Can the Cruise Industry survive ?

The vast majority of cruise ship deaths are from falling over board. [/QUOTE]

Actually this is not true. The majority of deaths on cruise ships come from "old people" dying of natural causes. I have been on at least 4 cruises where people died, not one fell overboard. Routinely people die on cruise ships from natural causes, not diseases or falling overboard. It's just numbers, 3-5000 people mostly elderly (55+) together for 2 weeks or so and statistics just tend to have someone die of natural causes. The Cruise Ships deal with this all the time. I was in Columbia, where a guest died of a heart attack on the pier. They did their best to say he died on the ship otherwise the wife would be stuck with tons of paperwork and weeks to get her dead husband out of the country. They got him back on board and put on ice for the rest of the cruise. I've seen in Mexico where parents wanted to retrieve their son who died with another couple he just met, and the Mexican officials would not release the body unless the parents took and paid for the couple they didn't even know. It can be a bitch getting a body outta a foreign country.

Cold Duck said:

The vast majority of cruise ship deaths are from falling over board.

Click to expand...

Actually this is not true. The majority of deaths on cruise ships come from "old people" dying of natural causes. [/QUOTE]

I would not call those deaths "cruise ship deaths" Those folks would have died no matter where they were.

They can all sink as to my way of thinking.
I have went on three cruises and regretted all of them.

fgarriso said:

They can all sink as to my way of thinking.
I have went on three cruises and regretted all of them.

Click to expand...

Why 3? Hoping for a different result? I went on 1 as a way to experience Alasaka in a way that I wouldn't have otherwise. But it was a very small adventure cruise with lots of time off the boat daily hiking, kayaking, etc. I don't regret it, but I'm not rushing to do another one, and I'm sure I'll never do a big boat cruise. I don't criticize those who love them, just not my style. Also not a big fan of vacationing at an all-inclusive resort. Almost the same thing w/o the boat.

backinblue said:

Why 3? Hoping for a different result? I went on 1 as a way to experience Alasaka in a way that I wouldn't have otherwise. But it was a very small adventure cruise with lots of time off the boat daily hiking, kayaking, etc. I don't regret it, but I'm not rushing to do another one, and I'm sure I'll never do a big boat cruise. I don't criticize those who love them, just not my style. Also not a big fan of vacationing at an all-inclusive resort. Almost the same thing w/o the boat.

Click to expand...

Think this is the main obstacle for this industry. Not Covid or other infectious disease. Believe there’s a large segment of the baby boomers with this view of things and an even larger segment of their descendants with the same attitude. Given the boomers will die out the available numbers of customers will decrease. Any and all economies cycle so periods of discretionary income cyclically decrease. The nut to maintain these vessels is huge. People realize if they time it cheap berths become available . So vacancies increase until prices go down. Eventually ROI will fall sufficiently that investors mothball cruise ships until supply meets demand. So don’t think the cruise ship business will disappear but wouldn’t be enthusiastic about buying stock. Do believe size matters and the larger the ship the larger the profit margin. So think we will continue to see two segments. Ever larger ones in fewer numbers and small boutique ones for the exotic places and rivers/canals.

I would not call those deaths "cruise ship deaths" Those folks would have died no matter where they were.[/QUOTE]

I don't follow your logic. You can not say they would have just died someplace else. There are many situations on the ship that can induce or contribute to death, excessive eating, drinking, exercise, stress, overdoing everything, etc. I am not saying that makes a cruise ship a "Killing Machine", but people tend to over indulge on vacations which the cruise definitely is. So what are you calling a "cruise ship death"? Technically, an overboard drowning is death at sea, not on the cruise ship. Maybe someone beat to death by a beer bottle would qualify as a cruise ship death by your standards. Sorry, you die on a cruise ship, it's a cruise ship death. Actually, a couple of deaths I have seen were at excursions off the ship or the heart attack on the pier. I would still count those as cruise ship deaths even like a person falling overboard, they did not technically die on the ship.

Cold Duck said:

I would not call those deaths "cruise ship deaths" Those folks would have died no matter where they were.

Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic. You can not say they would have just died someplace else. There are many situations on the ship that can induce or contribute to death, excessive eating, drinking, exercise, stress, overdoing everything, etc. I am not saying that makes a cruise ship a "Killing Machine", but people tend to over indulge on vacations which the cruise definitely is. So what are you calling a "cruise ship death"? Technically, an overboard drowning is death at sea, not on the cruise ship. Maybe someone beat to death by a beer bottle would qualify as a cruise ship death by your standards. Sorry, you die on a cruise ship, it's a cruise ship death. Actually, a couple of deaths I have seen were at excursions off the ship or the heart attack on the pier. I would still count those as cruise ship deaths even like a person falling overboard, they did not technically die on the ship.[/QUOTE]

I'm planning to die - wherever I die... no rush to find that spot. Unlikely it will happen on a Cruise Ship. But, if so - No Prob!!

We are really getting into semantics here instead of the inherant dangers of taking a cruise. If there were a sinking, fire, or torpedo that would make a dangerous situation for me if I were on that ship. If some guys ticker stops because he is dancing away in the disco, while unfortunate for him, that doesn't jeopardize my safety in any way. The law of averages says that there are going to be some deaths on some ships, but that does not indicate a cruise specific danger to all passengers.

The risk of falling overboard is there for all passengers, but you would have to try really hard to fall off a ship. When you consider the number of times it has happened and that tens of millions of people go on cruises, the risk is so minescule as to not be relevant. I spent about 4 years with a company that had 3 ships that each did 2 cruises per week, so that's over 1,000 cruises and we never had anyone fall overboard.

Benthic2 said:

Actually this is not true. The majority of deaths on cruise ships come from "old people" dying of natural causes.

Click to expand...

"I would not call those deaths "cruise ship deaths" Those folks would have died no matter where they were".[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You leapt the chasm with that trite statement. You cannot validly generalize like that. Each death needs to be examined individually.
We avoided contracting Covid, on land, for almost 3 years, but contracted Covid within 6 days of boarding a cruise ship. 800 others caught it too.Patently, there is a cruise ship/Covid nexus. it likely applies to other maladies as well.

PS. The last episode of the "Wreck" TV series about a mythical Velorum Cruise Line was a cracker. Blood and bodies everywhere. As it ended, I expect a Series 2.

BruceK said:

.Patently, there is a cruise ship/Covid nexus. And it likely applies to other maladies as well.

Click to expand...

There's no mystery about the Covid "nexus". Getting close to people with an infectious disease, increases your chance of getting infected. That is absolutely a risk associated with taking a cruise in our current Covid environment. But if a person has non transmissible health issues and dies on a cruise that is not indicative of cruising as a risky activity.

I am sorry that I have not been able to effectively make my point here. When I jumped into this fray, it was because the topic was that the risk of fire and insufficient lifeboats make cruising a risky activity. I wanted to refute those ideas, as the risk of fire or the need to board a lifeboat are exceedingly small. Considerably smaller than risks we all assume everyday without a second thought. That's it. I am not sure if the comminication breakdown was in the transmission, reception or both, but I give up.

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.

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.

Benthic2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Benthic2 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

CaptTom said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

CaptTom said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hippocampus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

BruceK said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

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.

KnotYet said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.