Royal and NCL announce plan for return to sea

[jimbo5544]

Where is Carnivals?

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/23527-royal-caribbean-and-norwegian-reveal-the-healthy-return-of-sailing.html

[K&RCurt]

Two possibilities:

 

1) Waiting to see how this flys.

 

2) Still working on a strategey that doesn't rely on rapid testing that doesn't exist.

[shof515]

here the full report: https://www.royalcaribbeangroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Healthy-Sail-Panel_Full-Recommendations_9.21.20_FINAL.pdf

[BSR]

Thanks for the link. 

[stellarose]

I am sure Carnival will have a plan as well.  all the cruises lines communication. now would love carnival to do the muster 2.0 system. 

 

[Buck64]

Noticed they mentioned EXCURSION PLANNING.  Guess all excursions will have to be booked through the cruise lines.  I can understand this.  At least the excursions will have to follow safety protocol.  

[PhillyFan33579]

I still find it interesting that Royal and Norwegian got together for this and didn’t include Carnival. I wonder if Carnival wasn’t invited or if they simply decided to do their own thing. 

[stellarose]

I have no issue with doing the cruise ship only excursions.

[jetsfan58]

5 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I still find it interesting that Royal and Norwegian got together for this and didn’t include Carnival. I wonder if Carnival wasn’t invited or if they simply decided to do their own thing. 

It's called "unfriendly" competition. 

[ProgRockCruiser]

3 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I still find it interesting that Royal and Norwegian got together for this and didn’t include Carnival. I wonder if Carnival wasn’t invited or if they simply decided to do their own thing. 

The were invited as observers.  As such, I expect them to provide some sort of response, maybe even whole-heartedly backing the report, or maybe cautiously offering a slightly different approach.  From the report, page 4:

 

The work of the Expert Panel was designed and intended to be fully transparent to both industry leaders and regulators so that its work could be freely adopted by any company or industry that would benefit from the group’s scientific and medical insights. As such, the Panel welcomed observers from:

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Cruise Line International Association (CLIA)
• Carnival Cruise Line & plc
• MSC Cruises

[bafinegan]

I find it interesting that a neg test result is required between 5 days-24 hours prior to embarkation.  This places teh onus of testing on the passenger.   No where does it mention antibody testing ( which one would want to be a +, indicating some protection from Covid 19).  

I am currently part of a vaccine testing program with Pfizer.  Wonder how that affects things?

 

baf

Edited September 21, 2020 by bafinegan
update

[sanger727]

2 minutes ago, bafinegan said:

I find it interesting that a neg test result is required between 5 days-24 hours prior to embarkation.  This places teh onus of testing on the passenger.   No where does it mention antibody testing ( which one would want to be a +, indicating some protection from Covid 19).  

 

baf

 

I don't think there's any reason to do antibody testing. Not sure that they have evidence yet that having antibodies keeps you from being re-infected and becoming contagious again (even if you are protected against getting sick again). 

 

I also find the negative test 5-24 hours prior to embarkation interesting and difficult. I do think there are some places where getting a test on demand with quick results is challenging. Plus, how much would you have to pay for it? Would insurance cover that since it's a travel thing and most don't include travel vaccinations. They mention later in the report that if rapid testing is reliable and easily available then to do a second test upon boarding, but that wouldn't negate the need for the first test....

[bafinegan]

1 minute ago, sanger727 said:

 

I don't think there's any reason to do antibody testing. Not sure that they have evidence yet that having antibodies keeps you from being re-infected and becoming contagious again (even if you are protected against getting sick again). 

 

I also find the negative test 5-24 hours prior to embarkation interesting and difficult. I do think there are some places where getting a test on demand with quick results is challenging. Plus, how much would you have to pay for it? Would insurance cover that since it's a travel thing and most don't include travel vaccinations. They mention later in the report that if rapid testing is reliable and easily available then to do a second test upon boarding, but that wouldn't negate the need for the first test....

 

I just mention the antibody test because being in that Pfizer vaccine study, I have access to what my antibodies are.  I can also get a rapid COvid 19 antigen test if need be. But it could be problematic because some places may take up to a week to get results. Just interesting because the recent MSC review had the cruise line doing the rapid Antigen testing just prior to embarkation.  

