Jump to content

Grandeur Home Ported in Barbados


Recommended Posts

Sadly, we will not be able to partake. A shame because I really do want to return to Dominica. We were scheduled to go with Serenade in 2018, but unfortunately hits from 3 hurricanes in succession shut that idea down.

In 1978, I was the guy on TV hauling down the Union Flag after Princess Margaret read the order of independence. So we deliberately booked a return on the year of the 40th anniversary

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are going to see more of this from Caribbean ports, Tortola could be next among others.

I wrote about the very thorough arrival protocols that Tortola is using that started on 12/01 here: 

Tortola is currently a CDC Level 1 region meaning no circulating C-19. Barbados is Level 4 (high prevalence don't go there). I'd want to be vaccinated within 6 months of embarking on a Grandeur cruise out of Barbados if that held up even into 2022. No clue about vaccine programs in Barbados but that country is a member of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) https://www.paho.org/en Less wealthy countries are suffering right now from lack of resources to get enough vaccines for their citizens.

Unless we see significantly decreased sero-prevalence of C-19 in the US as a result of the accelerating vaccine programs as we get into the third quarter, the Biden Administrations' CDC is not likely to greenlight cruising from American ports. Moreover, there will be issues if, Barbados for example, remains a level 4 region per CDC that if you go there, when you return to the US, you'll have to quarantine if you are unvaccinated, possibly even if you were vaccinated or had C-19 and recovered (have ABs).

Right now, research supports immunity from C-19 for 6 months (with the vaccine or with innate infection), not any longer. More studies are on going and may prove that immunity lasts longer than that. But, man, travel is going to get complicated as we move forward into late 2021 and on into 2022. Vaccines distribution and sero-prevalence are going to vary widely region to region, country to country and that is going to affect how a country's public health organizations open or close boarders and entry points.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over here in the UK , government are really concerned that vaccines available are not suitable for new strains out of South Africa and Brazil, looks as though top up boosters will be needed once they are available so even 2022 may be off the cards 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK is not alone in that concern. Ray. I hate being an alarmist and that is not my forte or MO. But the variants are going to affect vaccines in some way going forward. There effectiveness is dependent on blocking the spike protein of SARS-2 from attaching to human cells. Viruses mutate to survive when they are under pressure (mitigation measures and vaccines). We're seeing that.

I do not think vaccine will be rendered useless. They can be tweeked much like H1N1 virus responsible for seasonal flu is tweeked every year. We will learn to live with SARS-2 much like the flu doesn't stop us now. It's going to take a while to sort all this out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is going to work (The graph may be difficult to read).  It is relatively easy to find articles referencing this study, but more difficult finding the actual source document.  This data is from Israel (which is way ahead of everyone).

It appears the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer in this case, but probably Moderna as well), starts to work at about 14 days (after the first injection).  The graph does not go beyond 2 days post second injection ... hopefully we will see that data in a week or so.

I hope it is obvious that this is good news.  I may have gone on a cruise with restrictions (I am officially in withdrawal ... has anyone else starting wearing a captain's hat to bed?). ?  However, I am much more hopeful that in 2022 my soulmate and I will be cruising with thousands of like minded cruisers who rolled up their sleeves.

Safe Safe, Safe Apart, Stay Connected ...

Curt from Canada

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Blue Line is total population:  Restrictions have flattened their curve

Green line is Pfizer Vaccine from injection at day zero to day 23 [2 days after 2nd shot]:  After 14 days the increase of infections in the group starts to fall off dramatically.

Yellow line ... same as Green Line, but tracking hospitalizations.

142366092_197216088814872_4314730526934643201_n.png?_nc_cat=101&ccb=2&_nc_sid=58c789&_nc_ohc=rfUyGWJ6EvAAX8-zHOx&_nc_ad=z-m&_nc_cid=0&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&_nc_tp=30&oh=8dddf617715c548abc53df652223db80&oe=6032B8EA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't enlarge the graph but I have seen the source study and am familiar with the results. The Israeli's are leading other countries in vaccinating their citizens as a percentage of total pollution.  In the under 65 cohort its hovering just below 30%. In over 65's it's over 40%.

The study you cite is a narrow study that looked at two arms. One control arm had no vaccinations and the study arm had at least one vaccination but only some had two. The groups were not particularly large by virtue of availability of study participants in a small country to begin with. It is also a pre-publication/not peer reviewed study and these are prelimnary results as the study is ongoing so as to look at the end point after two shots. 

