Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > People > Chit - Chat for Cruisers
Register Forgot Password?

Chit - Chat for Cruisers Open Forum for non-cruise posts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric that could be considered offensive. We reserve the right to edit or delete for any reason.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,524
Default Are you changing plans because of the Swine Flu in Mexico?

I copied and pasted this from the Royal Caribbean forum. Actually the question could include "....or anywhere?"

I'd be interested to hear if anyone is changing their plans to cruise Western Caribbean itin's that make ports of call in Mexico?

I know airlines are allowing passengers to cancel without penalty. Are any of the cruiselines offering similar protection or are they even yet at that point?

Finally, if you do cruise, do you intend to dismbark at Mexican ports?

Todd
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 12:01 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default Re: Are you changing plans because of the Swine Flu in Mexic

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddDH
I copied and pasted this from the Royal Caribbean forum. Actually the question could include "....or anywhere?"

I'd be interested to hear if anyone is changing their plans to cruise Western Caribbean itin's that make ports of call in Mexico?

I know airlines are allowing passengers to cancel without penalty. Are any of the cruiselines offering similar protection or are they even yet at that point?

Finally, if you do cruise, do you intend to dismbark at Mexican ports?

Todd
I also posted a thread on this on the general cruise topics board. I just had a physician friend who cancelled an all inclusive in Mexico -- he was to leave today. This is very scary stuff -- an amalgamation of 2 swine, one human, and one avian flu virus. Never before seen, and attacking those in the mid age range most severally -- 20-40's, the healthiest, not the young and old like with seasonal flu.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 12:48 PM
2Littletime's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 584
Default

We had been considering an all inclusive last minute trip to Mexico just to break up the stress of normal life. We have cancelled these plans now. There are too many places to see in the world to take the chance.

We've noticed rock bottom prices on Mexican travel and I expect this will continue. My eldest daughter thinks that I'm crazy to pass up the deals, but of course she is 18 and still suffering from invincibility. Even if we had already booked, we'd have cancelled. Better safe than sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 03:10 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,850
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

This brings up my point. In the long run this may be a boon for cruise ships. Mark Haines in CNBC said it this morning, "I would think the middle of the ocean would be a great place to be if there is a pandemic going on." (paraphrased of course).

I completely understand cancelling an all-inclsive on the Mexico mainland, but cruises are really different. The lines may lose some shore excursion money, but my gut tells me cruises to Mexico will go on.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 04:54 PM
Bobby_G's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Knox TN
Posts: 1,356
Default

Carnival and RCL stocks took a dive today.
__________________
Bob

Valor 2008
Triumph 2006
Fantasy 2004
Pride 2002
Imperial Maj 2001
Carnivalle 1994
Couple forgotten
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,850
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Yes, the stocks took a dive, and when they rebound it will probably happen quickly (as long as the overall market is still generally higher).
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 05:33 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
This brings up my point. In the long run this may be a boon for cruise ships. Mark Haines in CNBC said it this morning, "I would think the middle of the ocean would be a great place to be if there is a pandemic going on." (paraphrased of course).

I completely understand cancelling an all-inclsive on the Mexico mainland, but cruises are really different. The lines may lose some shore excursion money, but my gut tells me cruises to Mexico will go on.
Being on the high seas would be a safe place, but not porting, would not appeal to many, plus, if the stuff is on the ship, it would be a bad place -- too many confined in too little space, and a lack of adequate medical care if the whole ship gets sick. I think Haines is an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 06:01 PM
Delft's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,790
Default

I dont see a point of going on a cruise with Mxican itinerary if I cannot stop off there. I dont go on cruises because we like the ships that much. We go for the change of staying in one place for a week, but we always book port intensive cruises because we dont much like sea days that much.
__________________
"If your number one goal is to make sure that everyone likes and approves of you, then you risk sacrificing your uniqueness and, therefore, your excellence."
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

This is very frightening! I had a sense that we were not getting the whole truth -- read the comments to this story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/8018428.stm
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,850
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Okay - Lets look at this logically. First of all, ships ARE safer when they port than airplanes going to big public airports or hotels with staff coming back & forth from the general population.

