Covid on Alaska cruise

[bouhunter]

Only 36 passengers and it isn't working.  

 

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2020/08/04/alaskas-first-cruise-ship-of-2020-returns-to-port-early-after-passenger-tests-positive-for-covid-19/

 

 

[Wine-O]

I guess we should just end life as it exists now.  😵 🍷

[bouhunter]

26 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

I guess we should just end life as it exists now.  😵 🍷

Speak for yourself.  We're making lots of travel plans that don't involve cruising.

[WonderMan3]

Honestly if you are traveling right now and interacting with people it doesn't matter if you are on a cruise or on land, you have a high risk of encountering this virus. Cruises just turn up a higher rate of cases because you have the same group of people together for a week or 10 days or more, so it gives that time for a case to incubate and symptoms to show, or, as in the Alaska case, more testing is being done to passengers before or during the cruise so that turns up cases. If you are traveling around on a road trip going from hotel to hotel and attraction to attraction you are exposing yourself to hundreds of different people who you never see again as you move on and no testing is being done during your trip so you have no idea who may or may not have it. Unless you are constructing a travel itinerary that keeps you pretty much away from people like camping in the woods or booking a private home or apartment where you do the cooking and then do isolated activities like going to a quiet part of a beach, then you are at just as much risk as being on a cruise ship.

[bouhunter]

3 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

then you are at just as much risk as being on a cruise ship.

I agree the risk also there in other travel situations and venues.   But when it shows up on a cruise ship it's a unique problem to deal with.  We shifted all our cruises 15-19 months out from now, not because of fear of the virus, but because it isn't going to be fun when it starts.  And we aren't interested in being locked in our cabin on a quarantined prison ship.

Edited August 5, 2020 by bouhunter

[RICCruisers]

The most sobering thing in my opinion is that every passenger was required to have documentation of a negative test within 72 hours (3 days) of departure OR documentation of a negative test within 5 days of departure PLUS take a test prior to boarding. The passenger that caused the problem fell into the 2nd group. This does not bode well for the resumption of cruising anytime soon. This ship only had 36 passengers. The positive passenger had the 5 day negative test with him but was required to take another test on arrival in Alaska. He got the positive report on Day 4 of the cruise.

 

If all companies are required to have these type of measures in place to resume cruising I’m not sure how cruising can resume before both a vaccine and therapeutics are found. This cruise company (UnCruise) had very good safety measures in place even having hotel rooms prebooked for all passengers just in case this happened.  

Edited August 5, 2020 by RICCruisers

[npcl]

3 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

Honestly if you are traveling right now and interacting with people it doesn't matter if you are on a cruise or on land, you have a high risk of encountering this virus. Cruises just turn up a higher rate of cases because you have the same group of people together for a week or 10 days or more, so it gives that time for a case to incubate and symptoms to show, or, as in the Alaska case, more testing is being done to passengers before or during the cruise so that turns up cases. If you are traveling around on a road trip going from hotel to hotel and attraction to attraction you are exposing yourself to hundreds of different people who you never see again as you move on and no testing is being done during your trip so you have no idea who may or may not have it. Unless you are constructing a travel itinerary that keeps you pretty much away from people like camping in the woods or booking a private home or apartment where you do the cooking and then do isolated activities like going to a quiet part of a beach, then you are at just as much risk as being on a cruise ship.

The problem with a cruise ship is you have a large group of people, brought together in an space very conducive for viral transfer, and then redistributed back to you home communities.   

 

Spend 7 days on a ship if there are 1000 people on board during that 7 day time you will pass or be within close proximity a pretty percentage of those people inside a fairly close environment hallways, elevators, stairwells, dining rooms, bars, theater, etc.

 

On the other hand one can plan a road trip where in the week time frame they probably come in close proximity with less than 50 people, most of which contact they can control the proximity to. 

 

Of course one can also go on a trip and take the approach that the rules are useless and travel the country getting infected or passing infection on to others.

 

Unfortunately you have people choosing to take road trips, often from high virus areas to low virus areas, and bring the virus with them.  In the area I live over 50% of the new cases since June 1 has been from people traveling from out of state into this area and proceeding to infect others (often friends or family members they are visiting and not following social distance rules or using masks).

 

It is unfortunate that the US did not stop recreational interstate travel like Australia did.  A lot of cases have been brought into rural areas as a result of such travel.

[farawayatsea]

Anyone who goes on a cruise in the present climate is asking for trouble.  Very foolhardy and disregard for their own and others health ( not unlike those who do not follow the regulations on masks etc). 

