Jump to content

Eight Passengers Test Positive on Costa Cruise


RICCruisers
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

I'm not sure I agree with suggestion that airlines are safe because only 19 passengers can link their Covid exposure to the airlines.  I'll suggest that the contact tracing hasn't been developed to track people on aircraft.  For me I think a cruise ship is safer than an aircraft.  If the guidelines for potential exposure are 6 ft for more than 15 minutes.  I can control that on a cruise ship.  I can social distance myself from others and limit my time around any individual that I don't know.  I have no control for social distance on an aircraft.  I am seated next to people I don't know at small distances for hours at a time.  Even with the middle seat open it's around 2 ft separation.  


I don’t think either are ‘safe’. But at least on an airline you have close contact with fewer people for less time. And for the most part it appears that mask wearing is diligent on a plane. So 2-3 hours of contact with maybe 4 people. And only the people who boarded the plan sick can spread it. Vs a cruise ship where over the course of a cruise it can be spread, more infections, more spread. So may start the cruise with 1 infected person but by the end have 10 people who are capable of spreading. I have a hard time buying the idea of being able to socially distance on a cruise ship based on the cruises I’ve been on. There are always crowds and while hopefully this will get better I can’t see it going away completely. So over the course of the cruise have the potential to be in close contact to many more people for long periods of time day after day. And the risk of spread increaseS exponentially once it starts and the number of spreaders increase.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

I'm not sure I agree with suggestion that airlines are safe because only 19 passengers can link their Covid exposure to the airlines.  I'll suggest that the contact tracing hasn't been developed to track people on aircraft.  For me I think a cruise ship is safer than an aircraft.  If the guidelines for potential exposure are 6 ft for more than 15 minutes.  I can control that on a cruise ship.  I can social distance myself from others and limit my time around any individual that I don't know.  I have no control for social distance on an aircraft.  I am seated next to people I don't know at small distances for hours at a time.  Even with the middle seat open it's around 2 ft separation.  

I agree with part of your post.  I think it is true that they don't really know for sure how many people have caught the virus on aircraft.  But the primary way to catch Covid is through the air and the cabin air is actually much less infectious than most people believe due to recirculation of air.  I don't think airlines are necessarily "safe" but they are safer than most believe.  As to cruises being safer than airlines.  I disagree 100% with this statement.  Yes, you can socially distance at times.  But unless you spend all your time in your cabin, including eating there, you will have consistent exposure for lengths of time to many people - at dinner, if you sit in a bar, if you go to the theater, and on and on.  I can imagine going on a cruise with new protocols, but I can't imagine going on a cruise and staying in my cabin 24/7 to stay safe.  That is what you would need to do to consider the cruise safe(r).  Might as well stay home IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote another poster --- " Let’s get real here ".

The higher the number of passengers and crew on board, the longer the cruise, the higher the odds of people becoming ill , quarantined , and spending " good money " for a lousy time.

Is it really that necessary to take that chance ?

Hey, just my opinion ---- Not advising anyone how to spend their money or time. 

( We will be cruising again as soon as it's safe )

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

I agree with part of your post.  I think it is true that they don't really know for sure how many people have caught the virus on aircraft.  But the primary way to catch Covid is through the air and the cabin air is actually much less infectious than most people believe due to recirculation of air.  I don't think airlines are necessarily "safe" but they are safer than most believe.  As to cruises being safer than airlines.  I disagree 100% with this statement.  Yes, you can socially distance at times.  But unless you spend all your time in your cabin, including eating there, you will have consistent exposure for lengths of time to many people - at dinner, if you sit in a bar, if you go to the theater, and on and on.  I can imagine going on a cruise with new protocols, but I can't imagine going on a cruise and staying in my cabin 24/7 to stay safe.  That is what you would need to do to consider the cruise safe(r).  Might as well stay home IMHO.

there was a recent study done for the Department of Defense  where they used particle generators to simulate passengers.

