PCR Testing

[Radiioman46]

MSC has been cruising for a short while now, and watching some of the videos that describe the protocols that they are using shows that upon embarkation, they are running two tests for the Corona Virus. The first one has a reasonable fast turn around on the results, and if you test positive, then you have to take the second test which is known as the PCR test. If you pass this test, you can board the ship. 

 

In the NY Times today, a report came out stating that the PCR test is 90% inaccurate for false positives. Something to do with the number of cycles that the test runs through. I don't know anything about this, but are their medical ppl on here that can verify any of this? Just curious because of the article that came out today. 

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, Radiioman46 said:

MSC has been cruising for a short while now, and watching some of the videos that describe the protocols that they are using shows that upon embarkation, they are running two tests for the Corona Virus. The first one has a reasonable fast turn around on the results, and if you test positive, then you have to take the second test which is known as the PCR test. If you pass this test, you can board the ship. 

 

In the NY Times today, a report came out stating that the PCR test is 90% inaccurate for false positives. Something to do with the number of cycles that the test runs through. I don't know anything about this, but are their medical ppl on here that can verify any of this? Just curious because of the article that came out today. 

I have never heard anything like that for pcr, can you provide a link?

[Radiioman46]

Is it legal to provide links to news articles on this board? I have no problem with posting the link, but don't want to do something wrong. It's on the New York Times. Google it. 

 

I've been watching videos on youtube of cruises that have started, and they explain the protocols that they have been using. 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Radiioman46

[JerseyGirlJen]

I have heard about it,  just for the first time on Thursday.  To briefly sum it up from my very basic understanding, they are amplifying the samples larger than they are supposed to, and it is creating a ton of false positives.  

[jimbo5544]

1 minute ago, Radiioman46 said:

Is it legal to provide links to news articles on this board? I have no problem with posting the link, but don't want to do something wrong. It's on the New York Times. Google it. 

It is ok, but l googled it as u posted.  So this came up a while ago.  It is not necessarily incorrect, it just cannot measure the antibodies.  Everyone who tests positive has had the virus, the question is whether they still do.  It is the we have.  

[Radiioman46]

The videos that I've watched describe that if you test positive on the quick test, then they test you using the PCR test and if you test positive on that one, then you're not allowed to board the ship. But if you test negative on the first test, or the PCR test, you can board. It seems to be the protocol they are using as they are starting up. 

 

But if the PCR tests are coming back with a 90% error rate, I think they should consider another test. 

[zqvol]

1 hour ago, Radiioman46 said:

MSC has been cruising for a short while now, and watching some of the videos that describe the protocols that they are using shows that upon embarkation, they are running two tests for the Corona Virus. The first one has a reasonable fast turn around on the results, and if you test positive, then you have to take the second test which is known as the PCR test. If you pass this test, you can board the ship. 

 

In the NY Times today, a report came out stating that the PCR test is 90% inaccurate for false positives. Something to do with the number of cycles that the test runs through. I don't know anything about this, but are their medical ppl on here that can verify any of this? Just curious because of the article that came out today. 

Embarkation is a mess in normal times. What is it going to be like under the rule that the tests have to be completed and results returned before anyone can board the ship? Same thing with debarking. Is debarkation going to be one day and embarkation the next? It just seems to me that it is not going to be a quick process.

[Radiioman46]

It seems to not be a problem even though they say the wait times are around 45 minutes to 90 minutes. But, since they are only allowing a fraction of full capacity, that might be the explanation. If we go back to 100%, 90 minutes will take a long time for everybody to board. 

[Purvis1231]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

I have never heard anything like that for pcr, can you provide a link?

This is the article in reference: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[bafinegan]

53 minutes ago, zqvol said:

Embarkation is a mess in normal times. What is it going to be like under the rule that the tests have to be completed and results returned before anyone can board the ship? Same thing with debarking. Is debarkation going to be one day and embarkation the next? It just seems to me that it is not going to be a quick process.

 

I would think the debarkation tst could be given the day before.  It would still be within 24 hrs.

 

baf

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Radiioman46 said:

Is it legal to provide links to news articles on this board? I have no problem with posting the link, but don't want to do something wrong. It's on the New York Times. Google it. 

