Jump to content

An Optimist's View On Where RCL stands.........


JeffB

Recommended Posts

I believe that most of us avid cruisers who have developed an insatiable taste for it are letting the media’s view on COVID and the chaos in America's cities create a reality that is quite different from that of the cruise industry - especially RCL and its brands. I want to change your view to coincide more closely to how I think RCL sees things.

Warning: This is a long post but nevertheless something to consider. Apologies in advance. if TLTR then stop here and don't. 

I'm a retired USMC pilot and later an EM Physician Assistant with 22 years of practice, now retired. I'm a consumer of abundant COVID (C-19) data, medical journals and scientific research. I live in Fort Lauderdale so I am being constantly bombarded by very negative C-19 national and local news that often fails to include context. It's hard to remain positive in light of that. But the medical and scientific facts paint a more hopeful circumstance for this C-19 pandemic than the social, print, and broadcast media paint. I’m an optimist!  

Certainly, reopening is causing more social contact and more new C-19 cases; that was anticipated by FL's public health and other government officials including Governor Desantis. I suspect that's the case in other regions and states. Despite the hand-wringing of Governor Desantis' political opponents, such hand-wringing being augmented by a politically hostile FL press, It's pretty clear that FL officials have decided that the benefits of getting residents of this state back to work outweigh the risks (so far) of more C-19 infections. State and local officials have apparently also decided that they can deflect the "blood on your hands" harangue from the press over reopening too soon or too fast. Other states are following similar paths in reopening and suffering similar backlash and doubts. Don't get me wrong. SARS-CoV-2 and the illness it produces, C-19, is serious stuff. But here are some things we've learned about it:

  • It's a virus with the same natural pathogenesis (the way it evolves in terms of what we see in a human host with no immunity) as past pandemics like the 1918 Spanish Flu.
  • It has a steep growth rate, plateaus then declines (the shape and length of plateaus and slope of the decrease will vary by region and be affected by controllable factors).
  • It’s highly transmissible and therefore hard to contain – more so than anything virologists have seen in the past.
  • COVID-19 deaths are dropping as states protect vulnerable populations and those that are vulnerable to serious illness alter their behaviors. See chart of FL's COVID deaths below. Global death rates are declining. Death rates tend to be one of the best indicators of the severity and decline or accelerations of a pandemic.
  • The proportion of new infections since US reopening is dominated by the under 45 age cohort. This cohort, on balance, suffers only minor symptoms.  
  • Despite alarm bells being sounded in press rooms about hospital capacity "close to or at limits,” the facts don't support that headline. See your own state’s Public Health Dashboards 
  • US testing and contact tracing have improved over time, esp. in FL. It is likely that this will have a salutary effect on the spread of the disease in states that were early adapters. 
  • While the medical community won't categorically state that masks and social distancing reduce the spread of the virus because of a lack of controlled studies to confirm that hypothesis, the anecdotal evidence that these simple mitigation measures work v. the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is overwhelming.

With that as a back-drop, back to my point - RCL is a business that depends on income and profits to survive. They unemotionally assess risks to their business model all the time and the impact of C-19, while unprecedented, is just one of them. There are things that are in their control - operating expenses v. income - and things that aren't  - CDC's No Sail Order, Home Port and Port of Call openings, the pathogenesis of C-19 in regions where RCL has operating interests.

Nevertheless, the need to generate income is going to be a primary driver in decisions to start operating. In my view, sooner rather than later. I also believe that the various ports that RCL and CLIA have to deal with will do the same kind or risk/benefit analysis our states are doing and conclude that for the sake of their economies, esp. the tourism industries, they have to open to cruise ships and deal with the downside potentials if and when they happen. To that end, Port Everglades is open and, according to an update on their web page yesterday is, "ready to welcome the cruise industry back and are prepared to welcome back guests with enhanced sanitation and social distancing measures in our terminals." 

Certainly, early returning cruisers are going to find potentially inconvenient mitigation measures in place, for example, strictly enforced and widely separated boarding times, proof of recent RT-PCR (swabs) negative testing before embarking or debarking from certain ports among many others that you have heard about (masks, limited capacity in the ships and in ships venues, etc.). Early return to cruising passengers are going to have to plan for and to be flexible enough to accommodate those likely mitigation measures along with itinerary changes,  the possibility of being denied entry to a port of call or even home port if a crew member or passenger comes down with C-19, ship swap outs and changes in transportation to and from embarkation/debarkation points.