Regardless, I know how to look at a research paper and judge it's findings as reliable or not. They are reliable. I still have issues with the mainstream press announcing findings as fact, which they do too often, without the caveats that study authors always include. 

The study arm that had either one or two shots of the Pfizer/Bio-Tec vaccine produced an overall  7% decline in new infections before the 2w point (as determined by discovery of a new infection in close contacts this group had) in comparison to the unvaccinated control arm. After the 14d point the decline was about 1/3 (33%).

Caveats include it's a preliminary result; the study is not concluded. Not everyone in the study group had two shots. Israel is essentially locked down so that is a confounding factor in terms of how much the vaccine v. lockdown contributed to the decline. They'll deal with this by weighting outcomes to reduce or eliminate the effect of uncontrolled variables.

  Nevertheless the Pfizer/Biot-Tech vaccines are doing something in Israel and it is believed as the study continues and the study group all have two shots, the 33% decline will end up being more like 70% - what models have predicted - when variable are controlled for.

Keep in mind that the study is looking at new infections - this is new and important because Pfizer never predicted it's vaccines would prevent infection only serious illness. It appears that it does but as far as the study results so far, only by about 30%. The study was not conclusive with regard to hospitalizations as the rate of hospitalizations didn't decline in the study group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I can't enlarge the graph but I have seen the source study and am familiar with the results. The Israeli's are leading other countries in vaccinating their citizens as a percentage of total pollution.  In the under 65 cohort its hovering just below 30%. In over 65's it's over 40%.

The study you cite is a narrow study that looked at two arms. One control arm had no vaccinations and the study arm had at least one vaccination but only some had two. The groups were not particularly large by virtue of availability of study participants in a small country to begin with. It is also a pre-publication/not peer reviewed study and these are prelimnary results as the study is ongoing so as to look at the end point after two shots. 

Regardless, I know how to look at a research paper and judge it's findings as reliable or not. They are reliable. I still have issues with the mainstream press announcing findings as fact, which they do too often, without the caveats that study authors always include. 

The study arm that had either one or two shots of the Pfizer/Bio-Tec vaccine produced an overall  7% decline in new infections before the 2w point (as determined by discovery of a new infection in close contacts this group had) in comparison to the unvaccinated control arm. After the 14d point the decline was about 1/3 (33%).

Caveats include it's a preliminary result; the study is not concluded. Not everyone in the study group had two shots. Israel is essentially locked down so that is a confounding factor in terms of how much the vaccine v. lockdown contributed to the decline. They'll deal with this by weighting outcomes to reduce or eliminate the effect of uncontrolled variables.

  Nevertheless the Pfizer/Biot-Tech vaccines are doing something in Israel and it is believed as the study continues and the study group all have two shots, the 33% decline will end up being more like 70% - what models have predicted - when variable are controlled for.

Keep in mind that the study is looking at new infections - this is new and important because Pfizer never predicted it's vaccines would prevent infection only serious illness. It appears that it does but as far as the study results so far, only by about 30%. The study was not conclusive with regard to hospitalizations as the rate of hospitalizations didn't decline in the study group. 

Thanks for your thoughts.  Pretty much what I was thinking, with two "hidden agendas" on my part:

  • Science:  Any science I see these days that points people towards rolling up their sleeve, washing their hands, wearing an appropriate mask, physically distancing gets me on a ship quicker.  The science is not easy to follow (I am just a dumb Engineer), but it is much more reassuring and helpful than the folks who are using "crystal balls" and "Ouija boards" to chart their course (pun not intended).
  • It is just a matter of time:  Israel is the "Canary in the Cave".  They are ahead of everyone else, and we can get a look into our future ... maybe as much as 3 to 6 months into our future.  That will help my soulmate and I better plan for our next cruise ... no crystal ball here, just ...

THE SOONER THE BETTER.

?

Stay Safe, Stay Apart, Stay Connected, 

Curt from Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've booked the Christmas sailing with our family!  Looks like the six of us will be spending Christmas in St. Lucia.

I think it would be difficult to home port a ship in the islands because of the logistics with provisioning the ship.  Much of the liquor, food, fuel, and everything else would need to be imported to the island.  As much as I like the idea, that would limit the options for home-porting more ships in the islands in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Galveston Steve said:

I think it would be difficult to home port a ship in the islands because of the logistics with provisioning the ship.  Much of the liquor, food, fuel, and everything else would need to be imported to the island.

