lucky3 wrote:I've always been tempted to take a cruise but never followed through thinking" paying all that money just to get sea sick?" Many friends I know say a Caribbean crusie is the best vacation.
One says I should explore a "river cruise" or a Mediterranean cruise.
I know there's no way to guarantee calm seas...I also know the Bogleheads like to "stay the course". But I can stay the course on a plane too. Any hesitant sailors out there?
On a (25 passengers & crew) boat in the Galapagos I was 'the worst seasickness he had ever seen' said the guide.
Lasted about 12 hours.Gravol did not work.Sturgeron DID work.
If they sell it in USA?
My advice would be to see a doctor beforehand. Because of cancer treatments, anti-emetics are a big area, there are some powerful ones. There was a cancer nurse on the trip, she had some pretty good chemicals (but it turned out Sturgeron did the trick for me). To get good drugs, you need a professional I guess
. Least that's what the guy at the end of my street tells me in the morning
. (medical care in Galapagos is somewhat frontier: the town dentist checked me over
. You'd need to evacuate to the mainland for better care).
BTW Galapagos is an extraordinary journey and well worth the discomforts (take your snorkel, vision corrected goggles and a shortie wetsuit, even for a non swimmer there's lots of shallow waters and the animals and fish swim right up to you, the water is pretty warm). Smaller boats are generally better (you can only visit the islands at specified times in a guided group, so given the time to get on and off the boats into the panga dinghies, a smaller vessel gives you more time).
Med has very varying conditions but is dead calm, generally, in summer (in winter it's a lot worse, parts of it, than people think).
What I like about the Med (and the Baltic) is there is so much to see when you go ashore. I guess it depends what you want, whether Carribean would offer that.For me, a cruise is an efficient and possibly cheap way of getting to interesting places
(Alaska would be similar, but the problem of large cruise liners and small tourist towns) rather than what actually goes on on a cruise (I prefer my hotels to be stationary
). Baltic is best case for that: the cities (Copenhagen, Stockholm, Talinn, Helsinki, Riga) are all fascinating (Danzig is historic, I am not sure how pretty it is, ditto Kaliningrad (sp?)). And very expensive places to visit conventionally (hotels and meals). Stockholm I think you'd want 2 days. Copenhagen if you want to see that art museum outside (Louisiana?) ditto.
Similar advantage of a Med Cruise in that you can see places like Venice which are a pain to get to otherwise (of course, if it were left to me, Cruise liners are ruining Venice both physically and culturally, and would be sharply restricted)-- you cannot get what makes Venice special in a day off a cruise liner, but you can get a feel maybe for what makes it special. I would do Med in May or September perhaps, risking worse weather but (slightly) smaller crowds and cooler. DO NOT holiday in Southern Europe in August if possible
-- both the heat, and the whole continent downs tools and goes on holiday on a Med sea shore, it's crowded, expensive and too bloody hot. And stuff is closed for the summer holidays. (the Scandinavian version of this is July, but that is probably still the best time to see that part of the world, and those countries are all so efficient and organized that everything is still working-- even if half the locals are on holiday in Sicily or Sardinia
If you are single, male and of a certain age (60+) then I am told you will be the most popular class of person on a cruise
. Do prepare for any eventuality
There are also of course cruises aimed appropriately at different sociological sub groups. For example The Nation
supporters have their own cruise -- you'll get an entirely different perspective on things