Unfortunately it seems to demonstrate that the Cruise Companies are willing to take short cuts. The precautions this Cruise Line didn't take were ' stand out ' and could have been avoided ... especially so once the 90 minute tests become readily available.
We should not be too critical of them for trying, because unless the cruise lines do keep testing the water they will never find an acceptable starting protocol.
I am very critical if only because it is obvious, even to me, that the crew are the major risk.
If I were to book a cruise I would have to accept that fellow passengers may be carrying the virus but I would not accept that the crew would be infected at their point of boarding nor if they get on and off the ship at any point. They should be tested two hours prior to boarding at all times and only if the test is ok should they be allowed to go aboard.
If the Cruise Line is not able to do 90 minute testing then they don't sail ... seemples.
Unfortunately it seems to demonstrate that the Cruise Companies are willing to take short cuts. The precautions this Cruise Line didn't take were ' stand out ' and could have been avoided ... especially so once the 90 minute tests become readily available.
We should not be too critical of them for trying, because unless the cruise lines do keep testing the water they will never find an acceptable starting protocol.
I am very critical if only because it is obvious, even to me, that the crew are the major risk.
If I were to book a cruise I would have to accept that fellow passengers may be carrying the virus but I would not accept that the crew would be infected at their point of boarding nor if they get on and off the ship at any point. They should be tested two hours prior to boarding at all times and only if the test is ok should they be allowed to go aboard.
If the Cruise Line is not able to do 90 minute testing then they don't sail ... seemples.
How on earth would testing crew members at every port of call make them more covid safe? Nobody is going to be showing symptoms after only a few hours ashore, unless they had the virus before going ashore, in which case they might have been infected by a passenger.
How on earth would testing crew members at every port of call make them more covid safe? Nobody is going to be showing symptoms after only a few hours ashore, unless they had the virus before going ashore, in which case they might have been infected by a passenger.
The crew do not get off the ship at every port, on a short cruise they need not get off at all.
How on earth would testing crew members at every port of call make them more covid safe? Nobody is going to be showing symptoms after only a few hours ashore, unless they had the virus before going ashore, in which case they might have been infected by a passenger.
The crew do not get off the ship at every port, on a short cruise they need not get off at all.
You were the one who suggested they might get off, and therefore should be tested.!!!!
How on earth would testing crew members at every port of call make them more covid safe? Nobody is going to be showing symptoms after only a few hours ashore, unless they had the virus before going ashore, in which case they might have been infected by a passenger.
The crew do not get off the ship at every port, on a short cruise they need not get off at all.
You were the one who suggested they might get off, and therefore should be tested.!!!!
I did indeed suggest that they might get off but then realised that they need not get off at all, at no stage did I suggest that they would be tested at every Port .... that was your idea .
The crew do not get off the ship at every port, on a short cruise they need not get off at all.
You were the one who suggested they might get off, and therefore should be tested.!!!!
I did indeed suggest that they might get off but then realised that they need not get off at all, at no stage did I suggest that they would be tested at every Port .... that was your idea .
I will let you have the word Moby, but only because of your Modplod status.
This will almost certainly put another hole in the hull of the cruise line industry but then it was never going to be a good combination mixing those who are desperate to stay afloat with those desperate for work in the same boat.
I've tended to think that most of the Norwegian style firms have been a little less money grabbing than their American cousins.
Perhaps I was wrong. Either somebody took their eye off the ball or money was too big a temptation.
Hurtigruten do act as ferry company in coastal areas I believe. Perhaps they confused the two offerings.
Ferry companies have still been operating, and I have not read or heard of any problems with UK based ones. I realise that passengers are not in contact with the crew members for very long, but If there had been any incident of a crew member getting covid then I would have expected it to be all over rhe media.
You were the one who suggested they might get off, and therefore should be tested.!!!!
I did indeed suggest that they might get off but then realised that they need not get off at all, at no stage did I suggest that they would be tested at every Port .... that was your idea .
I will let you have the word Moby, but only because of your Modplod status.
