Allure OTS: 3 year old child denied boarding due to Influenza.

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, Starry Eyes said:

Horrible advice on this specific case.  This child had influenza, a highly contagious disease that does not belong on a cruiseship.  Furthermore, people, including small children, can develop complications from influenza; should such complications occur, you do NOT want to be on a cruiseship...you want to be on shore near full medical care.  

 

If a baby is teething, that is a different matter, of course.

 

 

All the family will have been in close proximity to the child so everyone should have been denied boarding and offered full refunds.

[BND]

5 hours ago, grapau27 said:

Well done for being honest.

This is flu season and after the Diamond Princess problems everyone is paranoid.

A quick blood test needs to be available ASAP for coronavirus to avoid cases like yours and to calm everyone who is worried about losing their cruise,money or worse.

The fact the child had the flu and tested positive is enough to keep her from boarding.  Fly spreads rapidly too and I think most people wouldn't be happy if they knew RCI allowed someone with the flu to board.  Coronavirus isn't the only reason people are denied boarding.  You can be denied for any contagious illness.

[grapau27]

51 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

But that test doesn’t exist.

If not all the scientific brains worldwide should be working on one to be available ASAP.

[mjkacmom]

Just now, grapau27 said:

If not all the scientific brains worldwide should be working on one to be available ASAP.

 

Just now, grapau27 said:

If not all the scientific brains worldwide should be working on one to be available ASAP.

They are! There is actually a lab in my town doing this. Labs are frantically trying to develop testing and vaccines. 

[mjkacmom]

4 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

All the family will have been in close proximity to the child so everyone should have been denied boarding and offered full refunds.

Why? The child tested positive for the flu, if this was two months ago, canceling for illness would be covered by insurance, if insurance wasn’t purchased, the cruise line would not have had to offered a refund.

[Hogbay]

Ships have been denied letting passengers and crew from disenbarking at different ports due to flu like symptoms. Get ready for the new norm...

[grapau27]

1 minute ago, mjkacmom said:

 

They are! There is actually a lab in my town doing this. Labs are frantically trying to develop testing and vaccines. 

Thanks,that is very good to know.

Hopefully they find a solution ASAP.

[Starry Eyes]

29 minutes ago, Mapleleafforever said:

No one is debating the merits of travel insurance.....Royal has to issue something in order to put a claim in is what we're saying. So far Royal hasn't done it (as far as we know). 

You seem to be the one asserting that Royal has not issued paperwork.  I am asserting that the OP is delaying the resolution by demanding the wrong party reimbursed them.  The OP seems to be demanding revised paperwork rather than filing insurance.  Unlikely Royal has not provided a statement... more likely they did not like the statement, though with guidance from TA and insurance co they should have been fine.  Why has their TA not been helping them !?!

[mjkacmom]

2 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

Thanks,that is very good to know.

Hopefully they find a solution ASAP.

I just saw on the news that states are developing their own tests so that samples don’t need to be sent out, making it quicker (only some hospitals, but hopefully enough will be available soon for more locations).

[bobmacliberty]

If you don't get resolution using the email address provided earlier, you can try posting on the book of faces.  I don't have personal experience, but it's reported here that Royal tends to monitor and react to postings there.

[waterbug123]

11 hours ago, motopolitico said:

 

2. Kid fell sick on the day of travel. No time to get a doc letter beforehand, and RCCL would never take our word for it.

 

So you were planning to take a child with a fever on the cruise, with no idea at that point of what the cause of fever was? 

 

1 hour ago, motopolitico said:

We did manage to hit a Minute Clinic on embarkation day. The nurse practitioner there prescribed Tamiflu, which we administered right away. I naively believed that since this was merely a seasonal flu and none of us had been anywhere near East Asia, perhaps they’d let us board. 

 

Are you aware that the "seasonal flu" has killed far more people in the US this year than the Corono virus?  I wouldn't brush it off as "merely a seasonal flu" compared to CV.

[Mapleleafforever]

Just now, bobmacliberty said:

If you don't get resolution using the email address provided earlier, you can try posting on the book of faces.  I don't have personal experience, but it's reported here that Royal tends to monitor and react to postings there.

I fully believe a large number of posters here are employed by the cruise lines. It's the only reason I can come up with why there are so many people who believe the cruise lines can do no wrong and always side with them. 

[Starry Eyes]

12 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

All the family will have been in close proximity to the child so everyone should have been denied boarding and offered full refunds.

Arg...they should use their travel insurance!  That’s what it is for.  That’s always been the point of travel insurance...these unexpected events and illnesses.  If one chooses not to insure, one is assume the cancellation risk upon oneself and should not get a refund if their is an illness that’s prevents travel...that was a conscious choice to decline insurance and take the risk.

 

 

that btw comes from a person who self insures for cancellation for almost all cruises. If DH or I had the flu today, we would not be driving to port and we would not expect a refund.  

[irun5k]

46 minutes ago, WI-Cruiser said:

Cases like the OP's just encourage people to lie about feeling ill - never a good idea and especially in today's environment.

 

I agree 100%.  If  RCI is serious about keeping sick people off their ships, they need to make it easier- not harder- for folks to make the decision that RCI wants them to make.  What is the loss to them?  A few staterooms go empty, a few thousand dollars returned in return  for keeping keeping a few sick people off the ship?  Sounds like a good trade to me for both RCI and the fellow passengers.

 

I cannot fathom why they would not refund everyone in the stateroom or immediate traveling party.  We already know that some people are going to lie.  Now, the ones that were going to tell the truth are going to lie as well. 

