Jump to content

Poll Question - Would you go on a cruise with protocols similar to, if not identical to, Quantum of the Seas currently in Singapore?


Would you go on a cruise with protocols similar to, if not identical to, Quantum of the Seas currently in Singapore?  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you go on a cruise from the U.S. that had protocols similar to, if not identical to, the Quantum of the Seas sailings in Singapore? (Royal Promise protocols)

    • Yes, I would go on a cruise with those restrictions in place.
      13
    • No, I would not go on a cruise with those restrictions in place.
      32


Recommended Posts

So with the news (currently, always subject to change) that Royal Caribbean will highly encourage, but not require passengers to be vaccinated in order to sail. It occurs to me, that Royal Caribbean, already having protocols in place with the Quantum of the Seas sailings in Singapore (Royal Promise) First look at Royal Caribbean's new health protocols when it restarts cruises | Royal Caribbean Blog - could implement these protocols for ships restarting in the United States - Royal Caribbean announces it will restart cruises from the U.S. in July | Royal Caribbean Blog.

The question is, If Royal Caribbean implemented the Royal Promise protocols on ships restarting from the United States, would you actually go on a cruise with these restrictions in place? (Note - Vaccination status would not matter for the purpose of this poll). I know there are strong opinions on either side, but please keep the comments respectful. 

Kindness Be Nice GIF by @InvestInAccess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  For me and realize many will disagree and think I am crazy, I want to go on a cruise as I did before this mess happened. I always felt th ships were cleaner than most hotels and amusement parks but what do I know. My family has been through Covid and ready to move past all this nonsense. I also never want to words social distance gain. Get me on a ship with a drink of the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is probably going to be a recency bias in most people's votes. After 8 months of no cruising, I would have seriously considered going on a cruise in October 2020 with the kinds of mitigation measures that were imposed for pax on Singapore sailings. From the start of lock-downs, I have been opposed to those on the basis of questionable PH benefits at enormous economic and social costs. Even with a lack of data, we knew enough to avoid shuttering everything. The vulnerable needed to be protected, the rest, well, sensible mitigation measures would have been fine while carrying on with our daily lives. Hindsight has proven we went too far trying to mitigate with isolation strategies.

Now, we have a huge amount of data to suggest that with vaccinations the risks that were present before vaccines - risks I might have been willing to take to get back to cruising then - I'm not willing to take now given the alternative of getting vaccinated. So, I marked no, I wouldn't put up with those restriction now, I might have back then.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Josh C said:

The question is, If Royal Caribbean implemented the Royal Promise protocols on ships restarting from the United States, would you actually go on a cruise with these restrictions in place?

No.

I am, however, looking forward to a fully vaccinated NCL cruise in four months:

 

NCL vax policy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Not to that level. It mostly deals with mask wearing. I’d entertain having to wear one in a crowded area (promenade, leaving a show etc). Never outside, never between each bite of food/drink. That’s just ridiculousness. 
 

Risk to me is low and getting lower everyday. My daughter got married 16 days ago. No masks in church or indoor reception. 100 people in roughly a 50x100 ballroom for 4 hours. Dancing our butts off, woo-hooing, laughing. Not one case. I’d estimate maybe 25-30% were vaccinated. 
 

That was the 3rd wedding we’ve been too with no masks (November and December) and a crowded funeral in April. 
 

I’m not vaccinated, yet. Waiting until a month before my October cruise, then I’ll decide. I have a hyper autoimmune system and cautious about “stimulating” it since it tried to kill me 5 years ago. 

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I write cautiously on this information because vaccination is a touchy subject here and we've been cautioned but this news is important because it is already getting sensationalized by the MSM after percolating for a week or so, mostly unnoticed. It is talk of a "surge" in new cases in the UK secondary to the Delta strain from India (new naming convention for SARS 2 variants). Here are the takeaways from the news and the scientific data I've looked at:

