab. There it takes 2-3d to process these and get a result. They are the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19. These test costs cost anywhere from $35 to $50; processing costs may add more. Surveillance tests also look for specific markers of the SARS-CoV-2 virus but they are not as specific and may or may not be as sensitive as an RT/PCR test. They are that way by design to make them what is called RAPID point of care (POC) tests where a sample is collected at the POC and results are available in minutes, not hours or days. The testing devices that you'll encounter (there are other types) are in what is called a cassette about the size of a credit card. If you've had a test for influenza A/B, you've seen one of these. RAPID POC tests cost under $5 and there are no processing costs. What about Antibody tests? These are the tests that supposedly can tell you if you HAVE HAD the virus. They look for human immune system response to the virus in the form of antibodies or good guys. Antigen tests look for markers of the virus itself while you are having an ongoing infection. Antibody tests are not terribly accurate. You may have a reason for getting this kind of test. Going on a cruise and complying with pre-cruise testing requirements is not one of them. Cruise lines may require you to obtain a COVID Antigen test within a certain time period before boarding, test you again in the terminal and again at various points in the cruise. Before cruise testing at a commercial health care facility: You may be able to obtain a COVID test from your primary care provider but chances are good he's going to write an order for one and send you to a commercial lab to get it done. Ask about whether or not they are doing RAPID POC testing, if they send you to a lab or if they collect a sample at their clinic and send it out. Be aware that your average medical assistant who is answering your phone call may have no clue. Talk to the office manager or message/talk to your own PCP. Alternatively, you can obtain COVID tests at a local pharmacy licensed to administer them (CVS, Walgreen's and Target that I know of - there may be more). I've been to the CVS web site to see how that works. It's pretty straight forward. Depending on your state's public health guidelines, getting a COVID test may require you to meet certain criteria. At the CVS web site there was a questionnaire. When I ticked I was over 65 and nothing else among the list, bingo, a schedule opened up for me to pick a store near me and a time. Availability of RAPID v. Lab based tests varies by store. In my case, no rapid tests were available. Processing time for a lab based test was described as taking 1-3 days. If you can find a pharmacy offering RAPID POC tests and you are pretty sure you don't have it, pick that over a lab processed test. If you test positive on a pharmacy administered RAPID POC test, you'll need an RT/PCR test to rule in or rule out a COVID diagnosis. Choose the type of test carefully COVID Testing in the cruise terminal and aboard. Going through the boarding process, you will potentially be required to obtain two tests, the second only if you test positive on the first. The first test is likely to be a RAPID POC, Cassette based test. I'm reading that, at first, the RAPID POC cassette type test may not be available. In that case you'll be administered a rapid saliva test (the real difference between a RAPID POC and a rapid saliva test like the NBA and MLB are using is in collecting and handling). If you test positive on one of these tests, you'll be administered a second confirmatory test that is going to a lab, possibly aboard ship and you would be quarantined until results are available. Best case is hours, worst case is a day or two depending on what kind of confirmatory testing device they are using. Sounds harsh but the cruise lines want a bubble to the extent possible and they are going to get it. During the cruise, among other layered mitigation measures, you are going to get a RAPID POC or rapid saliva test periodically for the purpose of surveillance. It's not entirely clear at this point how that will be done. It could involve pool testing - a perfect type of surveillance testing for cruises but that would require some pretty sophisticated lab equipment on board. Crew and ship's company also get surveilled. IMO, life aboard ship would be safer than anywhere on the planet when it comes to COVID infections under these circumstances. Certainly, protocols have to be followed precisely to guarantee that but even then, it's going to be super safe. With strict controls on tours, possibly only porting at first at private islands, it's pretty obvious to me cruising can be done safely. CDC? What's the hold-up?