Don't let that stop you John. Give him both barrels......said Onelife
Ferry companies have still been operating, and I have not read or heard of any problems with UK based ones. I realise that passengers are not in contact with the crew members for very long, but If there had been any incident of a crew member getting covid then I would have expected it to be all over rhe media.
Ferry Operators from Poole to France require one to book a cabin for one and to take one's own food.
I've been mulling over the next round of Covid, because for sure there will be one.
There was a suggestion that in any future lockdown only over 50s might be affected. I understand that idea has been dropped.
However, looking at the death stats it would not be entirely bonkers if such an idea were to be adopted with a cut off at 60.
Based on hospital deaths with a positive Covid test, the current total is 29,630. Of that number only 2512 were under 60. Only 232 under 40. So there is a strong argument that the risk to the under 60s is much lower. Also the older age group are probably less adversely affected by lockdown. I know it was weird but to be honest we didn't find it difficult. And it would have been less so had the younger people still been at work keeping the economy going and the kids still at school.
I know the hospital deaths aren't the full picture but a big chunk of the outside hospital deaths are in care homes, so the age factor will likely be even wider.
So maybe for the sake of the economy the younger generations have to take the smaller risk of being at work (excepting only those with proven higher risk from pre-existing conditions) while us crumblies accept we have to lockdown and distance in round 2.
Ferry companies have still been operating, and I have not read or heard of any problems with UK based ones. I realise that passengers are not in contact with the crew members for very long, but If there had been any incident of a crew member getting covid then I would have expected it to be all over rhe media.
Ferry Operators from Poole to France require one to book a cabin for one and to take one's own food.
I believe the better cruise operators offer that facility too
Ferry companies have still been operating, and I have not read or heard of any problems with UK based ones. I realise that passengers are not in contact with the crew members for very long, but If there had been any incident of a crew member getting covid then I would have expected it to be all over rhe media.
Ferry Operators from Poole to France require one to book a cabin for one and to take one's own food.
I believe the better cruise operators offer that facility too
Indeed they do but unlike the Ferry Operators they let you out of it
I've been mulling over the next round of Covid, because for sure there will be one.
There was a suggestion that in any future lockdown only over 50s might be affected. I understand that idea has been dropped.
However, looking at the death stats it would not be entirely bonkers if such an idea were to be adopted with a cut off at 60.
Based on hospital deaths with a positive Covid test, the current total is 29,630. Of that number only 2512 were under 60. Only 232 under 40. So there is a strong argument that the risk to the under 60s is much lower. Also the older age group are probably less adversely affected by lockdown. I know it was weird but to be honest we didn't find it difficult. And it would have been less so had the younger people still been at work keeping the economy going and the kids still at school.
I know the hospital deaths aren't the full picture but a big chunk of the outside hospital deaths are in care homes, so the age factor will likely be even wider.
So maybe for the sake of the economy the younger generations have to take the smaller risk of being at work (excepting only those with proven higher risk from pre-existing conditions) while us crumblies accept we have to lockdown and distance in round 2.
Don hard hat and PPE. Stand back.
I’ve been saying this for weeks Merv.
The only solution is a two tier system with the old folk and sick folk basically staying in as much as possible.
The youngsters can then get on with their lives.
I doesn’t seem fair to ask twenty year olds to isolate to protect seventy year olds.
I've been mulling over the next round of Covid, because for sure there will be one.
There was a suggestion that in any future lockdown only over 50s might be affected. I understand that idea has been dropped.
However, looking at the death stats it would not be entirely bonkers if such an idea were to be adopted with a cut off at 60.
Based on hospital deaths with a positive Covid test, the current total is 29,630. Of that number only 2512 were under 60. Only 232 under 40. So there is a strong argument that the risk to the under 60s is much lower. Also the older age group are probably less adversely affected by lockdown. I know it was weird but to be honest we didn't find it difficult. And it would have been less so had the younger people still been at work keeping the economy going and the kids still at school.
I know the hospital deaths aren't the full picture but a big chunk of the outside hospital deaths are in care homes, so the age factor will likely be even wider.
So maybe for the sake of the economy the younger generations have to take the smaller risk of being at work (excepting only those with proven higher risk from pre-existing conditions) while us crumblies accept we have to lockdown and distance in round 2.