Now - hotels are still safer than airports because they can be fairly isolated. Such resort areas are where most cruise ships dock. so a ship a still an extra step ahead in safety from a hotel - Haines is not such an idiot.

Now - "if" a cruise does get an infection in fact they ARE much better prepared to deal with it. how many hotels or airports have infirmaries and one doctor for every few thousand guests? Ships are far more capable of dealing with an outbreak than other travel options.

As far as not seeing the point of going on a cruise if you can't get off in port - you still can get off if you want and you are not taking any MORE risk than if you flew in and stayed at a hotel. In fact, you are taking less risk and yet still seeing the ports if you choose to. Seeing the ports is a relative risk no matter what.

In both your cases you are comparing the relative safety of a cruise to not going at all. That is not the point. If you choose to go you will be safer if you take a cruise than any other option except staying home.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Delft's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,790
Default

But you see Paul, I wouldnt go there now even to stay in a hotel. The risk is higher and it is one I am not willing to take, I and many other as even airlines are allowing people to cancel trips at no charge till this is over.

And it will be over again, there is no doubt about that. I would not go on a cruise to Mexico as I would not go off the ship at this time, since I dont go on cruises for the ships, or to stay on a ship, I would cancel the trip. I go on a cruise for the purpose of getting off the ship, I find the ship for me personally boring during the day, a couple of days OK, but more than that and I am wanting to get off and do something differant. We are all differant that way. I was in Mexico last year for a week and we were on the go non stop, thats the way I am, I like to see and do as much as possible.

A cruise is nice, but in my view and in my eyes and expierience, I dont put a cruise vacation on a higher level than land trip. As a matter a fact, I probably prefere land trips and have taken far more of them. A cruise for us is something differant to see many things in a short time and for a change. It's just something differant, and life is about trying new things. So, if I couldnt get off as the risk for something like this was much higher for a short tim, then no, I would not go. Others will, to each his /her own.
__________________
"If your number one goal is to make sure that everyone likes and approves of you, then you risk sacrificing your uniqueness and, therefore, your excellence."
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 07:17 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,524
Default

Jaxon,

I'm retired so have been following this story since it was first reported. I do not know what you mean when you said you "had a sense that we were not getting the whole truth" followed by a BBC link.

I read the link and found nothing of substance I didn't know yesterday and the information I receive is home grown. the only thing that was presented was that medical people in Mexico stated they were not prepared. Let's be fair, is anyone really surprised at such a revelation?

While anything is possible, in the last swine flu outbreak in the seventies in the United States there were a some deaths but it turned out most of them were the result of a hastily manufactured vaccine.

Of course it's too early to tell BUT has anyone bothered to notice that so far those people who have been diagnosed in this country with swine flu have as yet anyway, to become even seriously ill (only one as yet has even sought treatment at a hospital), as yet there are no fatalities and many who were infected have already recovered!

The government issued an advisory warning about all but necessary travel to at least parts of Mexico if not the whole country.

Talk about ridiculous, six countries have stopped importing MEAT from this country!!! Anyone with an ounce of education, common sense and access to an internet knows that one does not contract swine flu from eating pork, much less BEEF! Says a lot about the competency of government in Russia and some other places, now doesn't it?

Now that the bird is out of the cage, so to speak and all cruise lines are I am sure, taking adequate precautions as I write this, I have to concur with Paul that a cruise ship probably would be one of the safer places to be were one to come down with the disease. It sure would beat finding oneself in an airport in a foreign city located in either a third world or relatively backward country.

As a matter of fact, there are still only approximately [/i]twenty CONFIRMED deaths in the very country where the disease first apparently spawned!

One should not minimize the danger and be cognizant of developments, but it is hardly the time to panic.

Todd
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,850
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

So, the point is that we really aren't disagreeing about anything - it just sounds like we are.

I agree with you, the destinations are a big part of the cruise experience, but not for most people who are fine with days at sea.