Its hard to keep up with all of this. I'm tracking/following multiple sources as I'm sure Matt is. I posted this in another thread where I've been posting on relevant subjects involving the No-Sail-Order. Over and over again I'm hearing about "logistics" as a long lead time operation before revenue cruises can begin. So, expiration of the No-Sail-Order on October 31st may take the cruise lines anywhere from 30-60d to return to revenue generating sailings. My take is that this provides a reasonable basis upon which NCL and RCG have cancelled cruises through November. It's going to take BOTH October and November to get even a few ships ready to go while moving other ships up in the line in the rest of the fleet. Truly wondering about Carnival's approach. It has been distant from that of the other big lines.

This was posted in another thread (link below) but I find it interesting and it falls into my good news/optimistic bin. So, I'll comment on it. RCG's apparent preparation of Navigator to restart sailing on a trial basis out of Miami in October was reported in the link. This was a couple of hours before RCG cancelled scheduled November sailings. The toxic politics surrounding the general election have very likely affected the planned meeting between VP Pence's Pandemic Response Team and interested parties in the Cruise industry. However, we have heard Fain report that "dialogue continues." On what level is uncertain but that's a positive in a sea of yesterday's bad news. It may be logistically hard to get ships operational, staffed and trained, as well as make test runs starting November 1st and then have ships ready to sail with revenue generating passengers that same month. Cancelling November sailings then might allow all the prep work to get done with a 1 December resumption of revenue sailings. My optimism tank just got a refill.

Quick update ...... the mess that is political reality continues to weigh heavily on a US economic recovery including getting revenue flowing again for the cruise lines. Yesterday afternoon, the president tweeted he had directed his negotiators to break of stimulus package negotiations with the Democrats - the stock market plunged 345 points. A few hours later then again late into the night he tweeted he was ready to sign smaller stimulus package bills including $25b to the airlines, $135B for the Pay Check Protection Program and finally $1200 stimulus checks. If this actually turns into legislation it could help open the door for discussions led by VP Pence involving the cruise industry's re-start calendar. But the D's have already opposed smaller packages and Pelosi and Schummer will undoubtedly dig their heels in again. Crazy times. Meanwhile, Hurricane Gamma, expected to hit the Yucatan Peninsula as a Cat 4 or 5 Hurricane (150mph winds), made landfall as a Cat 2 storm around 5:30am with winds in the town of Cancun reported to have registered 100mph. Tweets indicate some local damage, to what extent isn't clear yet but, Cat 2 is much better than a 5. Most roofs stay put under 120. So, maybe some hope for December but it seems we've been "hoping" on a month by month basis since the start of this thing only to be gut punched repeatedly causing hope to fade. Logistics - the entire spectrum of them - continue to be, IMO, the biggest hurdle to sailings in December, and that's assuming any dialogue going on right now about greenlighting cruising from US ports results in an end to the No-Sail Order by sometime in November. A restart date then might allow the industry time to assemble crews, train them and make some trial runs before passengers board and sail in December. My confidence level for that happening is low.

I'm not entirely ready to dump on Fain and RCG for not revealing November plans. I try to put myself into an executive level decision maker's shoes. I'll have a lot of departments providing input. Questions abound: How to best manage cash flow is probably at the top of the list. The good will of guests with previous reservations that took FCCs or L&Ss is pretty thin right now. A cancelation announcement for November could cascade into December or beyond. Potentially all of them asking for refunds not FCCs. The other thing RCG is dealing with involves planning crew and ship movements along with arranging for potential port calls - logistics, a complex issue at this time if there ever was one. But as a guess, I'd say the cash flow considerations are paramount. They would be if I were Fain. While that may seem greedy and not particularly customer friendly RCG, while more solidly positioned than any of them I think, cannot afford more red ink. Fain's job # 1 for now is to keep share prices high and the company from being unable to meet it's financial and debt repayment obligations going forward.