 

 

Posting a link to a news article and even short excerpts is legal. Copying and pasting entire articles would violate copyright laws.

[Host Kat]

8 hours ago, Radiioman46 said:

Is it legal to provide links to news articles on this board? I have no problem with posting the link, but don't want to do something wrong...

 

@Radiioman46

 

Howdy!  

 

To help you out regarding the posting of links, here is the information from the Guidelines we all agreed to follow when registering for our free Cruise Critic memberships.

 

From the Copyright Infringement section:

The posting of blocks of text obtained from anywhere on the Internet, online newspapers, web sites, Facebook and other social media sites, magazines, etc., defeats the purpose of our Cruise Boards. All of this information is available to everyone online, and doesn't add to the idea of sharing firsthand experiences and cruise advice. Also, the majority of information out there is protected by an author's individual copyright. Therefore, we will remove such information from the message boards. However, linking via url to the information is allowed.

The one exception to this would be Cruise Line press releases. You may post these word for word on the boards, if you clearly indicate the source.

 

From the Removal of Topics/Posts section:

Question: Why don't you allow us to post about other cruise sites? My post contains *** and then you removed it!  Answer:  Actually, we do allow the legitimate linking to information at another cruise site, as long as that link isn't posted in an attempt to drive traffic to that site (in the sole discretion of Cruise Critic), or if the posting of such site is meant to cause disruption within the community. If a website's url or name is replaced by a series of *****, it may mean that particular website had spammed our community with advertisements for their site, or that member(s) may have posted in a way that we consider self-promotion or advertising.

 

I sincerely hope this will be helpful and glad to have you aboard Cruise Critic! 

 

Happy sails,

 

Host Kat 

[Bgcruising]

9 hours ago, Radiioman46 said:

Is it legal to provide links to news articles on this board? I have no problem with posting the link, but don't want to do something wrong. It's on the New York Times.

 

It sure is. Some people have habits of just posting a link without even saying a word.

[sanger727]

On 10/31/2020 at 9:59 AM, Radiioman46 said:

MSC has been cruising for a short while now, and watching some of the videos that describe the protocols that they are using shows that upon embarkation, they are running two tests for the Corona Virus. The first one has a reasonable fast turn around on the results, and if you test positive, then you have to take the second test which is known as the PCR test. If you pass this test, you can board the ship. 

 

In the NY Times today, a report came out stating that the PCR test is 90% inaccurate for false positives. Something to do with the number of cycles that the test runs through. I don't know anything about this, but are their medical ppl on here that can verify any of this? Just curious because of the article that came out today. 

this article isn’t saying that it’s 90% inaccurate. It’s saying that, of the people who tested positive, 90% had a small viral load. So everyone who tested positive had some viral load, it’s tough to even consider that a ‘false’ positive. Whereas the rapid antigen tests are less sensitive and more likely to detect people who are contagious only. So the question being, is it better to let people on the ship with a small viral load - whether it’s building towards a new infection or tapering off from an old infection vs Or deny boarding to people who are most likely not contagious at the moment in time when they were tested. I don’t know what the best answer it, but it appears that using both tests might be helpful. Everyone gets the rapid antigen test which is designed to catch people with enough viral load to be contagious and then using the PCR only to validate a positive antigen test.

[jimbo5544]

On 11/1/2020 at 11:59 AM, sanger727 said:

this article isn’t saying that it’s 90% inaccurate. It’s saying that, of the people who tested positive, 90% had a small viral load. So everyone who tested positive had some viral load, it’s tough to even consider that a ‘false’ positive. Whereas the rapid antigen tests are less sensitive and more likely to detect people who are contagious only. So the question being, is it better to let people on the ship with a small viral load - whether it’s building towards a new infection or tapering off from an old infection vs Or deny boarding to people who are most likely not contagious at the moment in time when they were tested. I don’t know what the best answer it, but it appears that using both tests might be helpful. Everyone gets the rapid antigen test which is designed to catch people with enough viral load to be contagious and then using the PCR only to validate a positive antigen test.

Well said.  The issue is not in the accuracy in the Pcr test if you are negative, or whether the person had the virus, but whether the person STILL has the virus.