 

Due to the nature of the airflow, top down, hepa filter, fresh air added, the study concluded that the odds of particles making it to the breathing area of another passenger is quite low, as long as the passengers are masked.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story%3Fid%3D73616599&ved=2ahUKEwjM49OW1b7sAhVVu54KHY8JDKwQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Sg0-Y6QCewUay5F517t25&ampcf=1

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

I agree with part of your post.  I think it is true that they don't really know for sure how many people have caught the virus on aircraft.  But the primary way to catch Covid is through the air and the cabin air is actually much less infectious than most people believe due to recirculation of air.  I don't think airlines are necessarily "safe" but they are safer than most believe.  As to cruises being safer than airlines.  I disagree 100% with this statement.  Yes, you can socially distance at times.  But unless you spend all your time in your cabin, including eating there, you will have consistent exposure for lengths of time to many people - at dinner, if you sit in a bar, if you go to the theater, and on and on.  I can imagine going on a cruise with new protocols, but I can't imagine going on a cruise and staying in my cabin 24/7 to stay safe.  That is what you would need to do to consider the cruise safe(r).  Might as well stay home IMHO.

On the other hand, 100% of the cruise passengers test negative when they board and for the most part none of the air passengers are tested.  I certainly agree that 100% mask wearing and air circulation on a plane are far superior.  It is certainly easier to maintain proper social distances on a ship.  No doubt that a larger percentage of passengers on a plane will be contagious.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, nocl said:

there was a recent study done for the Department of Defense  where they used particle generators to simulate passengers.

 

Due to the nature of the airflow, top down, hepa filter, fresh air added, the study concluded that the odds of particles making it to the breathing area of another passenger is quite low, as long as the passengers are masked.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story%3Fid%3D73616599&ved=2ahUKEwjM49OW1b7sAhVVu54KHY8JDKwQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Sg0-Y6QCewUay5F517t25&ampcf=1

Read that piece on airlines.  Found it logical and reassuring.  Still can't get dw to fly though.  She trusts planes but not airports.

 

On cruise ships tight corridors inhibit air circulation.  Believe much of the Diamond Princess spread was attributed to how air was recirculated throughout ship.  Passengers who didn't leave their cabins were still infected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

On the other hand, 100% of the cruise passengers test negative when they board and for the most part none of the air passengers are tested.  I certainly agree that 100% mask wearing and air circulation on a plane are far superior.  It is certainly easier to maintain proper social distances on a ship.  No doubt that a larger percentage of passengers on a plane will be contagious.  


yes, but those tests are not 100% accurate. If the report is accurate that states that on a plane there is only a .003% chance of breathing in particles breathed out by another passenger; that is far better than testing where there is several percentage points at least of false negatives. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Baron Barracuda said:

As I read the news pieces 10 days into sailing seven passengers returning from shore excursion test positive.  They are put ashore a day or two later and ship calls at two more ports before sailing concludes. 

 

I see everyone who went ashore was tested on day 10 but what about those who never left ship?  Also no word of additional testing being performed at subsequent ports or during disembarkation.    The seven sick passengers may have been contagious for days prior to their positive test and would have expected entire ship to have been tested at disembarkation.  Surprised Italian health authorities weren't more vigilant.  

Costa as the article stated had some confusing information.  The biggest problem in their handling of this was that there were passengers that were on both cruises.  The single passenger put ashore was likely exposed on the first cruise as they did a back to back.  Were all those B2B passengers tested again at the beginning of the second cruise?  The first group was asymptomatic.  The single individual had definate symptoms and was hospitalized.  Reports here not consistent except 76yr old.  Some ok others doing poorly.

My other question is it appears a crew member tested positive.  Were all those in close contact to him quaranteened for at least a few days?

Seems the protocol is to put passengers ashore with port agreements in place as soon as possible.  At that point are you on your own expense wise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, taznremmy said:

Finally.  THANK YOU!!   IMHO the cruise lines are catching a bad rap, not only because of the stringent reporting requirements they have to adhere to, but also the length of a cruise.  If you are not in a location for a long period of time, you won't know where you caught it.  I would venture to guess the chances of catching it on a airplane are far greater than on a cruise ship.  It just doesn't have time to develop.


I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying as I disagree with pretty much everything you posted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WonderMan3 said:


I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying as I disagree with pretty much everything you posted.