By now, anyone reading this blog knows that I am a strong re-opening advocate and support green-lighting cruise industry operations out of US ports. This is an update. Since Trump's infection with COVID, assessing the risk of C-19, benefits v. costs of mitigation measures has become more difficult. That is because every source of information from public health officials, main stream media (both broadcast and web based) and social media has become almost solely focused on COVID related information that is damaging to Trump. The purpose of this stream of negative COVID information is most likely to assure a Biden/Harris win such that Trump cannot contest the outcome of the election. It's working if today's polls showing Biden with a 10 point lead over Trump is an indicator of that. What does that have to do with rescinding or extending the No-sail-Order? A lot ........One would hope that a dialogue is continuing between the Pandemic Response Team, headed by VP Pence and interested parties on the cruise industry side of things. I think that is becoming increasingly difficult and the Team's potential to end the No-Sail-Order and restart cruise operations from US ports is going to fade into the background until after the election. It's possible that things could perk-up after Pence and Harris face off in the VP debate but other reelection tasks are going to keep Pence busy and not focused on getting everyone together at a round-table to talk about cruising. That's just the political reality of the cruising circumstances that are high on our list of important things to get done. it remains a shameful aspect of the current administration's neglect of an economic sector - the travel and leisure sector -that produces billons of dollars of revenues and wages annually and on a global scale. Weighing heavily on the political reality is the reality of US and Caribbean ports actually welcoming back cruise ships should the industry get green-lighted to restart. I just read a Bloomberg article on which Caribbean islands have opened their boarders. It's not a long list and those that are open require testing, quarantining or both. Porting in St. Lucia for example would not be an experience anything like you might have enjoyed previously. Now comes a Cat 4 Hurricane barreling though the Caribbean straights, headed for the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico that will likely do extensive damage to Cancun and Cozumel, two potential ports that would probably welcome early start-up cruise ships. Accordingly, I'm much less optimistic today than a week ago about the potential for a return to cruising in November, let alone December. I wish I could be more up-beat. If we get news in the next week or so that the Pandemic Response Team and VP Pence have gathered interested parties to discuss restarting cruise operations from US ports, I might change my tune. Until then, not feeling great about it happening. '

To be clear, COVID-19 is the disease that presents through infection with SARS-CoV-2. While SARS-CoV-2 is related to the common cold in that it belongs to the family of coronaviruses, it is markedly different, hence the term novel coronavirus to identify it. The main difference is how the virus attaches to human cells, predominantly in the respiratory tract but also others. So far, studies of the novel virus indicate it isn't mutating. This and the novelty of the virus and particularly the spike protein that is the mechanism for attachment to the host cells, makes it a strong candidate for a vaccine that will be highly effective. While studies underway demonstrate that a COVID-19 vaccine will work and that side effects are mild (the typical arm soreness, some mild fatigue). We do not know yet how long an immunized person will be protected. However, it is known that the virus is not mutating, would not require new vaccines to address that, but rather booster shots. There are different types of vaccines in development but not yet FDA approved to prevent COVID-19. All of them target different features of SARS-CoV-2 to prevent it from replicating inside host cells or that prompt an antibody response so that humans have a head start when exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The common cold has no such novelty and attempts to promote immune responses to prevent a cold have not proven to work. Influenza, on the other hand, is susceptible to vaccines even though every season produces new, mutated flu strains. There are two ways influenza vaccines work. The first is by using an inactivated (killed) virus whose presence when introduced to the body by an injection, prompts a robust immune response. The second is by injecting a specific protein analog that prompts a human immune response. These vaccines are not always perfect protection but studies demonstrate that if it does not prevent symptoms, it lessens them often in significant ways. Neither of these types of vaccines give you the flu. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/misconceptions.htm Bottom line: get a flu shot and in the pandemic circumstance this is a doubly important public health preventative measure. Also, when vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 become available, especially if you are at higher risk for serious complications from COVID-19, avail yourself of it. The importance of getting a COVID shot in contributing to herd immunity and allowing a return to social and economic activity is absolutely essential.