 

baf

[ProgRockCruiser]

4 minutes ago, bafinegan said:

I find it interesting that a neg test result is required between 5 days-24 hours prior to embarkation.  This places teh onus of testing on the passenger.   No where does it mention antibody testing ( which one would want to be a +, indicating some protection from Covid 19).  

I am currently part of a vaccine testing program with Pfizer.  Wonder how that affects things?

 

baf

Well, they state that rapid on-site testing at the port could also be added on, but is no substitute for passengers getting tested prior to departing for the port - that minimizes spread locally during embarkation.

 

Antibody testing is still up in the air, AFAIK, as to whether it really means anything.  All they seem to know for sure is that it means you were exposed to it recently, and it seems to fade over time, thus no confirmation of long-term protection.

 

And the report also hammers frequently on the idea that the recommendations will need to change as things evolve, including vaccines I would imagine.  Vaccines for the masses are many months away, and the cruise lines want to start operating well before that.

 

3 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

I also find the negative test 5-24 hours prior to embarkation interesting and difficult. 

That's 5 days prior - that is pretty easy to accomplish in most areas by now - results within 3 days are pretty common if you need it.  And costs, if not covered by insurance, are fairly reasonable from what I understand.  Note they don't state if the test is supposed to be a PCR test, but I don't see how it couldn't be...

[sanger727]

1 minute ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

Well, they state that rapid on-site testing at the port could also be added on, but is no substitute for passengers getting tested prior to departing for the port - that minimizes spread locally during embarkation.

 

Antibody testing is still up in the air, AFAIK, as to whether it really means anything.  All they seem to know for sure is that it means you were exposed to it recently, and it seems to fade over time, thus no confirmation of long-term protection.

 

And the report also hammers frequently on the idea that the recommendations will need to change as things evolve, including vaccines I would imagine.  Vaccines for the masses are many months away, and the cruise lines want to start operating well before that.

 

That's 5 days prior - that is pretty easy to accomplish in most areas by now - results within 3 days are pretty common if you need it.  And costs, if not covered by insurance, are fairly reasonable from what I understand.  Note they don't state if the test is supposed to be a PCR test, but I don't see how it couldn't be...

 

Hopefully. But what happens if 5 days before the trip I go in for my PCR test and I don't get results back by the time the cruise boards? Denied embarkation even though I did everything in my power to abide by the policy? Hope I'm getting a refund...

[ProgRockCruiser]

1 minute ago, sanger727 said:

 

Hopefully. But what happens if 5 days before the trip I go in for my PCR test and I don't get results back by the time the cruise boards? Denied embarkation even though I did everything in my power to abide by the policy? Hope I'm getting a refund...

Well, the report contains just recommendations, not exact implementations, so that is something to be worked out.

 

Maybe cruise lines will have a special system to ensure you get tested and get results, by directing you to a specific provider, with the cost part of your cruise fare?

 

And what happens now (well, a year ago) if you plan to cruise, book your flights, and the flights get cancelled and you show up a day late to depart?  Bad luck will always happen.  This will just be another way to get unlucky, I guess.

[sanger727]

Just now, ProgRockCruiser said:

Well, the report contains just recommendations, not exact implementations, so that is something to be worked out.

 

Maybe cruise lines will have a special system to ensure you get tested and get results, by directing you to a specific provider, with the cost part of your cruise fare?

 

And what happens now (well, a year ago) if you plan to cruise, book your flights, and the flights get cancelled and you show up a day late to depart?  Bad luck will always happen.  This will just be another way to get unlucky, I guess.

 

Flying in a day early is somewhat within your control and should be covered by insurance. I don't think insurance companies are coving covid issues right now. I agree, hopefully they will have a special provider deal worked out with some major pharmacies. I would feel better about the results getting shared directly with the cruise line as opposed to bringing them printed out on a piece of paper. I can't imagine that that would be difficult to forge...

[xDisconnections]

41 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I still find it interesting that Royal and Norwegian got together for this and didn’t include Carnival. I wonder if Carnival wasn’t invited or if they simply decided to do their own thing. 