If you are an early cruiser, you can also expect strict control measures for preventing C-19 or dealing with single or multiple C-19 infections on board should that occur. There will most likely be protocols for cruise lines for covering the costs of disembarking/transferring and quarantining C-19 positive passengers and crew both onboard and once ashore acceptable to home ports and ports of call - a huge task but one that cruise lines will figure out. Could they require passengers to carry travel insurance? I think that is entirely possible and even likely. If you get C-19 while aboard, you'll be quarantined, and I'd expect you will be required to debark at the next port of call at your expense/covered by your travel insurance.  All of this is going to affect your experience in potentially negative ways.  Get your mind wrapped around these if you plan on jumping in early.

Some won't want to deal with any of this and if you don't think you can, now is the time to re-think taking at risk cruises and those are probably the ones through the end of 2020 and into the 1st and second quarter of 2021 - assuming decreasing risk of having to deal with the various inconveniences over time. My take is that "normalcy" - and even then it won't be like cruising pre-C-19 - will return in the 3rd quarter of 2021 (July - a year from now) and then only if a SARS-CoV-2 preventative vaccine - or at least one that has shown to protect against the most serious complications of C-19 -  is available and scalable.   

That's the bad news ................OTH, I believe there's good news too. I believe the CDC's release of it's color coding system that applies to the ships involved in the cruise industries repatriation efforts is a harbinger of a color-coding system for ships that will have passengers aboard. I also think the CDC is closer to green-lighting cruise ship operations out of US ports than we think, and I use the no news is good news slogan as a basis for that view. I have no doubt that CLIA and other industry lobby groups are putting polite pressure on the CDC and the Trump administration to lift the no-sail order. They must be. There are more factors and benefits weighing for restarting RCL operations, as soon as things RCL doesn't have control over start moving favorably in their direction, than the factors against or risks of a C-19 infection occurring on one of their ships.

From a corporate standpoint it is a choice between insolvency or solvency; bankruptcy or operational viability. The cruise industry, in varying degrees and based on a company's cash position, is getting absolutely hammered - probably worse than any and they have a right to bitch about it and haven’t at least not publicly. Behind the scenes? Absolutely. Carnival announced today it is selling or scraping 6 of its 8 Fantasy class ships in the next 90 days - that's a big chunk of change and as the vessels are actually sold or scrapped a sizable reduction in operating costs. We'll see these kinds of measures characterizing the cruise industries attempts to remain solvent while trumpeting such actions as injurious to any US agency holding the keys to restarting the gas turbines that will listen. My view is that across the industry generating income through sailings, even on a limited basis and as soon as possible, will be at the forefront and parallel any kind of cost shedding measures like Carnival just took.  

What about the risk of bad PR - something that popped up very early in the pandemic and was also highly damaging to the industry's rep and continues to be damaging? Dealing with bad PR if a cruise ship is found to have even one C-19 positive passenger or crew - something you have to believe RCL is planning on even now - is small potatoes compared to dealing with insolvency and bankruptcy. Think about that for a moment. Put yourself in the shoes of  RCLs' CEO, Richard Fain. Corporations, especially one with the potential to generate 10s of billions in annual revenues, tend to survive. RCL will put its survival at the top of its list of short term corporate goals.

I'm an optimist, I think RCL will sail, all things out of their control assumed to trend favorably, in August and on a limited basis. I think an early, limited start in the Caribbean has potential; I think the med, again on a limited/selected basis, has potential. We already know what regions are out for an August restart. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess..... you have mine. If Fain is to be believed, when RCL starts sailing again, while the experience will be different, it's likely to be as good as RCL can make it and I have no doubt it will still be overwhelmingly good. I'll enthusiastically jump right in with my mind and travel plans adjusted appropriately - Celebrity Equinox, 8n S. Caribbean, departs Fort Lauderdale August 1st, 2020..... a west bound translant out of Barcelona in October and a Holiday Cruise at the end of December.