  • New cases are rising in the UK and the increase is attributable to the Delta strain. The increase is tiny.
  • Hospitalizations and deaths continue to decline in the UK and there has been no change in the trajectory of either.
  • There is the possibility that vulnerability to Delta is increased by the path the UK chose to delay 2nd shots to insure more people got at least one thus, reducing immune response to variants. This circumstance may not apply to countries that stuck to a two dose regimen for most shots. At this point this is purely speculative.
  • The number of new cases in a region or cohort by age, et.al, up until a few weeks ago, was considered a reliable metric to assess viral spread. It's no longer believed to be a good metric to do that or measure control of the virus or lack of it. What remains a good measure is that old R(0) because it measures trajectory and is more sensitive gauging spread/control, increases/decreases in prevalence. R(0) in regions of the UK being watched remains below 1.0. The press isn't reporting this metric.
  • The debate among research scientists and epidemiologists involves issues of prevalence, that is, will SARS2 prevalence sustained by variants remain in the long run but be entirely manageable with respect to disease burden on both individuals and health care systems. Data is not yet sufficient to draw any conclusions either way. Anecdotally, this seems to be the case over the few months that vaccines have been available.  
  • This debate is the kind of reasoned approach to decisions on introducing mitigation measures that involve restrictions on human behavior - shutterings, and such. IOW, if the disease burden remains manageable, if R(0) doesn't rise significantly above 1.0  or shows a pattern of small increases and decreases, there is no sense in imposing draconian mitigation measures such as heavy handed restrictions on movement and contact.

 What might be the impact on global and north American cruising should PH officials take mitigation steps toward restricting movement and contact? Cruising in Europe ( a bit less so in Asia and South America) becomes increasingly baked in - i.e., governments are becoming less likely to restrict travel and leisure activities - as time passes and vaccine roll-outs improve.

There is a direct relationship between the rate of vaccinations in a region and governments easing/not re-implementing restrictions.  More restrictions in the face of rising yet manageable case numbers does not seem to be the typical government reaction to this when outbreaks occur. The public, in general, voices loud opposition to increased restrictions these days.  The chance of shutdowns of ports becomes an unpalatable alternative ....... but, cruise ships remain in the crosshairs of the hyper-cautious, uninformed public. Government officials take in what PH scientists tell them and add that to political calculations. So, there's still a risk of a shut down of cruising. The risk will rise or fall over time depending on how the lines do on start-up.

Bottom line: insure your cruise bookings and/or take advantage of cruise line air and programs that will refund in some form the cost of a cancelled cruise.   

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I write cautiously on this information because vaccination is a touchy subject here and we've been cautioned but this news is important because it is already getting sensationalized by the MSM after percolating for a week or so, mostly unnoticed. It is talk of a "surge" in new cases in the UK secondary to the Delta strain from India (new naming convention for SARS 2 variants). Here are the takeaways from the news and the scientific data I've looked at:

  • New cases are rising in the UK and the increase is attributable to the Delta strain. The increase is tiny.
  • Hospitalizations and deaths continue to decline in the UK and there has been no change in the trajectory of either.
  • There is the possibility that vulnerability to Delta is increased by the path the UK chose to delay 2nd shots to insure more people got at least one thus, reducing immune response to variants. This circumstance may not apply to countries that stuck to a two dose regimen for most shots. At this point this is purely speculative.
  • The number of new cases in a region or cohort by age, et.al, up until a few weeks ago, was considered a reliable metric to assess viral spread. It's no longer believed to be a good metric to do that or measure control of the virus or lack of it. What remains a good measure is that old R(0) because it measures trajectory and is more sensitive gauging spread/control, increases/decreases in prevalence. R(0) in regions of the UK being watched remains below 1.0. The press isn't reporting this metric.
  • The debate among research scientists and epidemiologists involves issues of prevalence, that is, will SARS2 prevalence sustained by variants remain in the long run but be entirely manageable with respect to disease burden on both individuals and health care systems. Data is not yet sufficient to draw any conclusions either way. Anecdotally, this seems to be the case over the few months that vaccines have been available.  
  • This debate is the kind of reasoned approach to decisions on introducing mitigation measures that involve restrictions on human behavior - shutterings, and such. IOW, if the disease burden remains manageable, if R(0) doesn't rise significantly above 1.0  or shows a pattern of small increases and decreases, there is no sense in imposing draconian mitigation measures such as heavy handed restrictions on movement and contact.