[npcl]

8 minutes ago, RICCruisers said:

The most sobering thing in my opinion is that every passenger was required to have documentation of a negative test within 72 hours (3 days) of departure OR documentation of a negative test within 5 days of departure PLUS take a test prior to boarding. The passenger that caused the problem fell into the 2nd group. This does not bode well for the resumption of cruising anytime soon. This ship only had 36 passengers. The positive passenger had the 5 day negative test with him but was required to take another test on arrival in Alaska. He got the positive report on Day 4 of the cruise.

 

If all companies are required to have these type of measures in place to resume cruising I’m not sure how cruising can resume before both a vaccine and therapeutics are found. This cruise company (UnCruise) had very good safety measures in place even having hotel rooms prebooked for all passengers just in case this happened.  

Tests might help but they still have a high rate of false negatives depending upon the exact state of the infection, so a negative testis not the same as being 100% guaranteed of being disease free.

 

The interesting question is how many others of the ship and crew end up getting COVID after spending 4 days with that individual.

[4774Papa]

I have friends that are doing outdoor stuff, like hiking on the Appalachian Trail, or visiting national parks.  You can easily social distance and the great outdoors is safe.

[Harrylinden]

I honestly don't know why the cruise lines don't cancel ALL cruises till the end of the year and start fresh in 2021? I'm not going to cruise till there is a vaccine! I  lifted and shifted my December cruise till next December 2021!

[Glendakayself]

The article left me wondering if the "positive" passenger who showed no "outward symptoms" has been tested again. A local professional baseball player tested positive to a saliva test administered by the team prior to the restarting the baseball season, but the player had no symptoms. He went to his personal physician and tested negative. His next two tests were also negative. With no symptoms and test inaccuracies, it is hard to determine if the player ever had the virus. 

 

That said, we will wait for a vaccine before going around other people. Prayers for everyone who was involved in this failed attempt to restart cruising!

[poffles]

21 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

Honestly if you are traveling right now and interacting with people it doesn't matter if you are on a cruise or on land, you have a high risk of encountering this virus. Cruises just turn up a higher rate of cases because you have the same group of people together for a week or 10 days or more, so it gives that time for a case to incubate and symptoms to show, or, as in the Alaska case, more testing is being done to passengers before or during the cruise so that turns up cases. If you are traveling around on a road trip going from hotel to hotel and attraction to attraction you are exposing yourself to hundreds of different people who you never see again as you move on and no testing is being done during your trip so you have no idea who may or may not have it. Unless you are constructing a travel itinerary that keeps you pretty much away from people like camping in the woods or booking a private home or apartment where you do the cooking and then do isolated activities like going to a quiet part of a beach, then you are at just as much risk as being on a cruise ship.

 

EXACTLY !!!!!!!! The other thing with cruising right now is the cruise lines are reporting it themselves, other 'traveling contracted' cases are mostly under the radar and not being pinpointed in the same way the cruising world is now.   Flying right now is a total gamble too but how many positive cases occur without any link back to that.

[PTC DAWG]

2 hours ago, Glendakayself said:

The article left me wondering if the "positive" passenger who showed no "outward symptoms" has been tested again. A local professional baseball player tested positive to a saliva test administered by the team prior to the restarting the baseball season, but the player had no symptoms. He went to his personal physician and tested negative. His next two tests were also negative. With no symptoms and test inaccuracies, it is hard to determine if the player ever had the virus. 

 

This, I don’t trust the numbers...

[npcl]

4 hours ago, 4774Papa said:

I have friends that are doing outdoor stuff, like hiking on the Appalachian Trail, or visiting national parks.  You can easily social distance and the great outdoors is safe.

You can.  However, I live relatively close to Crater Lake.  I drove through there the other day on my way home (I have a B class RV so my only contact is when I get gas).  The view points over looking the lake were shoulder to shoulder with people.  Many of whom were not wearing masks (after all they were out doors).  The line to get into the gift shop and snack bar was 50 people long outside of the door. Some people were distancing, wearing masks, but many were not.

 

One can camp, travel, visit national parks, but you still need to practice proper distancing and other health measures. If you look at the stats in various areas you see that the highest case count in Montana at one point in June was Yellowstone County. According to one paper I read about Yosemite they had not reported cases there, but a university did a test on the sewage system and from the analysis they did estimated that at least 150 different infected people had used the facilities (hotels, rest rooms, etc) that fed into the processing facility. 