Just stock more locally sourced rum and things will be just fine! ?

But, seriously, this is something I hadn't considered. I'm now wondering if additional provisioning will need to be done at each port stop instead of stocking it all up front in Bridgetown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Galveston Steve said:

I think it would be difficult to home port a ship in the islands because of the logistics with provisioning the ship.  Much of the liquor, food, fuel, and everything else would need to be imported to the island.  As much as I like the idea, that would limit the options for home-porting more ships in the islands in my opinion.

A supply officer on a behind the scenes tour once told us that even ships in distant waters are resupplied through the central warehouses in South Florida.  For consistency it's easier for them to load up refrigerated shipping containers and send them to other regions over trying to supply the same products locally. 

A refrigerated container is sent in advance, kept in bonded warehouse at cold storage temperatures and delivered to ships as they home port.

It adds about two weeks to the supply process he explained compared to supplying ships in South Florida but it's how they offer the same beers, wines and dining room menus across the fleet.  

When supplies are destined for a ship that will leave the country the goods are considered "in transit" and not subject to the same import regulations that many countries would normally apply to goods arriving for consumption in that country.

I don't know how ubiquitous this is in other regions like Asia or the South Pacific but he specifically mentioned Europe.  I'm assuming Puerto Rico and Barbados would more easily lend themselves to this approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just announced United Airlines will launch new nonstop service to Barbados from both their EWR (New York) and IAD (Washington D.C.) hubs once weekly starting on December 5th the same day Grandeur of the Seas begins sailing out of Barbados. 

I think United Airlines should expand this service to either 2x weekly or 3x weekly as most people do not arrive the same day their cruise departs.  Hopefully United's route planners will consult with people familiar with the cruise industry and adjust or add a second weekly flight because if the flight out of EWR or IAD is delayed anyone onboard trying to catch their cruise will miss the boat.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2021 at 5:49 PM, RBRSKI said:

I like your thinking as well!!!!!   

If by chance they do start Caribbean operations(embarkation) in another port other than San Juan, my grin will be from cheek to cheek!?  ?

Oh this grin, now a smile, is hurting my face because it's so big.  What are people's thoughts on where Royal might pick as another Caribbean embarkation spot?  I am a Huge advocate for Nassau or Freeport.  Matt had an article about Grand Lucayan property.  Just leave as is, have it as a pre post cruise hub for now.  It's proven that provisions already can reach that island because of the resorts that are already established just up the inventory.  I know I look at things on a very top level but hey, it's fun, and I don't get worked up about it.  lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that RCG is considering a porting strategy that is broader and will include Caribbean ports. Routine planning? I doubt it. My sense is that this is a strategy to get sailing again regardless of what the CDC does with it's complicated return to sail hoops that the lines have to jump through - costly. The December 21 start up time frame is instructive. The start signals to me that the lines may be thinking they are going to get out of Dodge and hit Asia and the Caribbean basin running. To them, they reason, whatever happens in the US ports is clearly out of our control and seemingly can't influence an outcome favorable to the cruise industry. We'll move to ports that are welcoming us, are reasonable with mitigation and virus control measures and we can operate smaller ships from.

Something else to ruminate on, the big guns have sold a lot of their older ships to small companies who appear to be gobbling these ships up. Why? There's going to be a market for safe traveling and, IMO, sailing on a cruise ship, contrary to the conventional and hugely wrong conventional wisdom is safe. Caveat it has to be done safely and the Safe to Sail plan I've seen from the majors produces a very safe shipboard, ship life and port safe travel experience. The market is going to explode first in smaller ports with low sero-prevalence of SARS-2 that can't accommodate mega ships.

I spoke of Tortola in another thread as being one of the those. Off the top of my head, I can't name others but, man, there should be a ton of them. I could see Celebrity porting one of it's Millennium class ships there and/or moving one from SJPR. US ports that are big into the cruise industry, aren't going to take this lying down ..... more leverage on the CDC's BS.

Emphasis on has to be done right and the end results has to be safe. Not sure if the entrepreneurs buying up smaller ships will comply with CLIA's recommendations. One screw up, one death on board from COVID and it's over. So, there's leverage on these smaller companies to do it right out of the gate. Besides, I've actually had 3 cruises on Grandeur. Lovely, I'll take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is little future for the fleet if non-US ports are the solution.  Few people will tack on several hundred dollars in additional cost to cruise not to mention the inconvenience of flying to another country to cruise.  