But since we are couching this discussions in terms of relative options, let's look at it this way, if you already have a cruise booked and paid for, would you choose not to go and lose the money because you think a ship is not safe enough, or would you go anyway? I would go.

Now, as far as to whether I decided to get off I think I would play it by ear beased on where things head in the near future. I think we don't really know enough about this flu yet.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddDH
Jaxon,

I'm retired so have been following this story since it was first reported. I do not know what you mean when you said you "had a sense that we were not getting the whole truth" followed by a BBC link.

I read the link and found nothing of substance I didn't know yesterday and the information I receive is home grown. the only thing that was presented was that medical people in Mexico stated they were not prepared. Let's be fair, is anyone really surprised at such a revelation?

While anything is possible, in the last swine flu outbreak in the seventies in the United States there were a some deaths but it turned out most of them were the result of a hastily manufactured vaccine.

Of course it's too early to tell BUT has anyone bothered to notice that so far those people who have been diagnosed in this country with swine flu have as yet anyway, to become even seriously ill (only one as yet has even sought treatment at a hospital), as yet there are no fatalities and many who were infected have already recovered!

The government issued an advisory warning about all but necessary travel to at least parts of Mexico if not the whole country.

Talk about ridiculous, six countries have stopped importing MEAT from this country!!! Anyone with an ounce of education, common sense and access to an internet knows that one does not contract swine flu from eating pork, much less BEEF! Says a lot about the competency of government in Russia and some other places, now doesn't it?

Now that the bird is out of the cage, so to speak and all cruise lines are I am sure, taking adequate precautions as I write this, I have to concur with Paul that a cruise ship probably would be one of the safer places to be were one to come down with the disease. It sure would beat finding oneself in an airport in a foreign city located in either a third world or relatively backward country.

As a matter of fact, there are still only approximately [/i]twenty CONFIRMED deaths in the very country where the disease first apparently spawned!

One should not minimize the danger and be cognizant of developments, but it is hardly the time to panic.

Todd
I was taken by the medical professional who said (paraphrasing) they say there are 20 dead, we've had 200. I was taken by the medical professional saying the hospitals are in chaos, with doctors thinking of leaving, taking a holiday. I was taken by the two interns who have died and the professional saying the anti-virals aren't working or the vaccines. Now, I don't know what vaccine they might be using, maybe avian, since there is none for this flu. And I do not not know if the anti-virals were properly stored etc, but they are not going to be much of a use against cytokine storm, as I understand that, and I do believe that is what is going on.

From what I have read, one can have a lesser impact from building immunities over various types and times of flu outbreak, so the poster who said there is less flu generally in areas without freeze/thaw, might account for the severity there (less likely to have the hyper reactive immune malady of cytokine storm if you have had some flu exposure). Numbers are running around 6% deaths of those affected; that is high.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 09:43 PM
blueliner's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 1,176
Default

I don't put a lot of stock in internet story comments. You don't know who these people really are. There are a lot of people out there that see this as an opportunity to spread fear and panic for fun. These are the same people that write viruses, spyware and malware just to do evil. They will post comments just to satisfy their own sick intentions. If these people were real medical professionals in the middle of this crisis, do you think they have time to comment and blog on the internet?
__________________
Scott

Majesty of the Seas - 10/03 & 02/07 & 11/08
Enchantment of the Seas - 10/04 & 10/11
Mariner of the Seas - 10/05
Vision of the Seas - 10/06 & 09/07
Carnival Liberty - 10/07
Adventure of the Seas - 9/08
Ruby Princess - 12/09
Voyager of the Seas - 9/10
Carnival Spirit - 11/10
Oasis of the Seas - 9/13
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 10:02 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
Okay - Lets look at this logically. First of all, ships ARE safer when they port than airplanes going to big public airports or hotels with staff coming back & forth from the general population.

Now - hotels are still safer than airports because they can be fairly isolated. Such resort areas are where most cruise ships dock. so a ship a still an extra step ahead in safety from a hotel - Haines is not such an idiot.