 What might be the impact on global and north American cruising should PH officials take mitigation steps toward restricting movement and contact? Cruising in Europe ( a bit less so in Asia and South America) becomes increasingly baked in - i.e., governments are becoming less likely to restrict travel and leisure activities - as time passes and vaccine roll-outs improve.

There is a direct relationship between the rate of vaccinations in a region and governments easing/not re-implementing restrictions.  More restrictions in the face of rising yet manageable case numbers does not seem to be the typical government reaction to this when outbreaks occur. The public, in general, voices loud opposition to increased restrictions these days.  The chance of shutdowns of ports becomes an unpalatable alternative ....... but, cruise ships remain in the crosshairs of the hyper-cautious, uninformed public. Government officials take in what PH scientists tell them and add that to political calculations. So, there's still a risk of a shut down of cruising. The risk will rise or fall over time depending on how the lines do on start-up.

Bottom line: insure your cruise bookings and/or take advantage of cruise line air and programs that will refund in some form the cost of a cancelled cruise.   

  

 

I read a story in The Morning from New York Times and in this snippet, it summarizes how we should view cases of Covid to keep in proper perspective and context moving forward:

"Three, caseloads are no longer as important a measure as they used to be. Before the vaccines were available, more cases inevitably meant more hospitalizations and deaths. Now, the connection is more uncertain. As a recent Times story put it, paraphrasing British scientists, “upticks in new infections are tolerable so long as the vast majority do not lead to serious illness or death.”

And keep in mind, we keep hearing about variants and they have yet to live up to their breathless panic porn advertising. 

But I agree with Jeff's advice above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

The problem will continue to be the countries (like the USA and UK) who test, test, and test more, trying to identify every case. Then upon finding a case, treating the patient a if they're a threat to the stability of the world.

I'm still in total lockdown in Toronto, Canada. Only essentials open, and what they deem essential is crazy. Can't even get a haircut, since they haven't been open since October.

Americans have lost perspective. We'd bend over backwards to get vaccines. So would 99% of the countries in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true measure of a pandemic is the amount of hospitalizations and the load, not the number of cases. For a while the hospitalizations here in the US was overwhelming the bed count but with better knowledge on treatments and vaccine that load is near zero, at least here in Texas. My child is on the local hospital staff and they closed their COVID wing due to low patient count. Now treated as special but no longer as overwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*In my Matt voice* 

Please keep on topic. The post was a simple question.. the question was asked to see if you’d be willing to put up with the restrictions on quantum for cruises out of the US. The topic of vaccines and outbreaks elsewhere is really irrelevant to this question. 

Why? I’m worried, that if a breakout occurs onboard, cruising will get shut down when the cdc yanks the conditional sailing certificates, that and the ensuing media circus. (yes, worst case scenario, but that HAS to be accounted for.)

Therefore, this is what I believe (to some degree) is what Royal will do with the US restarts. Either this, or treat vaxxed/unvaxxed differently, which, IMO, would be more problematic. 

I get that it’s not fair cruising is held to a different standard. I get that it IS a double standard and I get it’s not right. But, like it or not, that’s the reality. So the cruise lines HAVE to be safe & cautious in restarting. Hence, the question of whether you’d be ok with stringent protocols if it meant sailing out of the US.

Based on responses so far.. 2-1 against. I’d like to think that’s representative of the cruising community as a whole and if so, something Cruise lines should use in crafting their US restarting protocols. 

Thank You ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

With all the restrictions on the Singapore cruises, even if you agree with them 100%, still would take away a lot of the fun that a cruise brings, especially for American audiences.

Exactly. Not saying it’s preferred, but the options are limited IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SpeedNoodles said:

I'm hoping (assuming) they have this all ironed out by my first cruise in October.  (How's that for a noncommittal answer?)

You have to think rules will continue to be relaxed as time goes on, as long as the CDC doesn't continue to try to scare us with outdated cherry picked studies like the children's hospitalization study from last week 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will passengers be tested during the cruise?  If passengers who test positive will they be disembarked at the next port?

That is reason I am not willing to book a cruise before next year until they get everything figured out. Too many unanswered questions from all the cruise lines. 

I do not want to be quarantined on a cruise, stuck in my room waiting for a port to allow the ship to disembark for days.  That is not a vacation.

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...