[grapau27]

2 minutes ago, Starry Eyes said:

Arg...they should use their travel insurance!  That’s what it is for.  That’s always been the point of travel insurance...these unexpected events and illnesses.  If one chooses not to insure, one is assume the cancellation risk upon oneself and should not get a refund if their is an illness that’s prevents travel...that was a conscious choice to decline insurance and take the risk.

 

 

that btw comes from a person who self insures for cancellation for almost all cruises. If DH or I had the flu today, we would not be driving to port and we would not expect a refund.  

Pauline and I have travelled together for 41 years and always have annual worldwide travel insurance.

Since my heart attack in December our policy price has increased fourfold.

[Starry Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Mapleleafforever said:

I fully believe a large number of posters here are employed by the cruise lines. It's the only reason I can come up with why there are so many people who believe the cruise lines can do no wrong and always side with them. 

This from a person who thinks it is OK to medicate to mask a contagious child’s fever then lie to take them on board where they can infect other passengers.  

 

Critical thinking skills should be evaluated by all readers.

 

[MoniMommy]

1 hour ago, Starry Eyes said:

Horrible advice on this specific case.  This child had influenza, a highly contagious disease that does not belong on a cruiseship.  Furthermore, people, including small children, can develop complications from influenza; should such complications occur, you do NOT want to be on a cruiseship...you want to be on shore near full medical care.  

 

If a baby is teething, that is a different matter, of course.

 

 

Bad advice perhaps, but since Royal is not handling the situation appropriately this is what people will do and thus spread illness. Let's say a family has a sick child. If you know you can get a refund you are likely to be honest on the health forms. If you know you will be denied boarding, given the run around, only refunded for the sick child ( who may have even had a free fare under kids sail free), and not even given your luggage back in a timely fashion, you will just give tylenol lie on the forms and be on your way to spread the flu, coronavirus, or whatever. This family did everything right and was treated horribly. By doing things right Royal would encourage passengers to do the right thing as well thereby protecting everyone.

[motopolitico]

One big lesson for me is the value of CFAR travel insurance. It would have saved me time and aggravation. That is one thing I’ll spring for if we choose a cruise anytime soon.

[MoniMommy]

9 minutes ago, Mapleleafforever said:

I fully believe a large number of posters here are employed by the cruise lines. It's the only reason I can come up with why there are so many people who believe the cruise lines can do no wrong and always side with them. 

Good point. I was thinking that the people criticizing the original poster were just trolls, or callous people. But these could be cruise line employees. A parent does the right thing by admiting the fever, is given the run around by RCL, and it's the parents fault. That reasoning is insane.

[grapau27]

1 minute ago, MoniMommy said:

Bad advice perhaps, but since Royal is not handling the situation appropriately this is what people will do and thus spread illness. Let's say a family has a sick child. If you know you can get a refund you are likely to be honest on the health forms. If you know you will be denied boarding, given the run around, only refunded for the sick child ( who may have even had a free fare under kids sail free), and not even given your luggage back in a timely fashion, you will just give tylenol lie on the forms and be on your way to spread the flu, coronavirus, or whatever. This family did everything right and was treated horribly. By doing things right Royal would encourage passengers to do the right thing as well thereby protecting everyone.

+1.

I wonder how many times norovirus has been brought on board by people lying on the pre boarding questionnaire.

 

[Starry Eyes]

1 minute ago, grapau27 said:

Pauline and I have travelled together for 41 years and always have annual worldwide travel insurance.

Since my heart attack in December our policy price has increased fourfold.

We only choose to carry annual medical/evacuation, not cancellation (not offered on annual policy here). Ours does not ask health questions..  Perhaps we live in different countries.

 

We can afford the cancellation risk, financially and psychologically; most cannot, IMHO.  Most people should carry and use comprehensive insurance.

[reallyitsmema]

6 minutes ago, motopolitico said:

One big lesson for me is the value of CFAR travel insurance. It would have saved me time and aggravation. That is one thing I’ll spring for if we choose a cruise anytime soon.

 

Who is your insurance through?  Have you contacted them?  We have cancelled cruises in the past and have always been told we needed to contact the insurance company prior to the ship sailing or else we would not be able to file a claim.

 

 

[mjkacmom]

This family WILL be reimbursed by their insurance. Have they contacted the insurance company? The child tested positive for the flu, that documentation should be all that is needed to be reimbursed. Since when have cruise lines been responsible for giving full refunds for illness? That is exactly what insurance is for. This family purchased insurance.

[jk04]

Ok, maybe I'm not understanding some of the insurance verbiage.  I usually buy trip insurance from a third party vendor, not the cruise line.  The Cancel for Any reason I thought applied up to 48 to 72 hours depending on the policy?  Even the trip cancellation section I think requires documentation from a physician and still has to be done ahead of time.

 

If someone falls ill the day of the cruise, what options are available?  I have read on this forum that you have to go to the pier and be denied boarding.  Which doesn't sound like an optimal solution.  But, I understand the cruise line not wanting to handout refunds because someone wants to cancel because they broke a nail or just don't feel like going today.

 

Since this issue seems like it might get worse before it gets better, it's like they need to triage on a case by case basis to keep people from having to lie on the form and expose everyone on the ship to various illness.  A lot of people don't buy insurance and that is part of the problem is well.  I don't know the magic answer....

[MoniMommy]

10 minutes ago, motopolitico said:

One big lesson for me is the value of CFAR travel insurance. It would have saved me time and aggravation. That is one thing I’ll spring for if we choose a cruise anytime soon.

Yes, but read the policy. Many CFAR required you to cancel 2 to 3 days in advance. So it would not even apply is someone gets sick the day of the cruise.