Can the Cruise Industry survive ?

[Hippocampus]

You folks seem to be arguing about the difference between
Absolute death rate
Attributable death rate
Direct death rate.

Person gets sick from X and dies . Death directly due to X.
Person is sole bread winner, hunter, farmer etc. he/she dies. Rest of family dies due to starvation.
Person dies while infected by X but cause of death not related to X.Murdered by ex girlfriend.

Please distinguish between these modes of counting deaths in your thinking and posts.

If the death rate in an age matched and risk factor matched control group is noticeably different than a identical population on a cruise ship over the same period of time you can reasonably infer there’s possibly a statistically significant difference. Then you can say being on a cruise ship has an attributable risk of the difference in absolute death rates of the two groups. Usually one wants it to be different enough that the probability of the difference is less than one chance in twenty by convention before making a statement like cruise ships are dangerous to your health.
I think cruise ships are dangerous to the health of the planet and your health. I do not know this to be true.
I also don’t know if gluttony and chronic intoxication cause an increase death rate during a cruise and after disembarking but again suspect but don’t know if this is true.

[backinblue]

Ben, I got your point from the beginning and agree with you in terms of a safe form of travel, meaning you are not likely to need a life perserver or lifeboat. Others have broadened the safety issue to include all risks such as disease which unfortunately is worth considering for a cruise.

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

No...I really don't. I think you are safer on a cruise ship than in your car, house, or office building. This is not hyperbole or exageration. The vast majority of cruise ship deaths are from falling over board. If you have ever been on a cruise ship you would know you have to try really hard to fall overboard. No one does it accidentally or without gross stupidity.

On a large cruise ship they are built so as to make nearly impossible to accidentally go over the side. With a balcony it is a long walk to going over the side.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

... I am not sure if the comminication breakdown was in the transmission, reception or both, but I give up.

You're right. It's a losing cause. People simply haven't evolved an understanding of statistics. Our approach to risk is more suited to the plains of the Serengeti than to making decisions like which mode of travel, where to vacation, or whether or not to play slot machines or the lottery.

Neil Degrasse Tyson tells a story about a physicists' convention for for which they had to find another venue on short notice. A Las Vegas hotel was available. The following week, there was a headline "Casino reports lowest take ever." The moral of the story is that people trained in statistical analysis aren't good customers for a casino.

[backinblue]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

You're right. It's a losing cause. People simply haven't evolved an understanding of statistics. Our approach to risk is more suited to the plains of the Serengeti than to making decisions like which mode of travel, where to vacation, or whether or not to play slot machines or the lottery.

Neil Degrasse Tyson tells a story about a physicists' convention for for which they had to find another venue on short notice. A Las Vegas hotel was available. The following week, there was a headline "Casino reports lowest take ever." The moral of the story is that people trained in statistical analysis aren't good customers for a casino.

Or maybe the moral of the story is that physicists are not much fun! Most people gambling are doing so for fun, not because they expect to make money. Like most statistics, they can be tailored to support whatever your point of view is.

[Hippocampus]

You're right. It's a losing cause. People simply haven't evolved an understanding of statistics. Our approach to risk is more suited to the plains of the Serengeti than to making decisions like which mode of travel, where to vacation, or whether or not to play slot machines or the lottery.

A perfect statement. Same with mass shootings. People focus on this risk when they are in a venue or supermarket. More likely to be shot by a household member or walking on the street. Neurologically we are wired to focus on the emotionally perceived risk rather than on the relative risk which logic says we should.

“Relative risk is a ratio of the probability of an event occurring in the exposed group versus the probability of the event occurring in the non-exposed group. “

Logic tells you what you want to know is what’s your risk going on a cruise ship cruise versus not going and doing something else. To define that relative risk you need to know the risk of “doing something else “. If your something else is skydiving or ice climbing maybe the cruise ship is safer.

Disraeli said “lies, lies and statistics.”In the political press perhaps there’s cherry picking. but even then if you understand the statistics and whether the methodology is good you can parse out the validity. Think when people look at science or statistics they may not realize there’s no black and white. Science is based on the null hypothesis and gives you a probability. We accept that probability isn’t due to chance alone. That probability varies widely in biology often accept one out twenty chance it’s not due to chance alone. In engineering could be as high as one in a million not due to chance a lone. But it’s never zero chance it’s not chance alone. With statistics there are various measures of the strength of the statistical analysis. But like with a hypothesis you are never absolutely sure no bias or confounder or inadequate N(number of samples) had occurred. People got pissed when the Covid task force said stuff. Those statisticians were dealing with probabilities people think black or white. True/not true.
The most important part of a scientific paper is the methods section. The biggest failure of the lay press is the absence of the methodology underlying the statements made.
Our public schools don’t teach the scientific method or civics adequately. So people at both ends of the spectrum can’t parse out wants nonsense or highly improbable. You get pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

[backinblue]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Neil Degrasse Tyson tells a story about a physicists' convention for for which they had to find another venue on short notice. A Las Vegas hotel was available. The following week, there was a headline "Casino reports lowest take ever." The moral of the story is that people trained in statistical analysis aren't good customers for a casino.

Assuming your casino story is true, there could be a long list of reasons why the casino did pooly that week. Even if it was related to the members of the convention, you are making the assumption that it was because they knew that they would not win. There could be many other reasons that they chose not to gamble. This is a perfect example of a fact being interpreted to support a particular point of view which is one of the reasons people don't often believe reported statitistics.