I’d bet they weren’t invited to the party.

[jeff.witwer]

24 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

 

Antibody testing is still up in the air, AFAIK, as to whether it really means anything.  All they seem to know for sure is that it means you were exposed to it recently, and it seems to fade over time, thus no confirmation of long-term protection.

 

 

Antibodies in your system means more than nothing.  It means that you have fought off the virus and still have those cells in your body to help fight off another infection.  There has only been one documented (2 other reports but details are sketchy) case of someone who has contracted COVID twice, that was a person from China who developed a slightly different strain after traveling to Spain.  He was not sick the second time around and the reason they found out was because of his trip to Spain, he was tested when returning to China.  What it not known is how long the antibodies will last, but that being said antibodies are not the only thing that will protect you after infection, T and B cells also play a role.  Look up Dr. John Campbell on YouTube, lots of good info there on the subject.  I had COVID back in March, as of last month still had antibodies, 5 months and still going.  A positive antibody test is a much better indication to travel than a PCR test that was done 5 days prior to travel as the person could have been exposed in the days following the test.

[crewsweeper]

It appears that "rapid tests" are producing more positives from asymptomatic people that longer, more accurate tests. could well be due to the fact that "rapid tests" pick up a lot of different strains not related to CV-19.  That would be a worry.

 

On the other hand a negative test 5 days ago tells nothing about current state of health.  And it can take even up to 10 days for the virus to show its self.  Add another 3-4 for peak contagious stage and you have potential for someone to walk on the ship with the virus ready to strike.  It's being shown that most masks don't stop the virus as thought (holes are bigger that virus). Plus masks are wet within 20 minutes and wet masks don't stop anything.

 

I'm all for getting the ships back to sea, but being in the older risk group, I'd prefer better treatment and vaccine availability.

[beerman2]

PPE's for some crew. Masks for all.

Daily temperature checks for pax/crew .

Specialized Dr. on board, intensive care type facility.

Crew 1 per cabin.

Specific cabins set aside for quarantine.

Social Distancing (Just read on NCL board CDC is now saying 6 ft. Isn't enough)

After crew gets back quarantined for 7 days on board.

 

22 Recommendations can be modified in time, 54 to be kept.

 

 

 

[BlerkOne]

2 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Where is Carnivals?

 

 

Carnival had their own panel of experts conference as did MSC. Remember?

 

But Carnival and MSC are both cruising in Europe, so I would say we've got Carnival's plan.

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, jeff.witwer said:

Antibodies in your system means more than nothing.

 

Pretty much. Not all antibodies are the same. It does not necessarily mean that you are immune.

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, xDisconnections said:

I’d bet they weren’t invited to the party.

 

They had their own party but were invited.

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

Well, they state that rapid on-site testing at the port could also be added on, but is no substitute for passengers getting tested prior to departing for the port - that minimizes spread locally during embarkation.

 

Antibody testing is still up in the air, AFAIK, as to whether it really means anything.  All they seem to know for sure is that it means you were exposed to it recently, and it seems to fade over time, thus no confirmation of long-term protection.

 

And the report also hammers frequently on the idea that the recommendations will need to change as things evolve, including vaccines I would imagine.  Vaccines for the masses are many months away, and the cruise lines want to start operating well before that.

 

That's 5 days prior - that is pretty easy to accomplish in most areas by now - results within 3 days are pretty common if you need it.  And costs, if not covered by insurance, are fairly reasonable from what I understand.  Note they don't state if the test is supposed to be a PCR test, but I don't see how it couldn't be...

Interestingly, we had to do some quick research for a planned trip to Beaches T&C in July (that fell thru because they rescinded the opening) and during that time, I learned way more than I ever wanted to know about testing.  I believe they will only allow PCR which varies on when the results come back by area/state.  As example, we are returning to CT for a funeral and CT requires 14 day isolation unless you have a test taken and results received within 72 hours.  We are now over 48 with no results, we will see when we get it back.  Costs are another interesting aspect.  I have taken 3 now and never even been asked for medical coverage information.  This of course could change when the fed money wanes thin.

Edited September 21, 2020 by jimbo5544