Now - "if" a cruise does get an infection in fact they ARE much better prepared to deal with it. how many hotels or airports have infirmaries and one doctor for every few thousand guests? Ships are far more capable of dealing with an outbreak than other travel options.

As far as not seeing the point of going on a cruise if you can't get off in port - you still can get off if you want and you are not taking any MORE risk than if you flew in and stayed at a hotel. In fact, you are taking less risk and yet still seeing the ports if you choose to. Seeing the ports is a relative risk no matter what.

In both your cases you are comparing the relative safety of a cruise to not going at all. That is not the point. If you choose to go you will be safer if you take a cruise than any other option except staying home.
huh? I am not buying this. If I am in a port, and going into town (mind you I have never been to the Mexican Riviera), I am among the general populace just as I am at an airport. In fact, I am more likely to be closer to them, shaking hands, eating a meal, handling merchandise, exchanging money, than I am traversing an airport to get my bag (a lay over might be different). Crew from the ship are also going off and coming back on, just like staff at a hotel, although they don't live in the port; but just like hotel staff, they can carry a virus back. If I get sick at a major airport or in a well located hotel, I am an ambulance ride away from a hospital -- in the middle of the sea?

Like the other poster said, it is not between a cruise to Mexico or an all inclusive in Mexico -- it's not traveling to Mexico right now, at all. I would not take the cruise and stay on board, even, because there could be exposure to the virus from those who did go ashore. You are evidently communicable even before you get symptoms. When the government is saying no non-essential travel, that means vacations, to me.

Just think of norovirus -- spreads fast in ships, nursing homes, schools, places of confined, dense population. Why would the NorthAmerican flu virus be any different? (an international health agency has suggested a change in name because the swine flu is not accurate, suggesting it be renamed after place of origin, like the Spanish and Asian flu)

As a polio survivor, I may be more guarded than others.

Remember that guy a year or so ago who went to Europe on his honeymoon when the cdc was saying no, and then he flew back when he found out he had some really virulent form of tb, or something? Wasn't he getting sued? Exposed all those fellow travelers on the planes that had to be tracked down? There is an obligation to others which should be considered if people choose to travel against government advice.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 10:27 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 253
Default

And yet you will all go on a ship and risk Norovirus. That to me is far worse than an all inclusive where you really are not that closely involved with other travellers. Doesn;t make sense to me
JennC
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 11:02 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 222
Default

Well.....I have a cruise booked on the Mariner of the Seas departing May 10th. And yes I am going, unless RCI cancels the cruise. As far as getting off at the ports, I will play it by ear as to how grave the situation is. I love sea days and if we have to stay aboard the entire cruise it wouldn't bother me at all. Living in So. Calif. I have been to Mexio many times and I actually booked this cruise because of the ship.
Am I worried? Maybe just a tad, but not enough to cancel my cruise.
__________________
Roberta
Century Dec 2003 Western Caribbean
Century Nov 2004 Eastern Caribbean
Monarch of the Seas Jan. 2005 Baja Calif.
NCL Dream Nov. 2005 Western Caribbean
Monarch of the Seas Mar 2006 Baja Calif.
NCL Star Oct. 2006 Mexican Riviera
NCL Pearl Nov. 2007 Southern Caribbean
Mariner of the Seas May 2009 Pacific Coastal
Mariner of the Seas June 2009 Mexican Riviera
RCI Radiance of the Seas
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old April 27th, 2009, 11:08 PM
blueliner's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jennc
And yet you will all go on a ship and risk Norovirus. That to me is far worse than an all inclusive where you really are not that closely involved with other travellers. Doesn;t make sense to me
JennC
There is risk in every vacation, and in life. The question is how much a risk and what you can do to reduse the risk to yourself. I am home now recovering from the norovirus, and I haven't been on a cruise ship in 5 months. The norovirus is NOT just a cruise ship virus. If you're that scared of it, then don't cruise. Compared to the 13 million Americans that cruise every year, the number of people that actually catch the norovirus onboard is very very small. I have no idea where I caught it, but i'm not going to stop being an active member of my community and visiting restaurants and stores (after I fully recover of course). And I'm certainly going to continue cruising and do my best to minimize the risks of catching the norovirus by taking common sense precautions, both here at home and while cruising. I choose not to let fear dictate my life or my vacations, but rather to take precautions and minimize risks of infection and continue to live my life and vacation as I want to.
__________________
Scott