Love how one article can cause all the arm chair scientists, Dr's, clinicians and staticians to go crazy.  I was busy being an armchair quaretback today, but it did not help Cam Newton nor the Patriots, he just would not listen to anything I was screaming at the TV!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Love how one article can cause all the arm chair scientists, Dr's, clinicians and staticians to go crazy.  I was busy being an armchair quaretback today, but it did not help Cam Newton nor the Patriots, he just would not listen to anything I was screaming at the TV!

 

Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baron Barracuda said:

Read that piece on airlines.  Found it logical and reassuring.  Still can't get dw to fly though.  She trusts planes but not airports.

 

On cruise ships tight corridors inhibit air circulation.  Believe much of the Diamond Princess spread was attributed to how air was recirculated throughout ship.  Passengers who didn't leave their cabins were still infected.

Even though I consider air planes to be pretty safe as long as everyone follows the rules, I still do not plan on flying anytime soon, because you cannot trust people to follow the rules.  Plus you do have the airport issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sanger727 said:


yes, but those tests are not 100% accurate. If the report is accurate that states that on a plane there is only a .003% chance of breathing in particles breathed out by another passenger; that is far better than testing where there is several percentage points at least of false negatives. 

As long as masks are worn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Costa as the article stated had some confusing information.  The biggest problem in their handling of this was that there were passengers that were on both cruises.  The single passenger put ashore was likely exposed on the first cruise as they did a back to back.  Were all those B2B passengers tested again at the beginning of the second cruise?  The first group was asymptomatic.  The single individual had definate symptoms and was hospitalized.  Reports here not consistent except 76yr old.  Some ok others doing poorly.

My other question is it appears a crew member tested positive.  Were all those in close contact to him quaranteened for at least a few days?

Seems the protocol is to put passengers ashore with port agreements in place as soon as possible.  At that point are you on your own expense wise?

One other issue is it would seem that if you have gotten the virus on board, especially if you have a crew member infected, they should have to re-establish the bubble and make sure the ship is clear of the virus before the ship sails again.  That should involve a period similar to their crew pre-boarding quarantine period. then retesting the entire crew.  Have not found anything that gives how long before they sail again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, nocl said:

One other issue is it would seem that if you have gotten the virus on board, especially if you have a crew member infected, they should have to re-establish the bubble and make sure the ship is clear of the virus before the ship sails again.  That should involve a period similar to their crew pre-boarding quarantine period. then retesting the entire crew.  Have not found anything that gives how long before they sail again.  

Obviously the 4 hours they were in port was not sufficient after the first cruise with COVID.  They had cases on the first 14 day cruise with COVID.  All tested on board after COVID diagnosed.  Evidently tested - everyone again - before the second cruise began?  Including all crew and B2B passengers? 

Passenger doing a B2B was infected and put ashore.  All other passengers taken to France as French citizens.  Costa is showing the next cruise for the Diadema on 2 January out of Barcelona.

The 2 effected cruises were charters and there was at least one more that was cancelled 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following a story out of Western Australia for a while, about the crew on a bulk carrier (Patricia Oldendorff) where at least 17 of the 21 (80%) of the new crew onboard (switched out in Manila) came up Covid positive, even after quarantine and testing:

 

"A bulk carrier anchored off Western Australia has become the latest vessel struck with a severe outbreak of COVID-19, serving as a reminder of the dangers that seafarers face during the pandemic. Currently, 80 percent of the crew aboard the 114,753 DWT bulk carrier during its current voyage has tested positive for the virus, although all are reported in good condition in quarantine until the virus is cleared.

 

The situation began on September 5, when the Patricia Oldendorff conducted a crew change while at Manila in the Philippines. Oldendorff in its statement on the current outbreak stressed, “The crew change was done in compliance with the Department of Transportation in the Philippines, Protocol for Crew Change and Repatriation.” Reports are that 20 of 21 crewmembers were switched with only the captain remaining aboard.

According to the company, all the crewmembers joining the bulker were quarantined in the Philippines before boarding and tested negative for the virus. All crewmembers again tested negative for the virus before leaving the Philippines.