Possibly but I'd say it's more about the CDC in the faces of Robert Redfield, Director of the CDC, Doctors Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci, all of them very publicly and frequently appearing in interviews with main-stream media types, protecting the ground they've staked out on this. These people do believe in what they've put out there, none of it particularly flawed. The politics start to have an impact when a willfully combative president throws them under the bus. That is going to prompt defensive responses from these people who have reputations to protect. Pence can side step all of that if he handles it correctly and if there is anyone who can, it's him ...... assuming he's given the president's blessing to handle it.

A small, niggling point ...... the CDC has no regulatory powers. They advise on matters involving disease, disease spread and how to avoid or contain epidemics and pandemics in the US. They are an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - a Cabinet level branch with a Secretary that reports to the Executive Branch. When the No-Sail-Order was issued based on the CDC's recommendations, that was consistent with HHS's thinking that there was an urgent need to control entry to the US from across boarders, via airports and cruise ports alike. Therefore, it was codified (became law) under the powers of the Executive branch. The Department of Homeland Security was directed to implement its provisions and then enforce them through the US Coast Guard. This is important to understanding how and why VP Pence, acting as the Chairman of the Pandemic Advisory Panel within the Executive Branch of US government can dictate when the No-Sail-Order will expire. He's the guy that the cruise industry needs to convince that they can resume cruise operations safely and are going to go under if the No-Sail-Order isn't rescinded. I'd guess their goal is to get Pence to allow them to cruise starting in November - order will expire October 31st - to allow modest expansion of cruise ships and itineraries over the popular and potentially profitable Holiday season. You know that I will say this is a no-brainer for Pence when he is allowed to step away from the public health harangue coming from the CDC and bring the weight of the economic consequences that COVID has had on the travel industry into his decision making process. I'm not saying the CDC is full of it. They're trying to do a good job in the face of a president who is dismissive of the virus and it's public health impact. While, since he's had it, that might change, he's still a man all about the money. The economic cost to the cruise and travel industry of COVID has been catastrophic. He knows this. That dynamic hasn't been present to date in the decision making process about cruising - it's been all about what a mess that lash-up was when passengers and crew came down with COVID. We're well past that now. Pence may have gotten side tracked a bit with Trump's COVID diagnosis but it looks like he's going to make a quick recovery and will begin boasting about it soon ........ that could also be a substantial positive in that he tends to be a contrarian just to be one. One could conclude from that that he might be more politically prone to green-light the cruise industry even though that is politically risky due to the media's irresponsible, dire COVID consequences narrative that they are putting out there for public consumption as false a narrative as that is.

I didn't read it that way ....... NCL is in a different business position than RCCL. NCL was cash strapped when COVID hit and warned investors they didn't have enough cash to meet future obligations over the next 12 months in April. In order to conserve cash NCL cold stored most of their fleet. It takes a month or longer to bring a vessel out of cold storage - at least that's what I've heard. Warm storage takes about 2 weeks. If cruising doesn't resume within the next 90d, NCL will probably declare bankruptcy. That doesn't mean they will go away but it will be very hard for them to recover in a post-Covid cruise industry that is going to be cut-throat competitive when it comes to scrambling for market share. In the video that Matt posted Fain said that RCCL was ready to restart, could be restarted safely and European cruise ship operations are demonstrating it can be done. All they are waiting for is the CDC to remove the No-Sail-Order. It was encouraging to hear that "dialogue continues between the CDC, The Safe Sail Panel and the WH Covid Task Force." With regard to the length of cruises that will be "toast" in 2020, a restart with a "short cruise" would be a cruise of less than 10d and with limited ports of call. That was the industry word a short while ago. Not only are shorter cruises likely to have fewer health related problems, they are also generally more profitable. I don't know where the cut-off point is between, say, 3-5 or 7d cruises wrt profitability but there was a proliferation of 3-5d cruises that popped up a few years ago and seemed to grow in number. I read that the increased number of short cruises pre-Covid was due to their popularity and spending habits of those that booked them. Carnival's operations from North America dominated in scheduling and marketing those shorter cruises although RCCL and Celebrity had a few of them on their older ships.