Deaths.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your optimist view, though I think it is close to being maybe 60% spot on. I would like to slightly counter with a realist, not pessimist or negative view.....

Late August with a miracle, September 1st at 50% chance but middle September at 85% probability.

So far based off of information, no plans have been approved. So as a business, they want to avoid any extra debts and focus on profitability. Do we really believe any of the cruise lines have spent money on protocols that haven't been approved? Do you think those protocols can be made in 40 days or less? How about 30 or 6? Also ships need to be reposition.....would RCCI just waste resources on a prayer? August 1st is 43 days away with nothing from the CDC indicating a lift in the ban or approval of plans. A nearby casino got word they could open in May but took almost 30 days to get their protocol in place; they open on the 20th. Theme parks have been announcing weeks or even a month before opening, including their protocols in the announcement. I cannot see RCCI not including the protocols in their "welcome back" announcement, nor can I see the "welcome back" announcement happening in less than 30 days before sailing.

While it is true that the media and the government have turn COVID into something ....using fear tactics, down/up playing the risk, falsifying numbers. Just one case on a ship can turn into a fustercluck. So far cruise lines seem to be the only thing left by which people can sue for COVID, I doubt this is a small thing to a business that is currently in the midst of bad publicity. Public opinion is not on the cruises side: do you err on the side of caution and put as much in place to avoid that, or do you risk future income by rolling the dice? I am starting to think that until countries allow international travel, with little to no quarantine, there will not be any cruises. In the beginning many of the lines secured capital to last them awhile, I don't see RCCI rushing into things for the sake of.....or just because one port is waiting. Also many countries have to carefully consider whether they want to risk everything for their tourist economy. Sick people can put a burden on a weak infrastructure. So allowing tourist to fly in and stay at resorts is different than hosting multiple ships, full of 1000s of people, a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points Ampur85. I'll respond.......

On Protocols and the time it takes to design and implement them: I find it hard to imagine that the CDC and RCL have been sitting on their hands over the last 3 months. I trust the Trump administration and HHS have the best interests of companies hurt by C-19 in concert with considerations for the public health of the cruising US public. Certainly the Trump administration is pro-business, pro-reopening to bring the US economy back up to speed. While technically RCL is not a US registered business the US jobs it's operations support in the travel and leisure industry are no drop in the bucket. I can't cite the numbers but they cannot be insignificant.

I'm going to assume that RCL has contingency plans recently designed to support a re-start of operations in August. Did those contingency plans get developed in the dark? I doubt it. and here's my reasoning why: This is a company that employs hundreds of thousands of workers within their operational supply chain and is capable of producing multi-billion dollar annual revenues. Will the US via the HHS/DHS/CDC machinery keep them shuttered? My magic eight ball says decidedly NO! I think these agencies run by Trump people want them to survive and thrive and to that end, they are talking to them privately if not secretly about what needs to be done to allow them to lift the no-sail order. We got a glimpse of it already with the color code system for ships repatriating crew despite denials from CDC spokespersons that it had nothing to do with stipulations the CDC will come up with for passenger carriage on those same ships. We'll see about that. I'd add that CLIA was already on to designing and implementing safety and health protocols for COVID before the CDC no-sail-order got dropped.

On other countries not welcoming cruise ships with primarily Americans on board regardless of the benefits to their economies: I think this issue is the one most likely to scuttle an August restart. This is especially true if new C-19 cases continue to surge in the US as they appear to be now, notwithstanding my view that new case numbers without qualifying context are about worthless. That won't make any difference. High new US case numbers and associated growth rates may be used as a means to prohibit cruise ships from entering their ports of call regardless of any mandated CDC protocols and promises of adherence to them that RCL will offer. On a positive note, I could see RCL doing some arm twisting here, or call it incentivizing officials with either withholding further infrastructure development or offering more of it including additional head taxes.  

I'd add that unlike NCL and probably Carnival, RCL is in a much better cash position to take the risks associated with a first to dive in to the darkened pool of the unknown. Don't think for a moment that RCL does not have on its list of things to do to grab market share. Early bird gets the worm and all that. This is a highly competitive industry and the fittest and boldest will survive and thrive; weak sisters will take a back seat. That is a powerful motivator to get this thing done and if things they can't directly control fall into place, and I've provided reason to believe they will, RCL will be sailing by August.

