Breathalyser to detect Covid?

[birdylady]

I just saw this today. Interestingly, the article is dated May 28th.

 

Covid Breathalyser

 

Would this be something you would be willing to do before you are allowed on a ship?  I have to admit for a 20 second test, those 20 seconds would feel like hours.  The other question is IF they did this for everyone coming back from a port, how long would that line be and what if you tested postive then? Will you be stuck in port? What about your belongings?

 

Erika

[crewsweeper]

If these do get approval and do work in the real world,  they could be very helpful.

I can see something along this line used in preboarding and for crew members.  But unless a particular port is experiencing and outbreak, or, like Grand Turk, requiring certification of no cases, not sure there's any reason to run a test on reboarding.  Supposedly this device would pick up asymptomatic cases too.

 

As far as original embarkation, if you show test positive, they just don't let you on board.  Put a statement as such in the cruise contract.  Disrupts a family's vacay? Yes, but so be it.

[deepcman]

Just add this to the list of potential tests. They're also training dogs to sniff out the virus so next time you're in Cozumel they may not be fruit sniffing dogs. 😉🤔

[BND]

1 hour ago, crewsweeper said:

 

 

As far as original embarkation, if you show test positive, they just don't let you on board.  Put a statement as such in the cruise contract.  Disrupts a family's vacay? Yes, but so be it.

 

There are already instances of family's vacations being disrupted and denied boarding in the past due to an individual trying to board while sick so it's not unprecedented.

[crewsweeper]

4 minutes ago, BND said:

 

There are already instances of family's vacations being disrupted and denied boarding in the past due to an individual trying to board while sick so it's not unprecedented.

But can you imagine the reviews and complaint posts here.  "Royal Ruined My Family's Cruise Before We Boarded!!"

[bigrednole]

Imagine this inconclusive test being positive, the family denied boarding, and a real test confirming they do not have it? That would be a suit they would not want to face. In that case it is a US based lawsuit because the denied boarding was before they were on the ship and going by maritime laws. If they are going to test, they will need to be 100% accurate or be willing to open themselves up to hefty issues. On top of that, the entire HIPAA issue comes into play.

[John&LaLa]

1 minute ago, bigrednole said:

Imagine this inconclusive test being positive, the family denied boarding, and a real test confirming they do not have it? That would be a suit they would not want to face. In that case it is a US based lawsuit because the denied boarding was before they were on the ship and going by maritime laws. If they are going to test, they will need to be 100% accurate or be willing to open themselves up to hefty issues. On top of that, the entire HIPAA issue comes into play.

 

This could be a filter to send you to secondary screening. And if they are only going to Bahamas in the beginning, they are in no hurry to get there, so they could leave pretty late

[BND]

17 minutes ago, crewsweeper said:

But can you imagine the reviews and complaint posts here.  "Royal Ruined My Family's Cruise Before We Boarded!!"

I can imagine while they'd get some sympathy over someone being ill, I doubt they'd get much support for the reason they were denied.

[JAMESCC]

I just watched a video on this test, it's 96,% accurate. If you take this test twice there is just about a zero percent chance you get a false reading either way.
It's less than 60 seconds and sound like a good possibility to be used for travel.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MommaBear55]

1 hour ago, JAMESCC said:

I just watched a video on this test, it's 96,% accurate. If you take this test twice there is just about a zero percent chance you get a false reading either way.
It's less than 60 seconds and sound like a good possibility to be used for travel.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

96% accurate is pretty good. I'd go for that. 

[JAMESCC]

96% accurate is pretty good. I'd go for that. 

I would post the video but I don't know if that will get me into trouble.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Biker19]

1 hour ago, crewsweeper said:

But can you imagine the reviews and complaint posts here.  "Royal Ruined My Family's Cruise Before We Boarded!!"

We already have had threads like that - just a different reason for denied boarding.

[mayleeman]

@bigrednole If they refunded the money, I cannot imagine any basis for a lawsuit.

 

And I cannot see how HIPAA could possibly play into it. A requirement to board would undoubtedly be written consent to the test and reporting to public health authorities.

 

A bigger issue, I think, would be trying to determine if the positive person came into close contact with anyone else in the testing area. Would they set up screening outside the terminal? How can they get 3000 people tested without mingling with anyone else? The logistics seem like a nightmare!

Edited June 16, 2020 by mayleeman

[Billy Baltic]

2 hours ago, BND said:

 

There are already instances of family's vacations being disrupted and denied boarding in the past due to an individual trying to board while sick so it's not unprecedented.

There’s a difference between failing preboarding medical and failing a test when returning from a port visit. As the op says,  will they leave people in port. If you were on an excursion will they have to leave all participants in port? What about the people you had breakfast with that morning? Or the rep at guest services when you picked up your tickets? Or your stateroom attendant.......

[BND]

19 minutes ago, Billy Baltic said:

There’s a difference between failing preboarding medical and failing a test when returning from a port visit. As the op says,  will they leave people in port. If you were on an excursion will they have to leave all participants in port? What about the people you had breakfast with that morning? Or the rep at guest services when you picked up your tickets? Or your stateroom attendant.......