 

Eleven days later when the vessel arrived off Port Hedland, on the northwest coast of Australia the captain informed local health officials that two crewmembers were not feeling well. The two crewmembers were put in isolation aboard the ship while the Australian authorities arranged for the crew to be tested. The two crewmembers were confirmed with positive tests on September 23. Two days later, it was agreed that 12 of the 21 crewmembers aboard the vessel, including the two positive cases, would be transferred to a hotel onshore where they would be placed in quarantine and could be observed.

 

The Department of Health for Western Australia at the time said that “Given the size of the vessel and number of crew, the Department of Health anticipates additional crew will also become COVID-19 positive over coming days.” They said that none of the crewmembers required medical treatment at the time and that planning was in place regarding potential replacement crew as well as the deep cleaning of the vessel.

The following day the Health Department announced seven additional cases had been confirmed among the nine remaining crewmembers aboard the vessel. 

 

Now the Australians have confirmed eight additional cases of the virus all found among the crew that had been transferred to shore. In total 17 crewmembers, including seven that remain on board as essential crew, have all tested positive for the virus. Only four crewmembers, at this stage, tested negative with two aboard and the other two on shore".

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/80-percent-of-crew-on-bulk-carrier-test-positive-for-covid-19

 

The Port Minister pointed out some interesting information:

 

"The mystery of how the seafarers came to be infected with the virus is yet to be solved.

 

Ports Minister Alannah MacTiernan said the Philippines, where the 21 crew boarded, has a "two-tier" quarantine system, with seafarers under hotel quarantine but officers allowed to quarantine at home before boarding the vessel.

 

"Now that we have been alerted to the fact that they have this two-tiered quarantine system and the obvious risks that that can impose, we will certainly now be giving some attention to it," she said.

 

"This I think is a very risky proposition and that is one that we are obviously going to be working with our federal counterparts to take up with the Philippines Government who run their protocol.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-30/port-hedland-coronavirus-cluster-prompts-maritime-union-warning/12716512

 

Then a second ship in two weeks arrived in Port Hedland (Vega Dream) with 7 cases of crew Covid:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-13/wa-ship-crew-covid-19-explainer/12759286

 

The Maritime Union is not happy with the use of buckets by the Vega Dream:

 

"Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) WA secretary Christy Cain said some of the ship's crew had direct contact with BHP's day shift employees after it docked in Port Hedland.

 

What they've been doing is using a bucket over the side of the vessel, passing iPads and paperwork down to BHP employees, and you can imagine [coronavirus] can be passed on then in respect to those employees going back into the workplace," he said.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-15/coronavirus-hit-vega-dream-ship-sets-sail-off-wa-for-philippines/12769094

 

And now the Vega Dream has sailed and is on it's way back to the Philippines:

 

 

"Australia authorities reported that the Mitsui O.S.K. Lines bulk carrier Vega Dream has been permitted to sail from its anchorage off Port Hedland despite crew members being in isolation aboard the vessel after testing positive for COVID-19. The vessel is believed to be sailing to the Philippines.

 

Before the ship’s departure, the Western Australian Department of Health offered humanitarian assistance to the COVID-19 positive crew. They were told that medical intervention was not required and the offer of assistance was declined". 

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/concerns-in-australia-over-covid-19-incidents-as-bulk-carrier-sails

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the airplane ride.  It's  also the security lines, screening,.lines to get on the plane(SW Air), sitting in the terminal, bathrooms etc.

 

Last Feb, we flew  SW Air to NY from Fl, changed at Baltimore.  A few days later we were sick beyond belief..even though we had enhanced flu shots.  There was no Covid testing back then..We just suffered for a few weeks being tired, low fever,  breathing issues, no appetite.  We'll never know what it was or how we caught it. Not pleasant..scary!

 

We will be flying back  to Fla  next month ( very nervous) but will have masks and sanitizers etc and do our best to isolate. Hoping we make it safely and can enjoy some sunshine for a few months.

 

We beilieve  cruising is a greater risk of exposure for a longer period, so we are waiting for 2022...hopes of a vaccine?????