On the bad PR issue: I believe I addressed that. This is an Occam's Razor circumstance. The simplest solution or explanation will prevail. In finding explanations for actions, in this case by RCL, the simplest thing to do is to follow the money. I contend that RCL knows exactly what they will do to counter past and future bad optics fabricated by the national media without the facts to back up their ridiculous "Petri Dish" characterization of a cruise ship (I addressed that with some facts in another post here). I feel confident that knowing how they will cope with this puts worrying about it down the list of immediate priorities. Generating revenue by operating their ships is key, top on the corporate to do list, and they will try to do that any way they can beyond pushing future bookings which has to be running out of steam. This includes implementing a step-wise approach - a few selected sailings to demonstrate their capacity to not only operate but do it safely. I believe that will start in August.... as fanciful a prediction as that might be. Follow the money. The corporate entity that is RCL is not timid and if they were before C-19 or continue to be in addressing it going forward, they would have then or in the current circumstance deserve(d) to fail. That won't happen.

Lastly, I think you base a good deal of your view that RCL will not start as early as I suggest it will because they won't risk the potential cost of litigating and potentially losing a tort claim involving allegations of recklessness or negligence in a passenger's death secondary to C-19. The link provides a decent discussion of why Cruise lines are relatively immune to such tort claims to wit:

"Suing a cruise line for these types of cases (C-19 illness/deaths) is extraordinarily difficult." That's because cruise lines enjoy a number of protections. They're not U.S. companies and not subject to health and safety regulations like the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)......"

There's way more in the article below and all toll it adds up to, RCL is covered. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/22/840525310/even-with-covid-19-cases-suing-cruise-lines-is-extraordinarily-difficult

Hope this helps to raise, in your mind, the chances of starting up in August to what I believe is a 50/50 proposition - that low of a probability resting solely on factors I mentioned that are beyond RCL's control and not trending favorably in their direction. I'll acquiesce to your outlook should I not see favorable trends in the uncontrollables I speak of by early July.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JeffB Considering Fain has mumbled/walked back over the Aug 1st start date, hence him saying "when they return things will be...." I would raise my August to maybe 23% but no higher.

I personally want to be proven wrong but too much evidence says to the contrary....like a CEO or other top executive making vague statements. I want cruises to start asap so all the kinks can be worked out by the time I feel comfortable enough to step on a ship. Where you lose me is your belief that Trump plays a part and that I somehow  believe they haven't developed protocols. I stated that if it was "business only" based they haven't implemented any from a financial aspect. I have no doubt these past few months they have been at the drawing board. Why spend money, when A) you are already one of the cleanest, and B) they aren't approving said protocols. I can easily assume they haven't because they released their COVID protocols early on in the beginning of the year when cases started to appear. Listening to Fain he talks of blue ribbon panels and other stuff but vaguely...he also makes it seem like he is waiting until the CDC gives them a green light.

I don't think anyone in government has the "best interest" of people or businesses not associated with them. This is why governments and such need to stay out of business, create committees and arbitrary rules, but stay in your lane.  Had Trump and the government had such interest, we wouldn't have had to rush openings, beg to reopen or have so many failing businesses. I am sorry but Trump only cares about optics, he wants business to thrive so he can say he brought the USA back from economic extinction. Trump mentioned CCL and the cruise industry once or twice, in the beginning. They got no incentives and have been hung out to dry. Nobody is lobbying for them but themselves. While the amount of jobs the cruises industry provides might not be nothing to sneeze at, they are still international companies.

As far as lawsuits goes, didn't say anything about whether the person has a chance at winning. Just that a person could sue. We all should be familiar with guilty until proven innocent, it happens all the time in life and even on this board. People don't read the cruise contract or choose wrong, then they post how RCCI is a fraud or nefarious etc. Now someone who doesn't know better think ill of RCCI. A lawsuit whether it is frivolous or not, hurts a company's image and people often reply with their wallet. Think about all the companies issuing BLM statements and firing people who have had racist issues in their past. We, I am a black woman, make up only 13% of the population....yet every company is trying to prove they aren't racist. So imagine a person suing for neglect because of COVID, the average person is going to go "boooooo no cruises, they wrong"...I mean that's what I read any time an article is posted about cruise lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just took a quick look at several news sources reporting on this. The language from CLIA is clear - CLIA is voluntarily suspending cruise line operations through September 15th.

