Jump to content

The Royal Promise


Recommended Posts

On 10/9/2020 at 10:06 AM, Marlena said:

I think 3 months ago I would have been a very excited lets go attitude towards cruising. But as numbers are now skyrocketing I dont feel like it's a good idea RIGHT NOW. That being said I still can't wait to go but present situation is kind of grim looking.

“Skyrocketing”??  Public data just does not support this statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

“Skyrocketing”??  Public data just does not support this statement. 

Might not be skyrocketing in relative terms but it's still completely out of control and only going to worsen as it goes into winter.

US Daily cases - 50,000+

Singapore Daily cases - 2

It's not hard to see why they have chosen Singapore as the testing ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mattymay said:

Might not be skyrocketing in relative terms but it's still completely out of control and only going to worsen as it goes into winter.

US Daily cases - 50,000+

Singapore Daily cases - 2

It's not hard to see why they have chosen Singapore as the testing ground.

I disagree with your conclusion, the total number of daily new cases in the US has remained relatively constant since peeks in late July early August timeframe.

Comparing USA numbers and Singapore numbers really isn't a great idea regardless due to the sheer differences in land mass, and overall population

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is the latest G7 plus Singapore data below (numbers normalized for population) ... only Japan and Singapore stand out as being in control.  Here is the good news.:

The safety protocols that the cruise ships are using (Med and Asia) and proposing in North America are well beyond almost any other country's.  I would feel more safe on a cruise ship than in my local grocery store.

 

image.thumb.png.c9941b8366518b426b3ca1c38ae69d79.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

I disagree with your conclusion, the total number of daily new cases in the US has remained relatively constant since peeks in late July early August timeframe.

Comparing USA numbers and Singapore numbers really isn't a great idea regardless due to the sheer differences in land mass, and overall population

Ignore the numbers, I am just pointing out that the virus in under control in Singapore (they can trace and isolate every single case), where in the US it is not.

 

Anyways, back on topic. I'm interested to see the Singapore experience, as our government has pretty much said we will be banned entering America and Europe until at least 2022. So a trip to Singapore might be on the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mattymay said:

Ignore the numbers, I am just pointing out that the virus in under control in Singapore (they can trace and isolate every single case), where in the US it is not.

 

Anyways, back on topic. I'm interested to see the Singapore experience, as our government has pretty much said we will be banned entering America and Europe until at least 2022. So a trip to Singapore might be on the cards.

That’s a great trip to make; definitely on my bucket list; a bit more of a logistical challenge from the US.  I hope you make it and I hope it is  amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2020 at 1:17 PM, DunwoodyDad said:

To be super clear here, I am fine wearing a mask in general. I also think it totally makes sense to wear them indoors except in staterooms. All I am questioning is wearing them while outside especially when this is in line with CDC guidance (distanced) and is in line with almost all state and local guidance as well. 

Agree with the point on " CDC guidance (distanced) " but my thoughts are even with reduced sailing capacity I have trouble imagining the pool, sun deck or solarium on a sea day where i could effectively maintain social distancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple things to recognize when looking at new case numbers in isolation as an absolute indicator of virus spread. That data is inherently flawed and so are conclusions being drawn from it. 

  • First, there is growing recognition by public health officials and epidemiologists that the virus cannot be suppressed such that there is zero risk of viral spread. Places can get close but it takes lock-downs and shuttering of businesses to do it and these are not sustainable for a number of reasons not the least of which is the economic and social costs of doing that.
  • The WHO is latching on to this trend. You can read about this in the WSJ if you have a subscription. You may be able to get to the articles I'm speaking of w/o a subscription - worth a try. Google today's WSJ.
  • The virus can be contained and it's impact on public health can be decreased - and already is being both contained and decreased regionally with reasonable mitigation measures.

The point of the foregoing is that restoring appropriately restricted human activity and mobility is becoming a more acceptable alternative to lock-downs and shuttering of varying severity. It's known that the PH benefits derived therefrom are not sufficient to warrant the social and economic costs of them. That thinking is going to weigh in favor of restarting cruise ship operations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JeffB said:

That thinking is going to weigh in favor of restarting cruise ship operations. 

You are preaching to the choir here.  I'm not convinced the CDC will adopt this line of thinking with respect to cruise ships.  Having been overruled they have a chip on their shoulder and potentially a new administration coming in that they can bully to get their way in 2021.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the "choir" still has hold-outs or folks that just aren't convinced. My mission isn't complete.

You could be right about the "chip on the shoulder" thing. Reputations to protect and all that. The buffer for that sort of thing is, IMO, Mike Pence and, Donald Trump. Believe me, I am no Trump fan but Pence stepped in and told Redfield, nope, you're not extending the NSO through February 2021. I'll give you a month.

My take is that the writing is on the wall for the CDC and there are signals from substantial institutions (like WHO among others) weighing against the CDC's position to keep the cruise industry shuttered. Still, there has been some rational support for the risk of congregate settings of the size presented aboard a cruise ship.