Majesty of the Seas - 10/03 & 02/07 & 11/08
Enchantment of the Seas - 10/04 & 10/11
Mariner of the Seas - 10/05
Vision of the Seas - 10/06 & 09/07
Carnival Liberty - 10/07
Adventure of the Seas - 9/08
Ruby Princess - 12/09
Voyager of the Seas - 9/10
Carnival Spirit - 11/10
Oasis of the Seas - 9/13
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 12:47 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,524
Default

JennC,

Here is exactly what Blueliner is saying and you'll understand why he (nor I for that matter) probably don't comprehend someone being afraid of cruising because of the Noro (or to put it more correctly, the Norwalk) virus; the second most prolific virus in the United States.'

Last year, less than 2,700 cases of Norovirus were reported on cruiseships. Yet in this country alone, more than THIRTEEN MILLION passengers cruised during the same period!

Inasmuch as your chances of contracting the flu, norovirus etc., in your local mall is far far greater than on a cruise ship, does that mean you didn't go Mall shopping last year for fear of getting sick?

As you can well see, Refusing to cruise simply because one is afraid of contracting the Norovirus even though they lead normal lives on land and after educating themselfes to that particular issue, has reached a conclusion virtually totally unsupported by the facts.

I, like blueliner, would never cancel a cruise due to the Norovirus.

Todd
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 01:28 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueliner
I don't put a lot of stock in internet story comments. You don't know who these people really are. There are a lot of people out there that see this as an opportunity to spread fear and panic for fun. These are the same people that write viruses, spyware and malware just to do evil. They will post comments just to satisfy their own sick intentions. If these people were real medical professionals in the middle of this crisis, do you think they have time to comment and blog on the internet?
True, of course, we don't know who these people are, so I can't argue with taking their words with a grain of salt. But there are many times, in totalitarian governments, not exactly Mexico, when the only way they can let the world know what is going on is through the net. I have always put more credence in the BBC than I would some outlets.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 07:45 AM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: nashville tn area
Posts: 117
Default

Even though a couple months out, I still plan on taking my cruise. True, the World Health Organization raised the alert level to Phase 4, meaning there is sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus causing outbreaks in at least one country. However, this is just another story that I will continue to monitor. I never let a rainy day ruin my plans!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 03:03 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Todd,

You might be interested in these two articles. I found the theories fascinating.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_191408.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...utbreak-source

I had read two articles about the 4 yr old in Veracruz before the guardian article.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30442914 article on the importance of social distancing in disease outbreaks -- keeping 6 to 3 feet away from others -- hard to do on a cruise ship, and probably why norovirus spreads easily on ship.

Breaking news out of California -- state of emergency called? Possible deaths?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 03:32 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 253
Default

Hi
I didn't mean that I wouldn't cruise in case I contacted Norovirus. What I meant was that for all of the fuss over this Flu, you stand the same chance of getting "it" as you would getting Norovirus on a ship so why the big "to do" now.

You can get sick from flying, going on a train, subway, bus or any other place that you come into contact with people.

You can't live your life in fear of "catching something" or you would be better living in a bubble.

JennC
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jennc
Hi
I didn't mean that I wouldn't cruise in case I contacted Norovirus. What I meant was that for all of the fuss over this Flu, you stand the same chance of getting "it" as you would getting Norovirus on a ship so why the big "to do" now.

You can get sick from flying, going on a train, subway, bus or any other place that you come into contact with people.

You can't live your life in fear of "catching something" or you would be better living in a bubble.

JennC
Of course, you are right, but this isn't any old flu. It has never been seen before in the configuration -- 2 swine (one Euroasian), one human, and one avian. No vaccine, and cytokine storm evidently figuring in ( you may want to google that) and resulting in the deaths of otherwise healthy adults.