Nary a peep from RCL and it's brands nor Carnival and its brands, more than 12h after the CLIA pre-press release. I find that weird. Also weird is an investment firm (that I never heard of) simultaneously releasing a statement that the CDC has unfairly targeted the cruise industry. It's actions are thought to be arbitrary.

Probably more fanciful optimism but is there some politics being played here ....... CLIA to the CDC, "OK you won't talk to us (alleged in the investment released), screw you, we're done talking. Get back to us when you are ready to talk. ...... oh, and the next person to talk to is my lawyer."

The Cruise lines can't sue in the conventional meaning of that term but they can file an injunction to stop an illegal federal government action. Pretty sure I could make a case that the CDC's no-sail order is arbitrary and probably illegal ..... and I'm not even a lawyer; I did stay in the Holiday Inn last night though.  

Just did a quick Google search and yes a person or corporation has standing in the US District court that would have jurisdiction in this matter and could file a petition - the first step - followed by filing evidence with the court to support the action (the CDC's) the plaintiff (CLIA, I guess) wants the court to review ........

...... and tomorrow morning I'll get a letter from Celebrity stating it's canceling my August 1st cruise. Here are my options. Darn! I'd love CLIA to file an injunction asking for relief from the arbitrary actions of the CDC that have no basis in protecting the public health of US citizens. I can dream, can't I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JeffB I think the CLIA did this to make sure the CDC will honor the July 24th date and not try to extend. The CDC has no reason to extend if by the 15th of July everything is open and COVID numbers are still high.....baring of course if a bunch of other countries are at few to no cases. While the cruise lines could try to file a motion, the evidence is spotty at best. RCCI could potentially start up every place but the US because of our rate of infection. Remember the CDC looks out for people...not a business nor just one person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll put in a very unpopular opinion:

Your optimism, JeffB, although based on educated assumptions, is flawed in its implicit belief that people will be rational, reasoned and responsible. Too many cruise guests simply won’t “behave”: they will defy recommendations to maintain even basic hygiene and “masking or distancing” requirements, aimed at preventing the spread of infection; some will lie; and quite a few simply will not care. Enough of them don’t even believe that there is any issue around this “flu” (that it’s all hyped “fake news”) - just listening to interviews with the Tulsa rally attendees made me shake my head.

Communities will be playing whack-a-mole with cyclical flare-ups of this virus for *at least* another year or two - at least until an effective vaccine is developed (and adopted) - or better yet - an effective treatment protocol is found to properly deal with the more severe cases, as well as dealing with the persistent effects of the “milder” cases.

What has clearly emerged is that tourism played a big role in this virus’ spread across the globe. Many countries will not be very quick to welcome back unrestrained tourism, or permit their citizens to travel without conditions in the short-term. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some yo-yo action, forward and backward between phases, in some’s efforts in reopening to tourism. The emphasis on regional “bubbles” for unrestrained travel is going to greatly complicate the future market for cruises. Reduced numbers of available flights and routes, well into 2021, will also have an impact. I am certain that analysts within the cruise lines and CLIA are taking all of this into account, beyond just dealing with the CDC.

The majority of cruisers are itinerary motivated. The average cruiser will chose a cruise vacation based on all the perks of cruises (versus a land-based vacation), which the new protocols will severely restrict (such as buffets, pools, activities, entertainment venues, etc.). People in forums like this one are neither the majority nor the “average” cruiser - we’re the keeners. FCC and “Lift and Shift” were the only ways to keep the majority of existing 2020-21 cruise reservations on the books into 2021, and prevented a fatal cash flow hemorrhage.

As well, travel insurance and cruise contract “fine print” will unfortunately not be kind to cruisers going forward. Guests hoping for relief should Covid-19 interfere with their new vacation plans or, worse yet, get their vacation interrupted/complicated because of a flare up, are likely to be left holding the bag.

