Cruise Critic Article on Rapid Test Prior to Embark

[Steelers36]

Came across this article as a link in a CC email:  

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5530/?et_cid=3352240&et_rid=16964753&et_referrer=Boards

 

My problem isn't taking the test - and they want min 97% accurate negative test result.  My problem is if a rapid test implemented by a cruise line gives a lot of false positives.  People could get denied boarding and be 100% healthy.  I also read where the one person on that recent Alaska cruise by a small line turned out to be negative after.  But in the meantime, it killed the cruise and was a great disruption.  IMO, they need a test process that gives a false positive < 0.10% of the time.  That is under 1/10 of a percent.

 

[caribill]

The problem is that most of the quick tests have a high record of false negatives.

 

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/07/30/shira-doron-covid-19-testing-types-accuracy

[Steelers36]

It would not be good to have unreliability either way.

[cherylandtk]

That 97% accuracy is a lofty goal; the current viral rapid tests (for flu and norovirus) are only about 50%-70% accurate.

[voljeep]

9 hours ago, caribill said:

The problem is that most of the quick tests have a high record of false negatives.

 

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/07/30/shira-doron-covid-19-testing-types-accuracy

false negatives are obliviously not good ... but a false 'positive' before going on a cruise ... or really any time is, well ...

[HappyInVan]

"One of the things the CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has emphasized is the simple solution of people wearing masks would make a huge difference," Fain said during a coffee chat for travel advisors with Vicki Freed, senior vice president of Sales, Trade Support and Service, on July 15. " It's remarkable how effective it (masks) can be. And it's very simple. I now have to add, 'Wear the Mask.'"

[muffydawg]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

"One of the things the CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has emphasized is the simple solution of people wearing masks would make a huge difference," Fain said during a coffee chat for travel advisors with Vicki Freed, senior vice president of Sales, Trade Support and Service, on July 15. " It's remarkable how effective it (masks) can be. And it's very simple. I now have to add, 'Wear the Mask.'"

Except mandatory mask policies and banning passengers for refusing to wear them has not helped the airlines at all. And all the airplane cleaning isn't helping either. The business travelers are not flying and the domestic leisure traveler isnt flying either. CLIA would be wise to pay attention to why the flying public has a sour taste for the domestic airlines. 

[memoak]

Testing will not bring back cruising only a vaccine is going to do that

[donaldsc]

14 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

Came across this article as a link in a CC email:  

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5530/?et_cid=3352240&et_rid=16964753&et_referrer=Boards

 

My problem isn't taking the test - and they want min 97% accurate negative test result.  My problem is if a rapid test implemented by a cruise line gives a lot of false positives.  People could get denied boarding and be 100% healthy.  I also read where the one person on that recent Alaska cruise by a small line turned out to be negative after.  But in the meantime, it killed the cruise and was a great disruption.  IMO, they need a test process that gives a false positive < 0.10% of the time.  That is under 1/10 of a percent.

 

 

That is never going to happen. The only test that would have that level of false positives is if you are in the hospital and they do several swab tests or if you die of Covid and they autopsy ypou.

 

DON

[Steelers36]

6 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

 

That is never going to happen. The only test that would have that level of false positives is if you are in the hospital and they do several swab tests or if you die of Covid and they autopsy you.

 

DON

Yes, I know I was pushing the envelope.  But it has to be good in that respect or the trip to the ship could be risky.

[cruisequeen4ever]

False positives would be a disruptive, stressful, disappointing issue. I don’t know the right answer. 

[Cruise Raider]

15 hours ago, caribill said:

The problem is that most of the quick tests have a high record of false negatives.

 

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/07/30/shira-doron-covid-19-testing-types-accuracy

 

Just to complicate matters further, the timing of the test is also important.  So, even if they did test people on day one, a negative result could be meaningless in terms of cruising.  

 

JUNE 19, 2020

False Negatives Found If COVID-19 Testing Done Too Soon

"A negative test, whether or not a person has symptoms, doesn't guarantee that they aren't infected by the virus."

 

Johns Hopkins researchers found that testing for SARS-CoV-2 too early in the course of infection is likely to result in false-negative test results, even though the patient may eventually test positive for the virus (Ann Intern Med 2020 May 13. [Epub ahead of print]).

For the new analysis, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers reviewed reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test data from seven prior studies, including two preprints and five peer-reviewed articles. The studies covered a combined total of 1,330 respiratory swab samples from a variety of people, including hospitalized patients and those identified through contact tracing in an outpatient setting.

Using RT-PCR test results, along with reported time of exposure to the virus or time of onset of measurable symptoms—such as fever, cough and breathing problems—the researchers calculated the probability that someone infected with SARS-CoV-2 would have a negative test result when they had the viral infection. In the published studies, health care providers collected nasal and throat samples from patients and noted the time of virus exposure or symptom onset and sample collection.