Grandeur works (or may work) in Barbados because it is a small ship with no other market or place to put it.  Will they be able to fill it week after week, month after month?  Time will tell but that won't be easy.

Azamara was sold off at fire sale prices so it's no wonder a firm with no experience in the industry jumped at the chance.  The potential when cruising is poised to restart was too great to pass up.  A year ago Azamara would have been 4 or 5 times the price.  

Barbados lost the P&O ship that home ported there so they were eager to get something going and probably make Royal a deal they couldn't pass up.  

The CDC will still have a play in Barbados for American guests.  The current and proposed international flight requirements don't make it easy for Americans to leverage Barbados.  A family of four will have to cough up hundreds in COVID tests to get home.  What happens if one family member tests positive (even a false positive)?  Welcome to your new home in Barbados for several months.  That hitting the news would have a mass chilling effect on Americans thinking of this approach. 

Without the already smaller US market to tap into easily the mass market cruise lines have no future.  Moving ships to other countries will cost more money than it will generate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, twangster said:

There is little future for the fleet if non-US ports are the solution.  Few people will tack on several hundred dollars in additional cost to cruise not to mention the inconvenience of flying to another country to cruise.  

Grandeur works (or may work) in Barbados because it is a small ship with no other market or place to put it.  Will they be able to fill it week after week, month after month?  Time will tell but that won't be easy.

Azamara was sold off at fire sale prices so it's no wonder a firm with no experience in the industry jumped at the chance.  The potential when cruising is poised to restart was too great to pass up.  A year ago Azamara would have been 4 or 5 times the price.  

Barbados lost the P&O ship that home ported there so they were eager to get something going and probably make Royal a deal they couldn't pass up.  

The CDC will still have a play in Barbados for American guests.  The current and proposed international flight requirements don't make it easy for Americans to leverage Barbados.  A family of four will have to cough up hundreds in COVID tests to get home.  What happens if one family member tests positive (even a false positive)?  Welcome to your new home in Barbados for several months.  That hitting the news would have a mass chilling effect on Americans thinking of this approach. 

Without the already smaller US market to tap into easily the mass market cruise lines have no future.  Moving ships to other countries will cost more money than it will generate.  

I don't disagree with you, you are absolutely right but at the same time I completely understand why cruise lines are looking at home-porting ships outside of the US. 

 

The US market is one of the cruise industries biggest markets.  It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out because you are right the long arm of the CDC will still impact American's trying to come home after their cruise if these restrictions are still in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....... some revenue is better than no revenue. I don't disagree with you in principle, Twangster. I'm just reading the tea leaves here. If the CDC of the Biden administration continues to make it impossible for the cruise lines to operate from US ports, the industry will go elsewhere to survive. This is a corporate survival strategy not intended for the long range. 

I also think the industry is looking to tap into the Asian market and, if travel restrictions ease in Europe and Asia before they do in North America, assuming the mRNA vaccines are as effective as the recent Israeli studies indicate they are in preventing new infections (there's a new study released today from another public health unit studying this that asserts a 70% decrease in new infections among the control group receiving two shots), the industry isn't going to sit on  it's hands waiting for the CDC to greenlight sailings from US ports. JMO.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JeffB said:

....... some revenue is better than no revenue. I don't disagree with you in principle, Twangster. I'm just reading the tea leaves here. If the CDC of the Biden administration continues to make it impossible for the cruise lines to operate from US ports, the industry will go elsewhere to survive. This is a corporate survival strategy not intended for the long range. 

I also think the industry is looking to tap into the Asian market and, if travel restrictions ease in Europe and Asia before they do in North America, assuming the mRNA vaccines are as effective as the recent Israeli studies indicate they are in preventing new infections (there's a new study released today from another public health unit studying this that asserts a 70% decrease in new infections among the control group receiving two shots), the industry isn't going to sit on  it's hands waiting for the CDC to greenlight sailings from US ports. JMO.   

Too many ships for the rest of the world combined to float.  

A year ago I would have said some revenue is better than no revenue.  That salvation has long since disappeared in the rear view mirror.  If they don't get measurable revenue soon, RC may need to cut everything older than Quantum.