The cruise companies know their market$, so I am 100% certain that the CDC is no more than just another factor in the business decisions that they are forced to make right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your opinion is not unpopular in my view. It is your opinion and your right to voice it.

I don't share your pessimism regarding shipboard human behavior. Passengers who choose to board a cruise ship knowing the presence and implications of COVID-19 must be assumed to act responsibly while aboard until they demonstrate they aren't acting in that manner. I could add descriptions of typical crowd behavior given a known threat and given measures to mitigate it but I won't ......... I do know that compliance rates can be upwards of 90% in those circumstances and with appropriate cuing (in this case visible placard reminders and ship's staff involvement in encouraging individual compliance for the benefit of the group).

I've already mentioned this: If the cruise lines can deal with Norovirus, which they have demonstrated they can, they can deal with SARS-CoV-2.

The media, among others, rail against rising C-19 case numbers in the US. I can't speak directly about all states that are experiencing such increases but I am intimately familiar with Florida's situation. The correct way to assess the impact of what is believed to be reopening associated increases, increases attendant to increased social contacts, is to examine the impact such increases are heaving on a region's health care system. A second measure of disease impact is case fatality rate (CFR) - an excellent proxy measure of virus control or lack thereof. Assessments like this are known as evaluating disease burden. Is the state healthcare system able to deal with an increasing number of new C-19 cases that require admission? In the case of serious C-19 related symptoms do hospitals have sufficient staff, equipment and medical supplies to care for them? What is the CFR? Is it rising or declining.

In Florida's case, the median age of the roughly 7000 new C-19 cases in the 5 days including and immediately before Friday was 34. It was 57 in April. 98% of these were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms. The admission rate for patient's with confirmed positive RT-PCR testing (swabs) was less than 2% in this same 5 day period. There are more ICU beds being occupied in the three major hospital systems in the Tri-County Region of S. FL by non-C-19, post surgical procedure patients than there are C-19 patients. Only 11 C-19 patients are on a ventilator. These are not being used much now anyway because early intervention with other therapies are making ventilator use unnecessary and early ventilator use has not improved outcomes and in some cases worsened them. Hospital capacity is not anywhere near becoming overwhelmed. Bed availability remains above 30% with flexibility to increase it and the necessary staff to provide care. Claims to the contrary by the media, according to the three medical directors running these hospital systems in S. FL, are false. CFR is declining.

The point is that the disease burden in FL, despite increasing new case numbers attendant to reopening, is very low. It is becoming increasingly obvious that C-19 is infecting a much younger cohort, with fewer symptoms and therefore less need for admission to a hospital for acute or critical care. Certainly, the disease is demonstrating its transmissibility but it appears that the price being paid for that is substantially lower and outweighed by the economic and social benefits of reopening. 

I believe those lessons being learned in FL apply to most regions and certainly would apply to restarting cruise ship operations given the likely safety and mitigation measures the industry will undertake. IOW, benefits outweigh risks.  I find the CDC's recommendation to halt cruise ship operations from US ports, such recommendations acted upon by the Department of Homeland Security, to be arbitrary, unjustified and likely to alter, if not destroy, the cruise industry.

Unfortunately, my position is not shared by most epidemiologists who are advising on the formulation of CDC policy. The C-19 media hysteria is, in large part, responsible for this. My view is that is because none of them are willing to stick their necks out and incur the uninformed rath of the media who will accuse those who would take such a position as mine of having blood on their hands if the cruise industry should return to operations of any type.

That is the sad realty rather than the reality you describe - the one that the folks just won't behave - that will, for all intent and purpose, drive even the strongest industry giants into bankruptcy and reorganization should the no-sail-order remain unchallenged and extended beyond July 24th. But, I'm not in charge of anything, can't do anything about this stupidity other than write about it ..... and I do.        