[backinblue]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

You're right. It's a losing cause. People simply haven't evolved an understanding of statistics. Our approach to risk is more suited to the plains of the Serengeti than to making decisions like which mode of travel, where to vacation, or whether or not to play slot machines or the lottery.

A perfect statement. Same with mass shootings. People focus on this risk when they are in a venue or supermarket. More likely to be shot by a household member or walking on the street. Neurologically we are wired to focus on the emotionally perceived risk rather than on the relative risk which logic says we should.

Even though I agree that a cruise ship is a safe form of transport, I don't agree that we shouldn't weigh all risks when deciding where to vacation and how to travel. Some places are inherently more dangerous than others. Cruises have their own set of risks as do airplanes. Even if the risk of sinking or crashing are next to zero, that doesn't mean they are risk free in other regards.

[Hippocampus]

Agree. Even to extent I think I’m safer cruising my own boat then being on a cruise ship.

[Benthic2]

I think the "compared to what" component of risk analysis can be counter productive. If a bomb disposal technician and an accountant go on a cruise, isn't their risk while on the cruise the same ? Obviously their baseline levels of risk are very different, but while on the same ship, I would argue they have the same risk.

Another way to look at it as whatever risk you accept every day without a second thought. I think if someone needs to run out for milk, they do. They don't consult an actuarial table, determine the average miles driven per death, how many miles is it to the store, crunch the numbers and then decide to go get the milk. If there is a blizzard going on, you might decide to go without milk, because the blizzard raises the level of risk to something that needs to be considered. No one worries about being hit by a meteor or falling airplane parts when they go cut the lawn, even though there is a non zero level of risk of those things happening. We do not need to calculate the actual risk to 9 decimal places to know it is negligible.

I think the "compared to what" should be left vague enough as to encompass what a reasonable person does without consideration, or what is considered negligible. In this case trying to be too specific hampers a person's ability to evaluate risk, as the calculus becomes impossible on the individual level. ( Think: Evil Kineval vs George Constanza ). By intentionally surrendering some accuracy, and instead consider the average acceptable risk, and include plus or minus 1 or 2 standard deviations and you have what about 80% of the people would consider acceptable risk. When I say "about 80%", that could mean 70% or 90%, but the difference is immaterial because the threshold that is being evaluate is so far above either value that it doesn't matter.

[BruceK]

Contracting Covid on a cruise ship redirects thinking. "Once bitten, twice shy".

[markpierce]

I got disease more often from commuter trains than on cruise ships. At least cruise ships have amenities..

[Hippocampus]

B I think Spock would disagree. There are actuarial charts easily available to know death rate during a stipulated period of time for each and every passenger who boards a cruise ship. That’s the death rate for that group doing their usual. If you knew the death rate of that group during the period of that cruise calculating relative risk is easy peasy. Given the setting one would likely want to know death rate during 30d after the cruise as well as it’s reasonable to suspect that’s above baseline as well.

At present many of us here have the impression cruise ships with their increase in infections, gluttony and imbibing carry an increased risk of cardiovascular and infectious death. Knowing to what degree would be of great interest. Although death rates for the control wouldn’t be difficult to get as both public health agencies and insurance companies have done the heavy lifting doubt cruise ship companies would step forward to share their data. It’s only due to the absence of hard data that this question remains.

[Art]

Originally Posted by BruceK

Contracting Covid on a cruise ship redirects thinking. "Once bitten, twice shy".

Think we'll be using "cruise-ship" as an X rated phrase!

We both had Covid right after our 1st cruse... so did another of all six of us cruising together.

That = 50% of Us!

[KnotYet]

I never thought I would have a cruise-positive position, and I don't - except that
for the days a cruise keeps one out of a (2-4 wheel) motor vehicle I would think
those individuals would be less likely to be injured or killed, actuarially speaking.

[BruceK]

Originally Posted by KnotYet

I never thought I would have a cruise-positive position....

Neither did I. Avoided it for nearly 3 years, fully vaxxed up to date, thought I`d be fine. Wrong.
Now Princess insist on taking their miserable offer of compensation as a future cruise credit. I suggest an anal insertion, theirs not mine.

[Hippocampus]

Fatality rate per hundred million per year from motor vehicle accidents is 1.33 in the US as of 2021. Now divide that by 52 as that’s a common length of a cruise.
Don’t know equivalent number for a one week cruise but it sure doesn’t need to be high to exceed the motor vehicle rate.
More salient is morbidly rate for driving as most Covid infections aren’t lethal. Here again suspect cruise ships are more deleterious and you get to choose who you let into your car so have some control over your risk.

[dannc]

Some people have to work in an open environment where they have 4-8 people within six feet of them and hundreds on the floor. Makes the close confines of a cruise ship seem palatial....

Later,
Dan

[backinblue]

I think it's pretty telling that there are a few of us here who somehow avoided Covid for years while traveling and going to stores, events, etc, but caught it on a cruise.

[Cold Duck]

Kinda lost the essence of the thread. The people on this forum are not a good slice of the general public. Whether you hate or love cruise ships is immaterial. We are more adventurous and tend to live out our dreams. The millions of regular people will never venture out as most of us have or will. These are the ones who will keep the cruise industry alive and well, living out their form of adventure on a big cruise ship with well organized excursions. There are millions more of them than us. As far as the deals, they are always offering deals to those they think they can entice to add to their client list, but the millions of passengers they have hooked with long range plans only think they are getting a deal. I wait until the last minute because I am flexible usually creating a good “deal” environment. If the thread is still going in April, I’ll give you a report on our one way cruise from Hawaii back to the mainland.