 

Many people are taking the approach of lets get an RV or grab a tent and head to the national or state parks.  So many that they are actually quite crowded (reports from Glacier indicate long wait times to enter, especially since the reservation closed the eastern entrance). Unfortunately many are bringing the virus with them and not following good practices as they travel. Many are meeting friends while camping and assuming that all are clear from the virus (no masks, no distancing).

[D C]

3 hours ago, Glendakayself said:

The article left me wondering if the "positive" passenger who showed no "outward symptoms" has been tested again. A local professional baseball player tested positive to a saliva test administered by the team prior to the restarting the baseball season, but the player had no symptoms. He went to his personal physician and tested negative. His next two tests were also negative. With no symptoms and test inaccuracies, it is hard to determine if the player ever had the virus. 

 

That said, we will wait for a vaccine before going around other people. Prayers for everyone who was involved in this failed attempt to restart cruising!

 

The testing is terrible and inaccurate.  A healthy individual with NO symptoms who receives a positive test result should be given a second test.   No second positive = no COVID. 

 

Matt Stafford, Detroit Lions quarterback had SIX tests: Neg, Neg, Pos, Neg, Neg, Neg. No way he had the virus.  Thankfully, he had the luxury of being tested multiple times.  How many people get that one negative that's false and are assumed forever that it was a real positive?

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/08/04/lions-say-staffords-test-was-a-false-positive/42164469/
 

We are testing WAY too many healthy people, which only increases the probability that a positive test is false. 

[npcl]

3 hours ago, Glendakayself said:

The article left me wondering if the "positive" passenger who showed no "outward symptoms" has been tested again. A local professional baseball player tested positive to a saliva test administered by the team prior to the restarting the baseball season, but the player had no symptoms. He went to his personal physician and tested negative. His next two tests were also negative. With no symptoms and test inaccuracies, it is hard to determine if the player ever had the virus. 

 

That said, we will wait for a vaccine before going around other people. Prayers for everyone who was involved in this failed attempt to restart cruising!

Take the case of the broadway star that ended up passing away from COVID complications.  He tested negative 3 times before he tested positive.

 

Another was the case of an physician that was admitted to the hospital, admitted to intensive care, but was not put on a ventilator.  He test negative 4 times, even though he had clear clinical diagnosis.  Final they did a deep lung sample (had to put him out to do) that did yield a positive test result.

 

This is a nasty virus that is difficult to test for, even with PCR and the most sensitive equipment.

[npcl]

14 minutes ago, D C said:

 

The testing is terrible and inaccurate.  A healthy individual with NO symptoms who receives a positive test result should be given a second test.   No second positive = no COVID. 

 

Matt Stafford, Detroit Lions quarterback had SIX tests: Neg, Neg, Pos, Neg, Neg, Neg. No way he had the virus.  Thankfully, he had the luxury of being tested multiple times.  How many people get that one negative that's false and are assumed forever that it was a real positive?

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/08/04/lions-say-staffords-test-was-a-false-positive/42164469/
 

We are testing WAY too many healthy people, which only increases the probability that a positive test is false. 

The studies that look at testing results are finding far far more false negatives when it comes to active infection then false positives.  Around 40% false negatives.  As high as 80% in certain points in the infection. That is why clinical diagnosis for those with symptoms is important.  The only thing a negative test will tell you is that you are not shedding virus in detectable levels at the time and in the area the sample was taken.

 

The antibody tests on the other hand tends to generate a lot of false positives.  

Edited August 6, 2020 by npcl

[WonderMan3]

2 hours ago, poffles said:

 

EXACTLY !!!!!!!! The other thing with cruising right now is the cruise lines are reporting it themselves, other 'traveling contracted' cases are mostly under the radar and not being pinpointed in the same way the cruising world is now.   Flying right now is a total gamble too but how many positive cases occur without any link back to that.

 

What is an interesting possibility is that cruising could potentially turn into one of the safer forms of travel if the cruise lines require that all crew and passengers show proof of vaccination in order to travel, which seems very likely to happen.

[poffles]

22 minutes ago, WonderMan3 said:

 

What is an interesting possibility is that cruising could potentially turn into one of the safer forms of travel if the cruise lines require that all crew and passengers show proof of vaccination in order to travel, which seems very likely to happen.

 

Then it's just to figure out a way to 'teleport' people to the ship ... socially distanced of course 🙂

[Roger88]

38 minutes ago, WonderMan3 said:

 

What is an interesting possibility is that cruising could potentially turn into one of the safer forms of travel if the cruise lines require that all crew and passengers show proof of vaccination in order to travel, which seems very likely to happen.