 

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JeffB I would have to disagree on several points. One, compliance is only every 90% when there is some sort of penalization. In Chicago we have a passenger seat belt law, where the person in the passenger front seat can be fined for not wearing one. Many people never wore seat belts, even though it is a law and many signs mention it, until they started being fined. My uncle lives in Jacksonville, they have signs posted at both his jobs and yet people don't wear mask. They treat said signs as a suggestion or an affront to freedoms. Let me preface this by saying I hate mask, but if I CHOOSE to go somewhere that they are mandatory,  I comply or stay home. I am not entitled to disregard policy that is posted and enforced; I should respect other peoples freedoms, like want mine respected. You keep implying that people will act for the good of others.....when mask are for the good of others and people choose to not wear them. I am in no way talking about them stopping the infections but providing a layer of protection, like sunscreen; even a low SPF is better than none. Do I believe that a lot of the media stories were hyperbole...yes but I also believe it was turned by the media into a political ploy. I was really under the impression that people know how a virus works. it will spread and mutate until there is resistance; without science the only other thing is time. Now there are test that indicate people aren't building and/or keeping the resistance; to me the issue is that they keep releasing too much information.  In the beginning those weak among us probably saw the most harshest outcomes; but viruses don't discriminate. 

Second, while you say deaths or hospitalization are the means by which we should measure...I say no. Even if you try to say it is the increase in testing, creating an increase in cases: it is still a bunch of infected individuals. Yes, most COVID cases are mild and or asymptomatic but it is the side/after affects that could be the true worry. They may not be putting a burden on the hospitals now but what about when they have organ problems, breathing problems and/or neurological disorders? Who wants to be sick, who wants a mutated version of a virus, and who wants to suffer in the long run? Because you are saying the CDC, whose whole business is to prevent such things, should disregard a huge chunk of data and only focus on one or two things. All so we can get on cruise ships. Lastly, I am going to need you to remember and refer to every movie in which the CDC is featured. There whole shtick is the needs of all, outweigh the few and many. They will eradicate whole cities, towns, states, and countries when it comes to infectious diseases or viruses. We have not crush this virus and we won't because people love instant gratification. You are right that he CDC would never share opinions like yours because there job isn't political or opinion based. They submit facts and the media twist them to fit whatever narrative they want. Just like we do. I have lost 5 people to COVID, 2 were children under 10, and only one was over 60. As a germaphobe I look at the facts:it is a virus that is passed through droplets, making it a social disease. Everything else is opinions and speculation, there have not been enough proper studies to corroborate anything else. My years of waitressing and people watching have taught me that people are inherently evil and filthy. I have been on cruises and seen: people argue over washing their hands, people dip their fingers and items in dressings, people scratch their butt while in line and grab tongs, people pick up deserts and put them down after smelling them, and people lick their fingers before grabbing something manually. Those were just the adults. I believe the CDC wants cruise lines to make a 14 day quarantine mandatory and that is why they will let the clock expire....or extend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Ampurp85. It's likely we'll agree to disagree on your take wrt human behavior. I'd add this: Motor vehicle deaths and smoking have declined substantially in the US through public service cuing. I guess our world views will depend on whether we are glass half full or glass half empty people. My observation on cruise ship passenger behavior is that most voluntarily follow the rules, those that don't are outliers and in my experience those outliers have not negatively affected ship safety or sanitation. CLIA's reports on those measures over the years support my position.

The world can choose to be immobilized by C-19 or deal with it. It is a serious but manageable public health concern. There is going to be disease spread; in that regard the cost of shuttering social and economic activity to achieve some acceptable and currently ill-defined degree of control is far, far greater than learning how to deal with it through responsible public health actions. I consider the CDC's stand on cruise ship operations, in light of the consequences to a vital economic sector and in contrast to the position public health authorities are taking on restrictions to activities in other economic sectors with similar risks to be arbitrary and unjustified. We'll agree to disagree on this subject as well.

I've enjoyed the back and forth though. Thanks for that.   

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JeffB To your point ... I'm basically a conformist although sometimes I'm slow to conform.  Therefore, I agree with you that people generally behave but it will take time.  I represent the majority of people in my opinion.

On the other hand, there are those few people who like to disrupt.    As we have all witnessed, peaceful protest descend into violent displays very rapidly.  I would agree that the media plays a huge role in this.   So much of it seems politically motivated and has nothing to do with facts or about doing what is right.

There always seems to be 2 sides of every issue.  I'm always on the fence.  In school, I was encouraged to pick one side or the other.  My response to that was, "I prefer to watch what happens on both sides".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...