If the CDC keeps the US market closed for ships here in the US and they keep US guests away from ships in other regions the cruise industry will need to shed 75% of the combined fleet.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....... and surrender market share in the outyears to upstarts scrapping up what the majors, you seem to imply, perceive as table scraps?

Not buying it.

I'm convinced that if the US falters with getting the virus under control for any number of reasons and Europe and Asia are successful, RCG, and I suspect others in that category, will move quickly to secure market share in those regions. Shedding 75% of their capacity would be counterproductive IMO.

Asia, and I include China, are potentially huge markets for future cruisers in a COVID free, or mostly free, region potentially dwarfing that of the US if current economic trends continue. I can see bankruptcy a more viable option for RCG, and others, than sheading capital equipment as you suggest will be the outcome. In that scenario  a judge determines what creditors get on the dollar realizing that crippling cruise lines by making them sell assets would be counterproductive for both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen few signs Europe or the UK or Canada are being more successful by measurable amounts in controlling or vaccinating.  That's why the actions of the CDC are not in a vacuum by themselves or in contrast to what other regions are doing without the US CDC at their helm.

Barbados was pretty quick to get rid of infected people when the last attempt at cruising occurred there and ended in positive cases.  They didn't care, put them on a plane.  Be gone from here, bye bye.  

So how does it work?  You can't board a plane for the US without a negative test but if you test positive Barbados wants you out of the country faster than yesterday?  Seems like being a man with no country isn't a place I want to be and I don't think it will take long for cruise guests of the world to see that logic.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, twangster said:

I've seen few signs Europe or the UK or Canada are being more successful by measurable amounts in controlling or vaccinating.  That's why the actions of the CDC are not in a vacuum by themselves or in contrast to what other regions are doing without the US CDC at their helm

Point taken. The AZ debacle in Europe is certainly problematic and supports your position.

OTH, The US and Western Europe while very similar in terms of total population, are culturally dissimilar. One thing that characterizes the societies of most Western European nations is that, aside from Italy - an outlier generally except for the pandemic response  - they trust their governments in the pandemic. They are more likely to comply with directed mitigation measures.

Outside of Asia, Germany and Italy were the first countries to dip their toes in the cruising waters signaling a more accommodating public health environment when it comes to assessing the risks and benefits of allowing cruise ships to sail from their ports.

Germans, before the most recent outbreaks, had their SARS-2 sero-prevalence rate down to around 3% - the government continues to deploy much more stringent mitigation members than North America, especially compared to the US, CA being an exception. Western European citizens are complying instead of protesting to the extent that US citizens are over the infringement of liberties that mask mandates represent. 

This leads me to speculate that Western Europe will achieve control of the virus faster than the US once vaccines become more readily available there - and they will. I predict this outcome even though the US appears to be racing ahead right now. We already know Asian nations are maybe a full year ahead of the US in a return to normal economic activity. Governments there will probably be more accommodating of cruise industry operations from Western European and Asian ports.  Occam's Razor solution to generating revenue for the cruise industry is therefore to send ships, en masse, to these ports - the more the better.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vaccine is only good for people that have a compromised immune systems or other related issues that would put them in the hospital as all it does is gets rid of the symptoms.  

You still can get COVID19, have it without even knowing it,  and pass it along to other people with the vaccine in your body.

Trust me if cruise lines would require it, I would get it!   In my opinion it's giving some people the false sense of security. 

If anyone else has been in the situation where you have actually administered the vaccine and has a different opinion, please share so I can share with others.  Man it's a process!!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, RBRSKI said:

The vaccine is only good for people that have a compromised immune systems or other related issues that would put them in the hospital as all it does is gets rid of the symptoms. 

This is not accurate as it is phrased. I'm not sure what you mean by "only good for people that have compromised immune systems.......," I assume you mean to keep immunocompromised persons out of the hospital. What you imply is that the vaccines have no effect on people with competent immune systems. Do I have this right?

First, most people, regardless of age or immune status do not initially mount an immune response to SARS-2. For the naïve host, that host's immune system doesn't recognize SARS-2 as foreign until several days into the infection. After that, the innate immune system mounts a response, in varying degrees, recognizing that the virus cells are foreign.

Immunocompromised hosts either by age or disease, take longer for recognition and response to occur. For most people, this interval is when COVID symptoms appear, primarily in the lungs, again in varying severity depending on the robustness of the hosts initial response to SARS-2. 

