CDC Approves Limited Restart of Cruising

[Hlitner]

Just looking at the topic of the thread perhaps we should simply say that the CDC has published guidelines that MAY lead to cruises that involve US ports.  The document is not even conditional approval of cruising as there are many steps that must first be followed by the cruise lines without any guarantee that the CDC will ultimately agree to let them cruise with paying passengers.   It is quite possible that the CDC will not approve a single cruise in the next year!  

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

11 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Considering that the news reports headlined cruising to resume and the initial response from those on these boards seem to have seen this as a big immediate step forward, maybe both sides got what they wanted.

Yes - but anyone who read and understands the provisions has to realize that, without actually extending the no sail order,  the CDC has virtually insured that there will be no sailing (of interest to CC posters)  for at least two three months.   And, depending upon how the predicted cold weather exacerbation of COVID plays out - make that five or six months. 

 

The wild card  (an effective, widely distributed vaccine) of course could dramatically change things —— but I think the “smart money” will not be placed on large deposits in the near future. 

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Considering that the news reports headlined cruising to resume and the initial response from those on these boards seem to have seen this as a big immediate step forward, maybe both sides got what they wanted.

It's a step forward but not a big step forward. The White House was trying to throw a bone to the Florida tourism industry by not allowing the No Sail Order to continue past October 31, but that bone is pretty meager. The requirements laid out in the new Conditional Sailing Order are going to be so arduous to meet that it's unlikely there will be any meaningful amount of cruising before February, which is what the CDC was aiming for to begin with.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, SelectSys said:

I am 100% confident that the countries I listed  above would take the deal in a heartbeat.  You can't look at the situation through the eyes of someone living in a very rich, first world country.  Those with much less make other decisions in terms of balancing economics and health.

The Bahamas has already backed off of accepting cruise ships, and won't do so until they reach level 4 opening.  They've just been in level 3 for two weeks now.  Haiti is currently not open for tourism.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - but anyone who read and understands the provisions has to realize that, without actually extending the no sail order,  the CDC has virtually insured that there will be no sailing (of interest to CC posters)  for at least two three months.   And, depending upon how the predicted cold weather exacerbation of COVID plays out - make that five or six months. 

 

The wild card  (an effective, widely distributed vaccine) of course could dramatically change things —— but I think the “smart money” will not be placed on large deposits in the near future. 

What I was pointing out was the headlines. The immediate headlines seemed to be that cruising was well on the way to starting. And how many read all those provisions? 

 

You can really see a difference between the initial posts after the announcement and those that followed as more of the details became more readily available.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, njhorseman said:

It's a step forward but not a big step forward. The White House was trying to throw a bone to the Florida tourism industry by not allowing the No Sail Order to continue past October 31, but that bone is pretty meager. The requirements laid out in the new Conditional Sailing Order are going to be so arduous to meet that it's unlikely there will be any meaningful amount of cruising before February, which is what the CDC was aiming for to begin with.

Again, I do not disagree. I was just saying that the initial headlines and reactions to the CDC order gave a false impression as to how advanced the return to cruising is. The CDC got what they wanted and the administration got people to at least first think this was a BIG win for the cruising industry instead of a small step forward.

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Again, I do not disagree. I was just saying that the initial headlines and reactions to the CDC order gave a false impression as to how advanced the return to cruising is. The CDC got what they wanted and the administration got people to at least first think this was a BIG win for the cruising industry instead of a small step forward.

Yes, as I've said, there are still big hurdles to overcome.  For instance, someone brought up on another thread about turn-around day.  The CDC is requiring laboratory testing, not on-site quick testing, which takes 2-4 hours, after it gets to an approved lab.  So, they cannot "release" disembarking passengers until their results are back (are they going to hold them in the terminal?  social distancing?), and embarking passengers cannot board until their results are back.  So, on turn around day, you have to collect samples from all pax and crew onboard, send them to the lab as soon as you dock, collect samples from boarding pax as they arrive, send them to the lab, and then release the disembarking pax, and then allow the new pax to board.  I see embark and disembark days becoming separate.

[ed01106]

16 hours ago, Underwatr said:

An executive order could fix that in a jiffy.

 

No it couldn’t.  It would take a law passing both the house and senate plus signed by the president.

[cbr663]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, as I've said, there are still big hurdles to overcome.  For instance, someone brought up on another thread about turn-around day.  The CDC is requiring laboratory testing, not on-site quick testing, which takes 2-4 hours, after it gets to an approved lab.  So, they cannot "release" disembarking passengers until their results are back (are they going to hold them in the terminal?  social distancing?), and embarking passengers cannot board until their results are back.  So, on turn around day, you have to collect samples from all pax and crew onboard, send them to the lab as soon as you dock, collect samples from boarding pax as they arrive, send them to the lab, and then release the disembarking pax, and then allow the new pax to board.  I see embark and disembark days becoming separate.

 

I can't imagine the logistics of this.  For months now I have commented on the challenge of just trying to have passengers physically distance at embarkation and disembarkation.  Let's face it, you can tell some people all you want not to arrive until a certain time and they are simply not going to listen.  But now adding in testing and awaiting results will be a formidable logistical hurdle.