Actually, they have always had that option for any illness or medical issue.  They have been able to deny you reboarding in a port if they don't think they can handle your situation.  There are cases where people have been left for medical care in ports. The issue here is whether the port would take them.  What are the policies there?  Otherwise, this would only be new in terms of what the illness is.  

[Billy Baltic]

3 minutes ago, BND said:

Actually, they have always had that option for any illness or medical issue.  They have been able to deny you reboarding in a port if they don't think they can handle your situation.  There are cases where people have been left for medical care in ports. The issue here is whether the port would take them.  What are the policies there?  Otherwise, this would only be new in terms of what the illness is.  

Wow. I’ve never heard of someone been denied boarding mid cruise on medical grounds. 
What’s new is the possibility of actively screening each day, the likelihood of finding something because they are looking, the uncertainty of what RC would do, the uncertainty of that port allowing you medical care and the possibility of paying $$$ for all of the above 😂

[JAMESCC]

7 minutes ago, Billy Baltic said:

Wow. I’ve never heard of someone been denied boarding mid cruise on medical grounds. 
What’s new is the possibility of actively screening each day, the likelihood of finding something because they are looking, the uncertainty of what RC would do, the uncertainty of that port allowing you medical care and the possibility of paying $$$ for all of the above 😂

Yes, and this is the only thing that would keep me from cruising. I do not fly at all, very serious fear if flying. Now we only sail from NJ because of this so we aren't on crazy itineraries all over the world because of that but I still can't fly. If I'm denied boarding back on the ship in Cape Canaveral, or Maine or even Canada, no big deal. Trains and cars can take me back home to NJ. If I'm in Bermuda or some southern island that is trouble for me. I suppose the Bahamas I could find some other boat ride back to Florida it's so close. Even that would be a pain in the butt. 

[BND]

30 minutes ago, Billy Baltic said:

Wow. I’ve never heard of someone been denied boarding mid cruise on medical grounds. 
What’s new is the possibility of actively screening each day, the likelihood of finding something because they are looking, the uncertainty of what RC would do, the uncertainty of that port allowing you medical care and the possibility of paying $$$ for all of the above 😂

People have been denied if the ship's medical staff cannot provide the care they need.  The Dr onboard can make that call.  It's all unknown at this time what would happen, but as I said, there would have to be some understanding between the ports and the ship and how they would handle it.  The ship can't provide life support the way an onshore hospital can for example.  They also can't isolate people the same way.  It's also why I believe once there is a vaccine, it will be required, if not by the cruiseline,  by the ports.

Edited June 16, 2020 by BND

[time4u2go]

4 hours ago, bigrednole said:

Imagine this inconclusive test being positive, the family denied boarding, and a real test confirming they do not have it? That would be a suit they would not want to face. In that case it is a US based lawsuit because the denied boarding was before they were on the ship and going by maritime laws. If they are going to test, they will need to be 100% accurate or be willing to open themselves up to hefty issues. On top of that, the entire HIPAA issue comes into play.

What does HIPAA have to do with this?

[loman]

Ah. why take a chance , just don't cruise until all this virus stuff is put to bed .

I wont even consider cruising for a couple of years , not worth the hassle for me . 

 

[bigrednole]

1 hour ago, time4u2go said:

What does HIPAA have to do with this?

A Covid-19 test is a medical record. Your medical records and any action that would hint to the results are protected. That means they cannot test in a public place, the results cannot have you go through a different hall or route to indicate you are positive, and if you had contact with anyone and everyone in a terminal, they would have to be declared carriers as well regardless of test. So yes, HIPAA laws do come into play if the choose to administer this type of testing.

[time4u2go]

10 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

A Covid-19 test is a medical record. Your medical records and any action that would hint to the results are protected. That means they cannot test in a public place, the results cannot have you go through a different hall or route to indicate you are positive, and if you had contact with anyone and everyone in a terminal, they would have to be declared carriers as well regardless of test. So yes, HIPAA laws do come into play if the choose to administer this type of testing.

I'm sure they are aware of all these implications and would not make it so obvious. 

 

How do you suppose businesses that require temperature checks for their customers deal with this?

Edited June 16, 2020 by time4u2go

[bigrednole]

A temperature check is FAR different than a Covid-19 breathalyzer test. 

[time4u2go]

33 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

A temperature check is FAR different than a Covid-19 breathalyzer test. 

It's still the same principle. 

 

There's a line of people waiting to have their temperature taken to get into a store.  Most get in.  A few are turned away.  How is that different than "the results cannot have you go through a different hall or route to indicate you are positive"?  Are you saying that there's a different set of HIPAA rules for Covid-19 than for other things that might cause a fever?

[cb at sea]

I've NEVER been "temperature tested" to go into ANY store...ever.  Into a doctor's office...yes...not ever a retail establishment.