There are signaling cells (Specialized B-Cells and T-Cells) in the host (you) that then create an inflammatory response (cytokines among others) and stimulate the adaptive immune system to respond to the foreign viral cells. In some, the cytokine response can be so great, it worsens symptoms. In some cases, it does not occur at all (e.g., an immunocompromised host with AIDS or cancers that subdue the T and B cell response).

A normal cytokine response has a positive effect on COVID-19 while allowing time for the adaptive immune system to produce specialized types of T and B cells that target the spike protein of the SARS-2 virus preventing it from attaching to human respiratory tract cells, reproducing and then eliminate it.

The benefit of mRNA vaccines like Pfizer's and Moderna's already being used is that it primes the hosts innate immune system to recognize SARS-2 virus right away and stimulate an immediate innate and adaptive immune system response. The net effect is a reduced inflammatory response, a reduced time the virus is being hosted by you and a muted development of COVID symptoms - or, in the best case neither of these......you don't get sick at all

1 hour ago, RBRSKI said:

You still can get COVID19, have it without even knowing it,  and pass it along to other people with the vaccine in your body.

This is a correct statement. In the context I presented above, you can see that when the SARS-2 virus infects the host, it's still a time dependent process where the virus is alive and reproducing in your body (you can still transmit it during this period). It tries to survive and resist getting killed by the hosts immune system. But now the immune system has been primed by a vaccine and the process of infection is greatly reduced in time. This equates to less of an inflammatory response and significantly reduced COVID symptoms. The trials that both manufacturers went through demonstrated the capacity of their vaccines to prevent serious COVID symptoms to a near 100% level. What these trials did not show was whether the vaccine reduced the transmission of the virus. 

The Israeli's have several studies underway to determine if the vaccines do, in fact, reduce transmission. The results made public indicate that they do - 33% after one dose and 70% after two. Caveats apply but this is very encouraging news.

What does this mean to cruisers on a practical level?:

  • If vaccinations end up being a pre-barding requirement, if you become infected on the cruise, you have a greatly reduced probability of developing serious COVID-19 symptoms or dying from it.
  • All factors taken into consideration, I'd estimate that probability is < 1% of becoming infected and a near zero chance of dying. If you've been fully vaccinated you have a greater probability of serious injury or death in an accident on your way to the cruise port.
  • Taken in the context of what I presented above, you might become infected on your cruise but you're' unlikely to develop symptoms anything worse than a cold or flu.
  • Based on early studies in Israel, transmission appears to be reduced by up to 70% in fully vaccinated persons.

Hope this clarifies important information about the mRNA vaccines currently being offered.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You for the level of clarification you took it to!  I will be sure to bring it back to the health care field I work in!  And in  (my opinion) most people just want to hear the common approach to this vaccine. 

What I should have said instead of "compromised immune systems" is any underlying health conditions a person might have.  This was copied from good old google!

 

People with chronic or underlying health conditions are more likely to become very sick from COVID-19. Those who have one or more of these conditions should be extra careful:

  • Moderate to severe asthma or chronic lung disease
  • Heart disease
  • Chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis
  • Diabetes
  • Liver disease
  • Autoimmune disease
  • Weakened immune system because of smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, cancer treatment, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, or prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications
  • Severe obesity

Trust me, I like to be educated on things but I take the common sense approach on this horrible disease.   Information from any source should be taken with a grain of salt.  Learn a little bit from here, Learn a little bit from there.  I helps put me in a happy place!  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

booked Grandeur for December, they have almost 11 months to figure it out.  I'm cautiously optimistic.  

I still doubt the constitutionality of the requirement by the US govt to bar US citizens from returning home if they test positive. 

It makes no sense that you have to have a negative COVID test for a 40 minute flight from Nassau to Miami on American, but you can get on a 10 hour Honolulu-Newark longhaul on United without proof of anything.  Its widely assumed that transmissibility on airplanes is very low, and if it wasn't, then why don't we require proof of a negative COVID test for domestic flights?  ?  Maybe I shouldn't have typed that, someone from the CDC might be reading this and get an idea.  

There are some countries (Costa Rica) that require travel insurance for COVID treatments AND accommodation while you're in the country.  Its the "accommodation" piece that gets very expensive so you have to be careful.  Conversely, you have resorts in some countries right now that are offering free 10 days of hotel stay if you test positive before your flight back to the US.  That's a deal! 