[chengkp75]

17 hours ago, Underwatr said:

An executive order could fix that in a jiffy.

 

8 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

 

No it couldn’t.  It would take a law passing both the house and senate plus signed by the president.

Not so sure of that.  The only reason they don't do cruises to nowhere (not that they can't, because they can), is a State Department/CBP regulation regarding work visas.  I don't see what law would need to be changed to change the qualifications needed to get a work visa.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, cbr663 said:

 

I can't imagine the logistics of this.  For months now I have commented on the challenge of just trying to have passengers physically distance at embarkation and disembarkation.  Let's face it, you can tell some people all you want not to arrive until a certain time and they are simply not going to listen.  But now adding in testing and awaiting results will be a formidable logistical hurdle.

As someone posted on another thread, they could collect samples onboard the last night, and get close to the turn around port that night and send the samples off on a launch for overnight testing, but I have no clue how many approved labs there are, and whether they would be able to handle a couple thousand tests dumped all at once.

[cbr663]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

As someone posted on another thread, they could collect samples onboard the last night, and get close to the turn around port that night and send the samples off on a launch for overnight testing, but I have no clue how many approved labs there are, and whether they would be able to handle a couple thousand tests dumped all at once.

 

I guess we will learn more when the CDC posts its Technical Instructions.  I'm glad that I don't have the responsibility of calming the zoo that embarkation used to be.  Trying to stay in constant communication with the passengers is going to be quite the challenge.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, as I've said, there are still big hurdles to overcome.  For instance, someone brought up on another thread about turn-around day.  The CDC is requiring laboratory testing, not on-site quick testing, which takes 2-4 hours, after it gets to an approved lab.  So, they cannot "release" disembarking passengers until their results are back (are they going to hold them in the terminal?  social distancing?), and embarking passengers cannot board until their results are back.  So, on turn around day, you have to collect samples from all pax and crew onboard, send them to the lab as soon as you dock, collect samples from boarding pax as they arrive, send them to the lab, and then release the disembarking pax, and then allow the new pax to board.  I see embark and disembark days becoming separate.

 

Chief, I had originally read the document and assumed that the CDC was referring to the rapid antigen tests (such as those being used by MSC now) for COVID and not the slower one with regard to the embarkation/disembarkation process.

 

I'm still not completely sure I understand the difference.... 

 

Does the wording "laboratory test" automatically proscribe the quick swab tests? I thought it would still be considered a "laboratory test". Especially since the wording used by the CDC to describe the testing required for embarking/disembarking passengers is specifically different from the wording for the test required for any passengers or crew onboard who may become symptomatic.

 

In that case they specifically use the termininology "rapid point-of-care test", which according to a description by the FDA "use a mucus sample from the nose or throat but can be analyzed at the doctor’s office or clinic where the sample is collected and results may be available in minutes." These may be molecular or antigen tests.  (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-testing-basics)

 

 

Thus looks to me as if the general term "diagnostic test" could refer to either an antigen test or a molecular one. But again, the CDC doesn't use that term in their framework.

 

CDC has this to say about using the rapid antigen tests:  "Rapid antigen tests can be used for screening testing in high-risk congregate settings in which repeat testing could quickly identify persons with a SARS-CoV-2 infection to inform infection prevention and control measures, thus preventing transmission. In this case, there may be value in providing immediate results with antigen tests even though they may have lower sensitivity than RT-PCR tests, especially in settings where a rapid turnaround time is required. 

 

I guess at the end of the day CDC will provide additional guidance, since they also add "as required by CDC technical instructions or orders".  But I didn't read the general guidance as eliminating the more rapid tests.

[cbr663]

44 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Chief, I had originally read the document and assumed that the CDC was referring to the rapid antigen tests (such as those being used by MSC now) for COVID and not the slower one with regard to the embarkation/disembarkation process.

 

.....

 

At this point it seems to be unclear.  The Conditional Sail Order states:

 

"(4) The cruise ship operator must conduct laboratory testing of all passengers and crew on the day of embarkation and the day of disembarkation in accordance with CDC technical instructions or orders. Laboratory test results must be available prior to passengers embarking and prior to passengers and crew departing for their final destinations after disembarking the ship. 

(5) The cruise ship operator must immediately conduct laboratory testing of any passengers and crew who report illness consistent with COVID-19 during the voyage with rapid point of care results as required by CDC technical instructions or orders. Identified close contacts of cases must also be laboratory tested with rapid point of care results. "

 

Embarkation and disembarkation only mentions laboratory testing whereas onboard testing mentioned laboratory testing wth rapid point of care results.  My take, until the CDC posts more, is that considering the cruise lines must have shore based testing facilities that embarkation and disembarkation is land based and ship board while cruising can be rapid point of care.  Basically, ships aren't required to create labs on every ship.

 

But, I could certainly be wrong on this.  Time will tell.