The 1918 flu which also took young adults resulted in 50 million deaths world wide -- 15,000 in Philadelphia, alone -- it also targeted the young adult population, thus the big fears and precautions. The cytokine storm concept was first written about in medical journals in 1993, but it is thought that is what happened in 1918.

Too much is unknown right now -- we may be ok as we have had exposure to many kinds of flu and that may be the reason why we are not seeing the deaths here (although we are waiting for the coronor report out of California where two deaths are suspected). We may have some immunity that keeps the disease in a mild form, or the virus can be weakening.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,524
Default

Jaxon,

There may be some merit to both articles, I don't know. While this is only my opinion, I find the association of the term "Journalist" with "Huffington Post" an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

If the swine flu epidemic originated with the little boy, I for one would be interested to know if there were any pig factories in that immediate vicinity.

While absolutely a lot of negative happenings have been caused by industry, I always am EXTREMELY leery when so much stuff is at least, initially blamed on "Big Bad American Industry" or on the Americans themselves, such as blaming the US for a lot of the Global warming while no one mentions a word about China and India who are ten times worse.

I chuckle when I recall I used to say instead of propping up right wing governments in Central and South America in the fifties and sixties, we would have been better served by building up industry in those countries. Even had we done that, I know that today we'd be villified as responsbile for "poisoning" the citizens of Central and South America!

Take the global warming theory. Although this periodical too leans to one side, I nevertheless read faithfully what I consider the finest not to mention the most balanced, news magazine around, relatively new The Week. The Week publishes stuff from the world's best and most respected columnists and journalists. Though it does lean to the left, because it is so professional, I wasn't surprised to read an excellent article that instead of a global warming trend, the exact opposite may be occurring. I remember reading about six months ago that sunspots and eruptions were going to be very bad this year. The problem is, there haven't been...and here's the magic word here...ANY and there evidently hasn't been for everal months. If this continues, the experts say this may well presage a drastic climate change to the opposite of what so many today believe. They stress they don't yet know but to those who study such things, they are really starting to think the opposite of global warming may indeed be occurring.

The point I'm trying to convey with all this is simply, we don't know! Pandemics have been with us since the beginning of population growth on this planet. People forget that over SEVENTY MILLION people around the globe died from the Flu in 1918. Conversely, the last swine flu that some declared would eradicate the human race killed one individual while the "anti-virus" killed far more.

I for one would not be surprised if this swine flu turns out to be serious but nowhere near as serious as some would lead you to believe. I hope I'm right if for admittedly partly selfish reasons. While I too have a few health problems which may book paid to my account if I were to contract this new swine flu, I am most worried about my wife who has a very suppressed immune system as a result of cancer.

Todd
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 366
Default

Todd,

Did you actually read the articles? Esp the Guardian piece? If so I don't know how you could have asked this? "If the swine flu epidemic originated with the little boy, I for one would be interested to know if there were any pig factories in that immediate vicinity"

I'm pretty sure I linked the right articles, but maybe I'd better double check. Ok, the link was accurate. The veratect timeline mentioned in the Guardian story regarding the outbreak, the deaths, the hordes of flies from the Smithfiled's pig farm (the same out fit which paid mega fines for pollution flowing into the Chesapeak Bay), the fly spraying ...

http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/b...of-events.html
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old April 28th, 2009, 11:19 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,850
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Cruisefever (appropriate name) wrote

Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzfever
Well.....I have a cruise booked on the Mariner of the Seas departing May 10th. And yes I am going, unless RCI cancels the cruise. As far as getting off at the ports, I will play it by ear as to how grave the situation is. I love sea days and if we have to stay aboard the entire cruise it wouldn't bother me at all. Living in So. Calif. I have been to Mexico many times and I actually booked this cruise because of the ship.
Am I worried? Maybe just a tad, but not enough to cancel my cruise.
I am also scheduled on a cruise stopping in Acapulco in 2 weeks, and no way would I cancel even though I know some people will be getting off and going ashore. Like you, I HAVE been to the Mexican Riviera, and Jaxon, even if you don't believe me, it is true for ports like Puerto Vallarta and Cabo that they let you off in tourist areas that are basically isolated. Have you ever been to Labadee in Haiti?