Currently, Barbados does not have this proof of insurance requirement, but it would be interesting to see if they ultimately change requirements (or if any of the countries Grandeur ports at require something different).  if you get a rapid COVID test in the Miami airport enroute to Bridgetown, would countries Grandeur calls at near the end of the sailing require a more recent, fresher COVID test?  Would Royal perform that onboard?  I ultimately think a vaccine passport will become the norm and you won't have to continually prove your "COVID-negative" status (which is already effectively useless because nobody forces you to quarantine or tracks your movements for the 72 hours after you took the test)

I may see how the lay of the land is when my final payment is due, and make a decision then.  There's a lot variables between now and then, but ultimately the only thing I can control is getting the vaccine when its available to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had an all inclusive booked in Jamaica for Spring Break that offered 14 days free in the hotel if tested positive for the return flight.  While this sounds great, our situation posed a problem.  And I confirmed with the hotel and government regulations what would happen if my 16 y/o tested positive and my wife and I were negative.  She would have to quarantine in her room(the free one offered by the hotel) by herself.  We would then be in a connecting room for a reduced rate.  So the price of the vacation goes up until she test negative.  So Puerto Rico here we Come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurdueFlyer said:

booked Grandeur for December, they have almost 11 months to figure it out.  I'm cautiously optimistic.  

I still doubt the constitutionality of the requirement by the US govt to bar US citizens from returning home if they test positive. 

It makes no sense that you have to have a negative COVID test for a 40 minute flight from Nassau to Miami on American, but you can get on a 10 hour Honolulu-Newark longhaul on United without proof of anything.  Its widely assumed that transmissibility on airplanes is very low, and if it wasn't, then why don't we require proof of a negative COVID test for domestic flights?  ?  Maybe I shouldn't have typed that, someone from the CDC might be reading this and get an idea.  

There are some countries (Costa Rica) that require travel insurance for COVID treatments AND accommodation while you're in the country.  Its the "accommodation" piece that gets very expensive so you have to be careful.  Conversely, you have resorts in some countries right now that are offering free 10 days of hotel stay if you test positive before your flight back to the US.  That's a deal! 

Currently, Barbados does not have this proof of insurance requirement, but it would be interesting to see if they ultimately change requirements (or if any of the countries Grandeur ports at require something different).  if you get a rapid COVID test in the Miami airport enroute to Bridgetown, would countries Grandeur calls at near the end of the sailing require a more recent, fresher COVID test?  Would Royal perform that onboard?  I ultimately think a vaccine passport will become the norm and you won't have to continually prove your "COVID-negative" status (which is already effectively useless because nobody forces you to quarantine or tracks your movements for the 72 hours after you took the test)

I may see how the lay of the land is when my final payment is due, and make a decision then.  There's a lot variables between now and then, but ultimately the only thing I can control is getting the vaccine when its available to me.  

You do realize that flights from Nassau, Bahamas, is an international country versus Hawaii which is the 50th state? Hawaii is considered Domestic just like Alaska.  Did you play hookie when they taught this in school?  ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, princevaliantus said:

You do realize that flights from Nassau, Bahamas, is an international country versus Hawaii which is the 50th state? Hawaii is considered Domestic just like Alaska.  Did you play hookie when they taught this in school?  ??

That's exactly his point.  Since Hawaii is domestic there is no testing requirement for that 10 hour flight.  However a short 40 minute flight internationally does require testing.  It seems that the science of 10 hrs vs. 40 minutes doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I'm aware of the difference between domestic and International.  The point was  "COVID is COVID" whether you caught it abroad or at your local grocery store.  Why is a negative test required to board a 40 minute flight just because its international, but its not for a 10 hour domestic flight?  In either situation, if I'm infected and asymptomatic, I put people on the plane around me at risk, and people I interact with when I get home.  

I guess I'm of the mindset that the CDC shouldn't be making a distinction, but they do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurdueFlyer said:

 

It makes no sense that you have to have a negative COVID test for a 40 minute flight from Nassau to Miami on American, but you can get on a 10 hour Honolulu-Newark longhaul on United without proof of anything.  Its widely assumed that transmissibility on airplanes is very low, and if it wasn't, then why don't we require proof of a negative COVID test for domestic flights?  ?  Maybe I shouldn't have typed that, someone from the CDC might be reading this and get an idea.  

 

They are considering testing on domestic flights.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-travel-idUSKBN29V2QO

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...