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jagoffee said:

On the other hand, 100% of the cruise passengers test negative when they board and for the most part none of the air passengers are tested.  I certainly agree that 100% mask wearing and air circulation on a plane are far superior.  It is certainly easier to maintain proper social distances on a ship.  No doubt that a larger percentage of passengers on a plane will be contagious.  

Not sure I understand this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2020 at 1:17 PM, sanger727 said:


yes, but those tests are not 100% accurate. If the report is accurate that states that on a plane there is only a .003% chance of breathing in particles breathed out by another passenger; that is far better than testing where there is several percentage points at least of false negatives. 

But even a less than 100% accurate test is a better screen than no test.  A false positive just falsely eliminates a person who is not contagious and a false negative just allow a passengers who would have boarded without any screening.

 

5 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Not sure I understand this statement.


The  only point that I was making with that last section of my post is that all ship passengers were tested and no air passengers were tested, therefore there is a higher probability that the non screened air passengers may be contagious.  
I did not mean to imply that air travel was not safe.
 Nor do I believe that any action will eliminate all risk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jagoffee said:

But even a less than 100% accurate test is a better screen than no test.  A false positive just falsely eliminates a person who is not contagious and a false negative just allow a passengers who would have boarded without any screening.

 


For me, I don’t plan on taking a Covid test for a vacation. So I’m willing to book a flight that doesn’t require a Covid test but not a cruise that requires one. Depending on the test I’ve seen a 5-40% rate of false negatives. So if the choice is between sitting next to someone in an enclosed bar/dining area where they were tested but there’s a 5-40% chance a positive got through. Vs spending 3 hours in a plane where there’s a .003% of breathing the same air as someone who may be positive. I’ll take the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hcat said:

It's not just the airplane ride.  It's  also the security lines, screening,.lines to get on the plane(SW Air), sitting in the terminal, bathrooms etc.

 

Last Feb, we flew  SW Air to NY from Fl, changed at Baltimore.  A few days later we were sick beyond belief..even though we had enhanced flu shots.  There was no Covid testing back then..We just suffered for a few weeks being tired, low fever,  breathing issues, no appetite.  We'll never know what it was or how we caught it. Not pleasant..scary!

 

We will be flying back  to Fla  next month ( very nervous) but will have masks and sanitizers etc and do our best to isolate. Hoping we make it safely and can enjoy some sunshine for a few months.

 

We beilieve  cruising is a greater risk of exposure for a longer period, so we are waiting for 2022...hopes of a vaccine?????

I am also nervous about flying, but I believe the risk is pretty low, especially as compared to a cruise.  I'm sorry you had such a bad experience but as you say, it was back in February before the US was implementing any precautions at all.  Things have considerably improved by now.  Not my business I know, but if I were you I would go get an antibody test,  They don't know 100% if antibodies would last that long,  but considering how sick you were I suspect (no expert, granted) that if you had it you would still have some antibodies in your system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2020 at 10:52 AM, jagoffee said:

On the other hand, 100% of the cruise passengers test negative when they board and for the most part none of the air passengers are tested.  I certainly agree that 100% mask wearing and air circulation on a plane are far superior.  It is certainly easier to maintain proper social distances on a ship.  No doubt that a larger percentage of passengers on a plane will be contagious.  

If all of the passengers test negative, and there are no positives then the odds of an ill person making it on board is slim.

 

If you have some people test positive and are not allowed to board, then depending upon the number of positive with determine the odds of an ill person making it on board. The positives give some insight into the population that is board. Considering that false negatives with this illness is pretty high (around 20% even with PCR according to John Hopkins), if you get positives, the changes of a false negative is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you fly anywhere, including in the states, make sure you know the COVID 19 rules for that area!   We are flying on SW next week and their Web site has all kinds of Covid restrictions.    Most destinations outside of the U.S. are still in the red as far as Covid.   Mexico is “advise do not travel” and the DR is a straight “do not travel”.    This is for non essential travel so no one should be traveling for a vacation.    Florida is clear for travel but they have a high infection rate getting higher.   DC airports have restrictions if you are traveling from a state with a greater than 10% infection rate.   It’s important to look at current conditions before any travel as it changes daily.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...