Mexico is a country where you can't even drink the water or you get sick - except in resorts. They have prefected making certain parts in Mexico palatable to Gringos. That is one of my main arguments for NOT cancelling Mexico cruises. That is where many ships go.

Now granted, not all ports are that way, and some people still go to the general population. So, keeping that in mind my argument all along was "wait for the professionals to figure out more about this, and then let the cruise lines decide what to do" At that point if you don't want to go to Mexico then don't go. But don't lobby to have my cruise cancelled just because you don't cruise ships going there.

You may be thinking "But I don't want you to go there because you might bring something back and infect me." So, I guess you are also for closing the borders and all air flights to Mexico, too? In my opinion there is far more potential for spreading the virus that way than from a cruise ship.

They say cruises are "non-essential travel." So what is essential travel? Isn't it essential not to lose the $1000s of dollars you have already paid for a cruise? Should the cruise lines absorb that loss? Maybe, but that is a very serious predicament that would costs them 10s of Millions of $$$ and jobs and income for 1000s of people in the cruise industry. if you are going to go down that road, you better be sure it was the right decision.

My goal is to stop people who are jumping to conclusions and calling for the cruise lines not to sail to Mexico before we know there is a crisis.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old April 29th, 2009, 12:37 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,524
Default

Jaxon,

Yes I read the articles. Considering the alleged means of transmission, by immediate, I meant within one or two miles, not twelve. I don't consider twelve miles from the site a reasonable distance if the disease were carried by flies UNLESS someone explains to me why cases didn't blanket a twelve mile area completely surrounding the pig farm. If the outbreak is as a result of the pig farm, why wouldn't the disease be associated with pig farms in general? Or is this just the "perfect storm" pig farm?

It's all really conjecture simply because the issue is not substantiated by the facts, to wit: it is not even known if swine flu can be carried by flies! The crux of the matter appears to lie in the root of all evil, that big bad American industrialist who was fined in the US for not properly disposing of pig waste in this country. Is it at all possible that this could have evolved to create the problem? That is a possibility but an extremely dim one. At this point anything's possible, but there better be a hell of a lot evidence to convince a fair minded person and there is not one iota of evidence to prove what the author of the article is suggesting. Thus far the hypothesis advanced in the article is nothing more than a wild guess.

Pig farms all over the world are operated in much the same or even a worse manner. All of which begs the question, Why hasn't it happened elsewhere and what is so unique about this small area that would cause incubation of all the other strains with the hog?

To even suggest at this point such a reason. is tantamount to blaming the English farmers for Mad Cow disease, which as it turned out. was a result of feed mixtures.

In essence then what does the article suggest? Simply that the flu has elements that trace part of it to swine ........ and swine are found virtually anywhere on the globe.

I now invite you to re read the fourth paragraph of my last reply.

Todd
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old April 29th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,850
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

I have an email that says because the virus is part avian, part swine and part human that THAT combination never occurs in nature, but it does only occur when big pharmas are trying to create an omni-vaccine.

So, the theory is some company was testing a new vaccine on Mexicans and it went horribly wrong!

What??
What's wrong?
Why are you looking at me?
Didn't you see "I am Legend" man?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swine Flu-Ships Cancelling Calling in Mexico Parrot Mom Mexico 7 March 10th, 2010 09:53 AM
swine flu jaxon All Things Cruising 13 July 13th, 2009 11:46 PM
Swine flu optize Carnival Cruise Lines 136 May 4th, 2009 10:49 PM
Are you changing plans because of Swine Flu in Mexico? ToddDH Royal Caribbean International 62 May 4th, 2009 08:53 PM
SWINE FLU POLL - CONFIRMED CASES in MEXICO Paul Motter Chit - Chat for Cruisers 4 May 2nd, 2009 03:55 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1