There isnt really any safe forms of travel these days.. and there have never been any safe forms really. I mean no matter where and how you travel you will meet random people who might carry a virus with them, so there is no safe place really. I mean all you can do is to relax and let the things go their way. I mean you might just be lucky or you can simply stay at home and increase your chances of survival. I mean even without Covid there were tons of scary situations 

[D C]

2 hours ago, npcl said:

The studies that look at testing results are finding far far more false negatives when it comes to active infection then false positives.  Around 40% false negatives.  As high as 80% in certain points in the infection. That is why clinical diagnosis for those with symptoms is important.  The only thing a negative test will tell you is that you are not shedding virus in detectable levels at the time and in the area the sample was taken.

 

The antibody tests on the other hand tends to generate a lot of false positives.  

 

There are no efforts to understand false positives.   False positives are merely categorized as "asymptomatic" positives and assumed to be positive 100% of the time (unless you happen to be someone like a pro athlete and get daily tests).  

 

And what do you mean by "Around 40% false negatives"? Around 40% of negatives are incorrect and those people actually have COVID? 

 

Antibody tests are terrible and nobody should get them unless they were sick with COVID symptoms and suspected to have COVID, but didn't get a COVID test or were negative.   They're completely unreliable otherwise.

[npcl]

53 minutes ago, Roger88 said:

There isnt really any safe forms of travel these days.. and there have never been any safe forms really. I mean no matter where and how you travel you will meet random people who might carry a virus with them, so there is no safe place really. I mean all you can do is to relax and let the things go their way. I mean you might just be lucky or you can simply stay at home and increase your chances of survival. I mean even without Covid there were tons of scary situations 

Yes, as a traveler there are always things you can run into, but the odds of doing so is very low and if it is a concern there are vaccines or other preventatives.  In the tropics there is always Dengue, Zika, Malaria, Chikungunya but the odds of getting it from a short term visit is extremely low (higher if you are camping on the beach)

[npcl]

38 minutes ago, D C said:

 

There are no efforts to understand false positives.   False positives are merely categorized as "asymptomatic" positives and assumed to be positive 100% of the time (unless you happen to be someone like a pro athlete and get daily tests).  

 

And what do you mean by "Around 40% false negatives"? Around 40% of negatives are incorrect and those people actually have COVID? 

 

Antibody tests are terrible and nobody should get them unless they were sick with COVID symptoms and suspected to have COVID, but didn't get a COVID test or were negative.   They're completely unreliable otherwise.

No 40% false negatives does not mean 40% of negative results should really be positive.  

 

What it means is that 40% of the time that a positive person is tested they will generate a negative result (virus not detected).

 

So lets say you have an population with 1000 infections and you test 10,000 people with one test you would actually get around 600 positives and 9400 negatives (basically 400 positives showing as negative during a singles round of tests).

 

Let me ask the following question.  If someone gets a false negative and does not isolate themselves, they have the potential to infect others.  What is the impact of a false positive, other than someone ends up isolating themselves when they otherwise would not need to? 

 

The biggest group that I see raising concerns able false positives is the group that considers the outbreak to be a manufactured event. The group that says the numbers are really not that big, but are manufacured by (depending upon the group) the media, the democrates, Bill Gates trying to get control of the world.

 

There are efforts.  The problem is the lack of consistency since a lot of the issues resulting in false positives is due to lab process (errors) such as cross contamination in the lab or collection process., a bit different then unable to detect the virus, sensitivity issues.   Those have have looked into them consider them to present but much smaller than false negatives.

 

If everyone would just treat what they do as if they had the virus, then testing would not matter.  The problem is that they don't many people with no symptoms, or with minor symptoms act just like they would if someone told them they had a cold.  They go out and interact as if there was not a problem and no chance of infecting others. 

 

50% of the cases are asymptomatic.  A new study from Korea today, indicates that asymptomatic patients shed just as much virus as those with symptoms.  As a result tests are needed to try and get those folks to isolate themselves and keep from infecting others.

Edited August 6, 2020 by npcl

[hcat]

Hope none of the Covid pos cruisers/crew become seriousy ill, and that the quarantine works well to limit spread.

 

Cruising, large gatherings  and  resorts should still "pause" til the numbers of actual cases  is down.  We made it this far....a bit longer will provide much better results in the long run.   

 

Rather than wander afar, we are enjoying our home more than ever indoors and outside.  We are  very fortunate to have power after the hurricane with the awful  name.  .And this week we will get lots of outdoor exercise cleaning up.... luckily no major damage but many large leafy tree limbs and branches all over the place.