[chengkp75]

In the beginning of the document, where it lists acronyms and definitions, it says:

 

"Laboratory testing, or laboratory test results means testing performed in a laboratory certified as meeting the standards of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) ....... or CLIA-waived point of care testing", so the shipboard testing could be used, but it must be RT-PCR testing, as they state a few times that antigen testing is not sufficient.  But even with the onboard equipment being "CLIA-waived", they could not do the weekly testing of crew unless they had 2 or 3 machines going 24/7.

[capriccio]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As someone posted on another thread, they could collect samples onboard the last night, and get close to the turn around port that night and send the samples off on a launch for overnight testing, but I have no clue how many approved labs there are, and whether they would be able to handle a couple thousand tests dumped all at once.

 

And those couple thousand tests for one ship would be multiples of that when multiple ships are in port (for example,  weekends during high season at the Florida ports and Seattle during the Alaska season).

[chengkp75]

34 minutes ago, capriccio said:

 

And those couple thousand tests for one ship would be multiples of that when multiple ships are in port (for example,  weekends during high season at the Florida ports and Seattle during the Alaska season).

This is why the CDC wants the ports to limit the number of ships each day.

[SelectSys]

20 hours ago, mom says said:

... our chief medical officers continue to warn against nonessential travel. I sincerely hope you are wrong about the Caribbean ports being eager to reopen.

 

I largely agree with your medical officer.  Other than a socially distanced trip to the Grand Canyon and a visit to some friends in AZ, I have been at home.  Others, especially the young do not care so much.  One of my kids significant other is going to Mexico next weekend to surf.  Doesn't seem to be too worried about going.

 

We shall see what happens when the cruises really want to get started from the US.  My own gut says that the private islands could be well managed without great risk to the general public.

 

13 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The Bahamas has already backed off of accepting cruise ships, and won't do so until they reach level 4 opening.  They've just been in level 3 for two weeks now.  Haiti is currently not open for tourism.

 

Thanks for the update.  The real chats with these governments is happening out of view from the public.

[ovccruiser]

Anyone considered where the ships crew will come from. The ships are in various places around the globe all working on minimum crew to keep the ship going, probably no hotel staff at all, most of which will probably be in their own countries, which depending where that is, would the US allow entry from those countries if they have a high incidence of corona virus?

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, ovccruiser said:

Anyone considered where the ships crew will come from. The ships are in various places around the globe all working on minimum crew to keep the ship going, probably no hotel staff at all, most of which will probably be in their own countries, which depending where that is, would the US allow entry from those countries if they have a high incidence of corona virus?

Well, technically these are merchant mariners, and ever since the beginning of the pandemic, the USCG has declared all merchant mariners, whatever nationality, to be "essential workers" and exempt from any travel restrictions.  The US and Canada were the only nations to do this from the beginning, and only a few countries have followed suit, which has led to over half a million mariners stuck on their ships long after their tours are over, and another half million mariners who cannot get back to their ships.  This number increases by about 100k per month.

Edited November 2, 2020 by chengkp75

[evandbob]

4 hours ago, ovccruiser said:

Anyone considered where the ships crew will come from. The ships are in various places around the globe all working on minimum crew to keep the ship going, probably no hotel staff at all, most of which will probably be in their own countries, which depending where that is, would the US allow entry from those countries if they have a high incidence of corona virus?

 

And there aren't many countries that have higher rates of viral infections than us here in the US.  

[SelectSys]

4 hours ago, evandbob said:

 

And there aren't many countries that have higher rates of viral infections than us here in the US.  

 

Right now about 25 countries (mostly in Europe) that have higher infection rates than the US on a population adjusted basis according to data compiled by the ECDC.   

 

I know you like to bash your country for some reason, but when compared against the similarly sized EU the situation really isn't all that different than the US as Europe has 220k deaths and over 7.5 million cases.  The daily case rates in Europe are 150k/day while the US is at about 80k/day.

 

I am not saying any of this to bash Europe, but only to let you see that things aren't different than what you are experiencing at home.

 

Look at this site if you want to track the data for yourself. 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

Edited November 2, 2020 by SelectSys

[mom says]

At least the EU countries are taking steps to counter their second wave.

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Right now about 25 countries (mostly in Europe) that have higher infection rates than the US on a population adjusted basis according to data compiled by the ECDC.   

And, while this is a significant data point, another to consider when comparing the US to Europe is population density, especially when dealing with an infectious disease, and an airborne one in particular.  The entire EU has a population density 3.5 times the US, making mitigation factors that much harder to maintain, and you would expect a much higher infection rate just from the closeness involved.  

[jollyjones]

On 11/1/2020 at 7:49 AM, chengkp75 said:

  I see embark and disembark days becoming separate.

 

I'd be fully in favour of this - both days were stressful and harried enough before all this, they're going to be awful if all the testing is added in (which it must be, I'm all in favour of as much testing as possible).

And surely better for the crew?

 

It'd play havoc with itineraries and port loads and prices and the economics of it all, but wouldn't it be so much less unpleasant?

And it'd possibly be doable, at least initially when few ships are sailing.