 

From these data, the Johns Hopkins researchers calculated daily false-negative rates. The researchers estimated that those tested with SARS-CoV-2 in the four days after infection were 67% more likely to test negative, even if they had the virus (CI, 27% to 94%). When the average patient began displaying symptoms of the virus, the false-negative rate was 38%. The test performed best eight days after infection (on average, three days after symptom onset), but even then had a false-negative rate of 20% (CI, 13% to 31%).

 

 

[donaldsc]

On 8/17/2020 at 12:29 PM, cruisequeen4ever said:

False positives would be a disruptive, stressful, disappointing issue. I don’t know the right answer. 

 

False positives may be disruptive.  This is what happened on the recent adventure Alaska cruise.  However, false negatives are much worse as they end up killing other people.

 

DON

[suekel]

On 8/17/2020 at 2:45 PM, Cruise Raider said:

 

Just to complicate matters further, the timing of the test is also important.  So, even if they did test people on day one, a negative result could be meaningless in terms of cruising.  

 

JUNE 19, 2020

False Negatives Found If COVID-19 Testing Done Too Soon

"A negative test, whether or not a person has symptoms, doesn't guarantee that they aren't infected by the virus."

 

Johns Hopkins researchers found that testing for SARS-CoV-2 too early in the course of infection is likely to result in false-negative test results, even though the patient may eventually test positive for the virus (Ann Intern Med 2020 May 13. [Epub ahead of print]).

For the new analysis, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers reviewed reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test data from seven prior studies, including two preprints and five peer-reviewed articles. The studies covered a combined total of 1,330 respiratory swab samples from a variety of people, including hospitalized patients and those identified through contact tracing in an outpatient setting.

Using RT-PCR test results, along with reported time of exposure to the virus or time of onset of measurable symptoms—such as fever, cough and breathing problems—the researchers calculated the probability that someone infected with SARS-CoV-2 would have a negative test result when they had the viral infection. In the published studies, health care providers collected nasal and throat samples from patients and noted the time of virus exposure or symptom onset and sample collection.

 

From these data, the Johns Hopkins researchers calculated daily false-negative rates. The researchers estimated that those tested with SARS-CoV-2 in the four days after infection were 67% more likely to test negative, even if they had the virus (CI, 27% to 94%). When the average patient began displaying symptoms of the virus, the false-negative rate was 38%. The test performed best eight days after infection (on average, three days after symptom onset), but even then had a false-negative rate of 20% (CI, 13% to 31%).

 

 

I work in a Urgent Care.  We tell people it has to be at least 48 hours, preferably 72 before we test them.  

 

[Cruise Raider]

5 hours ago, suekel said:

I work in a Urgent Care.  We tell people it has to be at least 48 hours, preferably 72 before we test them.  

 

Precisely!  At Stanford Medical Center, the advice is not to be tested before 5 days.  Now, whether it’s 48 hrs, 72 hours or 5 days, it really won’t be very effective for cruising ... or any travel, for that matter.  

[pcur]

On 8/17/2020 at 9:33 AM, muffydawg said:

Except mandatory mask policies and banning passengers for refusing to wear them has not helped the airlines at all. And all the airplane cleaning isn't helping either. The business travelers are not flying and the domestic leisure traveler isnt flying either. CLIA would be wise to pay attention to why the flying public has a sour taste for the domestic airlines. 

 

I think the public has soured on flying because the airlines changed their policies, changed them again, don't enforce wearing a mask, and we have seen too many videos of the isolated cases of physical and verbal abuse from no-masks.

 

Consistent and enforced policies will give people a heads-up about what to expect, and decide accordingly.  Plus, cruising usually costs a lot more than domestic flights, so people are going to decide early-on based on their overall decision about wearing a mask, vaccines, testing, social distancing, etc.

[voljeep]

3 minutes ago, pcur said:

n, don't enforce wearing a mask,

Jet Blue just kicked off a mother and her 6 kids because the 2 year old "refused" to wear a mask

 

j/s

[pcur]

7 minutes ago, voljeep said:

Jet Blue just kicked off a mother and her 6 kids because the 2 year old "refused" to wear a mask

 

j/s

 

Yes, I read about that.  It's a problem when people are flying with multi-aged children. 

 

I don't know the circumstances, but I have to guess flying with 6 children in August wasn't an emergency.  Perhaps leaving the 2 yo with a family member?  It's a matter of protecting the majority on that airplane, and Mom knew the rules, since her other kids were masked. 

 

I have a 2.5 yo grandson.  I would be playing the "mask game" with him for weeks before we flew, so he was used to wearing it.  Not judging, but commenting that it was avoidable.  Personal responsibility, and all that.

[joepeka]

2 hours ago, pcur said:

 

Yes, I read about that.  It's a problem when people are flying with multi-aged children. 

 

I don't know the circumstances, but I have to guess flying with 6 children in August wasn't an emergency.  Perhaps leaving the 2 yo with a family member?  It's a matter of protecting the majority on that airplane, and Mom knew the rules, since her other kids were masked. 

 

I have a 2.5 yo grandson.  I would be playing the "mask game" with him for weeks before we flew, so he was used to wearing it.  Not judging, but commenting that it was avoidable.  Personal responsibility, and all that.