Trump has a record of dismissing that even though it is rational ...... and I'm not saying I agree with him on this sort of thing. We may just be in a confluence of circumstance that is going to get cruise ships running again from US ports.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hesitant to mention this article, but I do think it has relevance. Zeynep Tufekci is a well-regarded and renowned sociologist who has called the CDC and WHO on errors in how they have handled multiple disease outbreaks and pandemics over the years, and has the historical track record to show that she really knows what she's talking about even if she's not an epidemiologist. She wrote an article in The Atlantic about how both CDC and WHO are wrong to be focusing on R0 (number of people infected on average by a contagious person) when most people don't spread to more than 1 other person. The growing evidence shows that the real problem is large gatherings indoors, where air circulation is poor and the chance for super-spreader events is exponentially higher.

Royal is touting their new air circulation tech that will be on ships making these new sailings, and that will definitely be a help. So will being able to spend a lot of time outdoors on the pool deck, sun deck, promenade, etc. But the dining halls, indoor venues like the Schooner Bar, etc., are still going to be the biggest potential issue. This is where the Healthy Sail Panel protocols and other mitigation measures are going to be most critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JLMoran said:

I've been hesitant to mention this article, but I do think it has relevance. Zeynep Tufekci is a well-regarded and renowned sociologist who has called the CDC and WHO on errors in how they have handled multiple disease outbreaks and pandemics over the years, and has the historical track record to show that she really knows what she's talking about even if she's not an epidemiologist. She wrote an article in The Atlantic about how both CDC and WHO are wrong to be focusing on R0 (number of people infected on average by a contagious person) when most people don't spread to more than 1 other person. The growing evidence shows that the real problem is large gatherings indoors, where air circulation is poor and the chance for super-spreader events is exponentially higher.

Royal is touting their new air circulation tech that will be on ships making these new sailings, and that will definitely be a help. So will being able to spend a lot of time outdoors on the pool deck, sun deck, promenade, etc. But the dining halls, indoor venues like the Schooner Bar, etc., are still going to be the biggest potential issue. This is where the Healthy Sail Panel protocols and other mitigation measures are going to be most critical.

You might appreciate analysis presented by Ivor Cummings (bio-chem engineer) regarding what came out of Europe.  First real analysis I've seen.  About 37 minutes long.  

It addresses what happened in Europe but he does touch North and South America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cruisellama said:

You might appreciate analysis presented by Ivor Cummings (bio-chem engineer) regarding what came out of Europe.  First real analysis I've seen.  About 37 minutes long.  

It addresses what happened in Europe but he does touch North and South America. 

Let's go cruising!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most interesting information in the initial chart is that Sweden, which implemented the least official restrictions, had the lowest peak rate and an almost identical area under the curve. 

Statistically, the level of restrictions implemented had no measurable impact on the total number of deaths per capita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some analysts looking at data out of India have drawn interesting conclusions, namely that strict stay-at-home orders for the elderly (don't ask me where the line is drawn, I think at 65) coupled with strong social support for that group has had an outsized impact on deaths there. I know mentioning that solution on a cruise board is probably enough to get an angry mob of retirees and pensioners set loose, but it is an interesting data point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LizzyBee23 said:

Some analysts looking at data out of India have drawn interesting conclusions, namely that strict stay-at-home orders for the elderly (don't ask me where the line is drawn, I think at 65) coupled with strong social support for that group has had an outsized impact on deaths there. I know mentioning that solution on a cruise board is probably enough to get an angry mob of retirees and pensioners set loose, but it is an interesting data point.

I think we need to get well into the future to be able to look back and see how it plays out.  Does protecting the elderly through a lockdown just delay the inevitable?  Does it create "dry tinder" that will eventually come into play at a later date?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, twangster said:

I think we need to get well into the future to be able to look back and see how it plays out.  Does protecting the elderly through a lockdown just delay the inevitable?  Does it create "dry tinder" that will eventually come into play at a later date?

I think you're right... One of the articles I read with this analysis was pointing out that the calculus is very personal. Quoted someone as saying "no pleasure in life is worth giving up for two more years in geriatric care".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LizzyBee23 said:

Some analysts looking at data out of India have drawn interesting conclusions, namely that strict stay-at-home orders for the elderly (don't ask me where the line is drawn, I think at 65) coupled with strong social support for that group has had an outsized impact on deaths there. I know mentioning that solution on a cruise board is probably enough to get an angry mob of retirees and pensioners set loose, but it is an interesting data point.

You won't get anger from me. Every new finding or opinion re SARS-CoV-2 and C-19 is worth a look. The link to the "analysts look....." is below. The look was from investigative journalists who acknowledge their's is not a scientific study and urged the Indian government to take one up.

They do conclude that old age homes - a new phenomena in India - have had very low COVID mortality rates among residents compared to similar facilities in the west. The homes took several sanitary steps including restricting access, reducing residents by sending some of them home and better food sanitation.

Notably, there were no controls in the study rendering it interesting but not conclusive.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/india-s-old-age-homes-have-been-successful-in-staving-off-covid-19/story-X5NNnjgKIE9pEDdhmR9ZJK.html 

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...