I'm fine. I hold only a US Passport ....... It's just my passion to get past this false narrative that is being promulgated by several sources. The pandemic is real. It's impact on the public health is real but I believe it has been over-played at the detriment of the US economy and social well being.

They do but that's what they are paid the big bucks to do. We know more about SARS-CoV-2 than I think you are allowing. For example, it is not nearly as deadly as it was first thought to be when body bags were piling up outside Italian hospitals in February. You don't need to wash your groceries when you bring them home from the grocery store. That's because we now know that transmission by that mode is highly unlikely..... the public health benefit of doing that is nil. Virus transmission by contaminated surfaces, flushing toilets, many viral vectors previously thought to be significant modes of transmission, aren't primary modes of transmission. We know that the virus is transmitted through the air and there are proven public health benefits to air filtration with HEPA filters, in masking .... .so much so that Fauci said in June that, "if the US had uniformly masked from day 1, we would have controlled the spread of the virus." We know that 80% of COVID cases occur as a result of infrequently occurring, super-spreaders, people, not events...... understand this, aggressively ID these persons and trace their contacts and winner, winner, chicken dinner. I could go on but everyone will get the point. Look, disease control, what the CDC is all about, is based on a collection of post epidemic and pandemic epidemiology. One of the seminal data points in that field is R values. We don't know this for sure yet but the R value for SARS-CoV-2 is certainly going to turn out to be < 2; I've seen modeling that shows it will be less than 1. That is not a very virulent pathogen. The less virulent, the less it's spread. The quicker you jump on it, the less the public health impact measured by the various data points I've spoken of. Then tell me, JeffB, why are there millions of cases and millions of deaths globally? Well, countries that were prepared for and correctly mitigated the virus when it was introduced inside their boarders, correctly focused on testing and tracing, are doing fine (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore among other Asian nations and China although I won't praise the draconian measures that country took that only communists could undertake). Countries that didn't are experiencing the exponential growth you've spoken of albeit with far less mortality than previously thought. This is important and why I think the CDC is mistaken in their wish to extend the No-Sail-Order. I've said that I don't think the US can gain sufficient control of the virus to contain it nationally but that should not prevent reopening and a return to a safe level of economic and social activity. There are many reasons for that but we can certainly gain control regionally and prevent it's spread in specific congregate settings. There are multiple examples of that. Regionally, Florida has counties that are homes to cruise ports where the percent positivity rate is < 5% - the CDC standard for control. Other regional example where viral spread is contained (new positivity below 5%) abound. For specific congregate settings, pro and college sports teams are playing, with and without fans, with and without disruptions but generally considered to be carrying on safely by limiting both spread and disease burden with effective mitigation and control protocols. IOW, it can be done. It CAN BE done for the congregate setting that is cruising. There is already proof of concept of that in Europe.....and that despite what the US press would have you believe spewing their false and misleading narrative I've pointed to.

Twangster ...... heh. So, yeah, NCL has cancelled all it's cruises within its brands to include Oceania and Regent Seven Seas through November. A signal of things to come for RCCL? Could be and the biggest reason why RCCL may follow is the connection of NCL and RCCL to the Safe-To-Sail Commission's Report and the Healthy Sail Panel serving both lines and the cruise industry in general. As much as I believe the public health risks for the virus are being over-played and the cruise industry could safely return to operations with layered mitigation measures, I think Twangster's view described in another thread that describes the political risk to the Trump administration of promoting a return to cruising is going to snuff out cruising in the reminder of 2020. A lame duck administration though could do all sorts of weird stuff. While the chances of a return to cruising just got a little less likely with the NCL announcement, I'm not ruling out a restart just yet. Norwegian could be recognizing that it cannot resume operations in November with October being unavailable to accomplish the logistics of getting even just a few ships operational. That might be a business decision applicable to NCL but not other lines including MSC, Carnival and RCCL, both MSC and one of Carnivals' brands, Costa, already operating in Europe. We'll know soon enough.