I read that story too and the mother says that when she bought the tickets, masks for two years and younger was optional; then a week or so before their flight, Jet Blue changed the policy making masks mandatory for all passengers. I seem to recall that Jet Blue claims they notified all ticketed passengers of the policy change but this family apparently "didn't get the memo."

[Cruise Raider]

20 minutes ago, joepeka said:

I read that story too and the mother says that when she bought the tickets, masks for two years and younger was optional; then a week or so before their flight, Jet Blue changed the policy making masks mandatory for all passengers. I seem to recall that Jet Blue claims they notified all ticketed passengers of the policy change but this family apparently "didn't get the memo."

 

I hate to say it but, every aspect of life has changed midstream in the lives of everybody.  We are all having to roll with the punches and abide by ever changing guidelines.  I don't know if Jet Blue did or didn't notify all ticketed passengers of the policy change ahead of time but, they notified her of it on the flight.  So, it is what it is ... deal with it!!  

 

We were on a flight home from Ft Lauderdale from a cruise when they enacted the 3-1-1 rule.  We knew nothing about it.  But, when going through security at the airport, we were notified of the policy and we were forced to comply.  Not a problem ... those were extraordinary times.  This is also an extraordinary time where the rules are constantly changing.  Coming from an area where the lockdown measures have been strict since the middle of March and haven't really lightened up much, I am finding it hard to believe a family of seven was just out and about on a family vacation.  It's no wonder, as a country, we aren't doing better in stopping the spread.  

 

Now, they are expecting another spike in California ... why?  Because the fires have required many evacuations and there is nowhere for these people to go without entering a crowded shelter.  They are begging people to go stay with friends and family outside of the fire zones but, some people have no other option.  That's a valid reason ... I don't think a family vacation, by air travel, no less, is.  Call that judgmental but, when others don't stick to the lockdown guidelines for essential travel and expect a select few to do so, it kind of chaps my hide.  

 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Cruise Raider

[joepeka]

1 hour ago, Cruise Raider said:

 

I hate to say it but, every aspect of life has changed midstream in the lives of everybody.  We are all having to roll with the punches and abide by ever changing guidelines.  I don't know if Jet Blue did or didn't notify all ticketed passengers of the policy change ahead of time but, they notified her of it on the flight.  So, it is what it is ... deal with it!!  

 

We were on a flight home from Ft Lauderdale from a cruise when they enacted the 3-1-1 rule.  We knew nothing about it.  But, when going through security at the airport, we were notified of the policy and we were forced to comply.  Not a problem ... those were extraordinary times.  This is also an extraordinary time where the rules are constantly changing.  Coming from an area where the lockdown measures have been strict since the middle of March and haven't really lightened up much, I am finding it hard to believe a family of seven was just out and about on a family vacation.  It's no wonder, as a country, we aren't doing better in stopping the spread.  

 

Now, they are expecting another spike in California ... why?  Because the fires have required many evacuations and there is nowhere for these people to go without entering a crowded shelter.  They are begging people to go stay with friends and family outside of the fire zones but, some people have no other option.  That's a valid reason ... I don't think a family vacation, by air travel, no less, is.  Call that judgmental but, when others don't stick to the lockdown guidelines for essential travel and expect a select few to do so, it kind of chaps my hide.  

 

 

Please don't misunderstand, I wasn't defending the actions of either the family or Jet Blue, just providing a little additional context. 

[Cruise Raider]

18 minutes ago, joepeka said:

Please don't misunderstand, I wasn't defending the actions of either the family or Jet Blue, just providing a little additional context. 

 

I wasn't judging you on your comments.  I appreciated your neutral stance on the issue.  

[caribill]

12 hours ago, voljeep said:

Jet Blue just kicked off a mother and her 6 kids because the 2 year old "refused" to wear a mask

 

 

 

All the major US Airlines now require the masks be worn by those 2 years old and older. At least one of the airlines has told passengers that if you will not wear a mask, then you should not be flying and will not on that airline.

[Roberto256]

On 8/17/2020 at 12:33 PM, muffydawg said:

Except mandatory mask policies and banning passengers for refusing to wear them has not helped the airlines at all.

 

My opinion:  No mask, no cruise.   Your choice...

 

But, even the head dog catcher reluctantly wears a mask from time-to-time...

 

 

[caribill]

The rapid tests are not that reliable as shown by the recent MSC experience:

 

So far, the health protocols, which include mandatory rapid result COVID-19 tests at check in, caught five passengers with positive antigen swab tests at embarkation in Genoa.

 

"All of them, as per protocol, went through all steps of the successive secondary medical screening which included the RT-PCR (molecular) tests. All five eventually resulted negative at this second test," an MSC spokesperson said. "Additionally, a small number of other guests were denied embarkation as they did not meet requirements for boarding including residence in countries at high risk outside the Schengen area."

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5540/?et_cid=3354257&et_rid=17373002&et

 

Those were the false positives. No way to know how many false negatives there were.