Don hard hat and PPE. Stand back.
I’ve been saying this for weeks Merv.
The only solution is a two tier system with the old folk and sick folk basically staying in as much as possible.
The youngsters can then get on with their lives.
I doesn’t seem fair to ask twenty year olds to isolate to protect seventy year olds.
That sounds like a possible way out of the current stop start system, but then covid will run wild for a time, and the likely hospital admissions, ICU and ventilator requirements could well exceed the last peak once everyone else gets the disease. Then of course unless we have a successful vaccine, us oldies will still need to self isolate. So maybe we need to get back to the drawing board.
I've been mulling over the next round of Covid, because for sure there will be one.
There was a suggestion that in any future lockdown only over 50s might be affected. I understand that idea has been dropped.
However, looking at the death stats it would not be entirely bonkers if such an idea were to be adopted with a cut off at 60.
Based on hospital deaths with a positive Covid test, the current total is 29,630. Of that number only 2512 were under 60. Only 232 under 40. So there is a strong argument that the risk to the under 60s is much lower. Also the older age group are probably less adversely affected by lockdown. I know it was weird but to be honest we didn't find it difficult. And it would have been less so had the younger people still been at work keeping the economy going and the kids still at school.
I know the hospital deaths aren't the full picture but a big chunk of the outside hospital deaths are in care homes, so the age factor will likely be even wider.
So maybe for the sake of the economy the younger generations have to take the smaller risk of being at work (excepting only those with proven higher risk from pre-existing conditions) while us crumblies accept we have to lockdown and distance in round 2.
Don hard hat and PPE. Stand back.
I’ve been saying this for weeks Merv.
The only solution is a two tier system with the old folk and sick folk basically staying in as much as possible.
The youngsters can then get on with their lives.
I doesn’t seem fair to ask twenty year olds to isolate to protect seventy year olds.
That sounds like a possible way out of the current stop start system, but then covid will run wild for a time, and the likely hospital admissions, ICU and ventilator requirements could well exceed the last peak once everyone else gets the disease. Then of course unless we have a successful vaccine, us oldies will still need to self isolate. So maybe we need to get back to the drawing board.
Except if deaths are low among the young presumably so are hospital admissions. But even they could be sensible. I'm advocating back to work. Not back to pub crawls and night clubbing.
But controversially on a related topic if it's a choice between schools and pubs open, as others are saying, my vote is schools. Home drinking is easier than home schooling and schools are essential to getting people back to work.
But controversially on a related topic if it's a choice between schools and pubs open, as others are saying, my vote is schools. Home drinking is easier than home schooling and schools are essential to getting people back to work.
The probleMerv is that only a tiny fraction of the population have been exposed to the virus so far. Even though under 60s deaths and hospitalizations have been a low percentage up to now, once you relax and everyone goes back to work, that same percentage is going to be many thousands, and hospitals will be back under pressure.
The evidence shows that won’t happen John.
The vast majority of young people have either no symptoms or a very mild infection.
There is the odd one who is badly affected but it’s a bit much to ask the population to lockdown to save the few.
My son went to his office today at Kent Police because they were interviewing second round after the initial on line interviews.
It was his first time in since March,
He said it was like a ghost town and home working has been so successful that the Police Headquarters have decided to sell the entire site for development and continue with most working remotely.
So there will be no Police Headquarters in Kent and Essex are doing the same.
Dreadful. Clearly big mistake storing the explosive stuff badly but I wonder whether setting it off was an accident or deliberate. Makes our problems seem very minor.
The views and comments posted in these fora are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the Management of Cruise Community Forum.
The Management of the Cruise Community Forum does not, under any circumstances whatsoever, accept any responsibility for any advice, or recommendations, made by, or implied by, any member or guest visitor of Cruise Community Forum that results in any loss whatsoever in any manner to a member of Cruise Community Forum, or to any other person.
Furthermore, the Management of Cruise Community Forum is not, and cannot be, responsible for the content of any other Internet site(s) that have been linked to from Cruise Community Forum.
.