....... one other point, Twangster. I think you are correct that it is politically risky for the administration to allow the cruise industry to resume operations out of US ports. The press is going to murder Trump for doing that. I'm pretty sure that as Trump emerges from his bout with COVID-19 he is going to be reluctant to take any steps pertaining to the pandemic that his political opponents and the press could jump on. He may even admit he was wrong to be dismissive of it and demonstrate a new resolve to mitigate the spread of the virus. On top of his list of politically attractive things to do? Keep the cruise industry shut down. That would be a step that is a purely political one and not based on the facts that I presented above. My view is that given the Safe-To-Sail Commission's report, congregate settings such as are typical on a cruise ship can be made safe - not entirely risk free - and that the resumption of that popular activity then becomes a personal choice not one inappropriately prevented by the CDC's over-reach. That purely political move does however resonate with the false narrative the media has unfortunately created and that I have steadfastly tried to demonstrate is misleading.

Thanks for your response, Twangster. Fair points. If I'm understanding you correctly, it is your view that the CDC provided a reasonable basis - a combination of an ongoing pandemic with the flu season - to support an extension of the No-Sail-Order through February 2021. My problem with the CDC's position is that they are basing the order to shutter the cruise industry on presumptions. If they do offer data (facts), we are being misled by them. The public is being fed a narrative that depicts the virus' public health impact on new daily case numbers. That they are rising is therefore an absolute indicator that community spread of the virus is uncontrolled everywhere and disease burden is increasing. That is false. Some, not all of the increase in new case numbers, is a result of increased testing. While the presence of the virus may be increasing, the disease impact on US public health isn't. Proxy measures of that to include Case Fatality Rate (CFR), ED visits for flu or COVID like symptoms, hospital admissions, ventilator use are all downward trending. IOW, we are getting much better dealing with the virus and managing vulnerable populations that do get infected and need to be treated in a hospital setting. Percent positivity is a good measure of regional community spread. It varies by state and county with some places dealing with temporarily high positivity rates. In the Tri-County region of South Florida daily rates have held at or below 5% for three weeks with exceptions in Miami-Dade county being in the 6% range. I can list thousands of counties throughout the US that have positivty rates below 5%. Yet, the public is fed cumulative state, not county, percent positivity which by it's nature is going to be higher and more ominous appearing than the much lower county daily rates. This is misleading. Holding positivity rates to 5% is the CDC standard for indicating control of community spread. On a regional basis, including Florida counties where cruise ports are located, that is exactly what it is. How do we reconcile the CDC's basis for extending the No-Sail-Order with the reality that COVID disease impact on public health is low and in the places that matter community spread of the virus is controlled as measured by the CDC's own standard?

I assume your position is that you are opposed to restarting cruise line operations from US ports until the risk of becoming infected with SAR-CoV-2 is sufficiently reduced. Is that correct? If it is, by what criteria would you be in favor of restarting cruise line operations? These aren't questions designed to drag you into some kind of argument. You've been genuine and articulate in your positions in this thread. I'm interested in what your thinking is on this. For reference, I have been a reopening advocate since it became apparent to me that significant reductions in infection risk to near zero - or driving measures of viral circulation, as defined by R(t), to < 0 and keeping it there - were unobtainable goals in the absence of a vaccine and herd immunity that follows. I see the harm (cost) to the economy of business closures ostensibly implemented to reduce social mobility and viral spread have been and continue to be considerably higher than the public health benefits derived from such closures. Therefore, the best approach in this pandemic is to layer mitigation measures, proven to derive public health benefit and appropriate to the specific circumstance within which they are to be applied, that are the least disruptive. At the same time returning to reasonable social and economic activity. The risks of infection from the virus individuals are willing to take is a personal choice. That choice is made in the context of knowing that a congregate setting one wishes to enter is or is not enjoying appropriately layered and implemented mitigation measures as I defined them above.