Covid on Iona

[Ardennais]

8 hours ago, wowzz said:

John, I absolutely understand your position, but surely the same concerns would arise if you or your wife had a heart  attack, developed pneumonia etc. You would need to hospitalised ashore, and in due course flown home. Covid is no different,  apart of course,  from the need to quarantine. 

When you cruised previously,  were you not concerned about what would happen in the event of a serious illness .

 

Serious illness is a different matter and one which is always at the very back of my mind! You would be so wrapped up in it that you would just have to deal with it. If you were the poorly one, you would hardly be aware of what was going on. Adrenalin would probably kick in if something happened to your partner.  Mild covid and being isolated is a completely different matter. To begin with, you wouldn’t be in a medical facility. We’ve all heard stories about sub-standard quarantine hotels. 

[Megabear2]

Published 6 days ago:

 

According to the New York Times – which collates figures from Johns Hopkins University – only 13 countries were on Friday reporting higher seven-day average daily cases than the UK.

They were: Serbia (101), Bermuda (99), Mongolia (74), Montenegro (72), Grenada (71), Barbados (65), Suriname (61), Antigua and Barbuda (61), Anguilla (57), Cuba (57), Dominica (56), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (56), and Lithuania (54).

The three countries which have seen the most coronavirus case all have infection rates well below the UK’s.

[wowzz]

3 minutes ago, Ardennais said:

Mild covid and being isolated is a completely different matter. 

I'm intrigued by this concept of "mild covid". If someone is tested positive, how is it determined that only mild symptoms will be experienced ? Surely, no one knows exactly how each individual will be affected ?

Just assuming that people will only get mild symptoms,  so all that is required is to stick them in a quarantine cabin,  is surely medical madness ?  

[wowzz]

4 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Published 6 days ago:

 

According to the New York Times – which collates figures from Johns Hopkins University – only 13 countries were on Friday reporting higher seven-day average daily cases than the UK.

They were: Serbia (101), Bermuda (99), Mongolia (74), Montenegro (72), Grenada (71), Barbados (65), Suriname (61), Antigua and Barbuda (61), Anguilla (57), Cuba (57), Dominica (56), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (56), and Lithuania (54).

The three countries which have seen the most coronavirus case all have infection rates well below the UK’s.

So, the UK has the 14th highest daily case rate in the world!  Safer therefore to be visiting Spain on a cruise than Liverpool.

[terrierjohn]

8 hours ago, wowzz said:

John, I absolutely understand your position, but surely the same concerns would arise if you or your wife had a heart  attack, developed pneumonia etc. You would need to hospitalised ashore, and in due course flown home. Covid is no different,  apart of course,  from the need to quarantine. 

When you cruised previously,  were you not concerned about what would happen in the event of a serious illness .

 

We are really talking about the seriousness of the illness, if the ships doctor thought they could not treat the passenger on board, then it would be different, but when it's a case of mild or even asymptomatic covid, then it's a different matter.

[Megabear2]

Indeed!  However no one is going to remove me from Liverpool and stick me in a possibly dodgy quarantine hotel when I'm not unwell, not testing positive and have no symptoms and at possibly a very high financial cost to boot!

[wowzz]

1 minute ago, terrierjohn said:

We are really talking about the seriousness of the illness, if the ships doctor thought they could not treat the passenger on board, then it would be different, but when it's a case of mild or even asymptomatic covid, then it's a different matter.

I'll repeat a comment I posted earlier. If someone tests positive, how can you be 100% certain tge symptoms will be "mild "?

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Indeed!  However no one is going to remove me from Liverpool and stick me in a possibly dodgy quarantine hotel when I'm not unwell, not testing positive and have no symptoms and at possibly a very high financial cost to boot!

In which case,  the answer is not to cruise.

[Megabear2]

If the cruise companies had been upfront about these things before taking balances and boasting "Cruise With Confidence" I would have taken that decision.  However despite repeatedly asking for months they did not give answers when requested. They have my money now and I'm locked in unless I can afford to throw it away - which I can't I'm afraid - so I have to ask these questions of all parties as a result. I believed them that the Covid insurance policies would cover all eventualities but it appears they may not. I am not unreasonable in asking them to look again at the situation and ask what they may be able to do.

[davecttr]

21 minutes ago, wowzz said:

I'm intrigued by this concept of "mild covid". If someone is tested positive, how is it determined that only mild symptoms will be experienced ? Surely, no one knows exactly how each individual will be affected ?

Just assuming that people will only get mild symptoms,  so all that is required is to stick them in a quarantine cabin,  is surely medical madness ?  

People who are infected with COVID are similar to young babies. They can 'go off' very quickly indeed and need immediate hospitalisation. The ships don't cater for young babies and they would not have the facilities for treating COVID either which needs oxygen and specialist drugs plus specialist medical staff.

 

[Ardennais]

26 minutes ago, wowzz said:

I'm intrigued by this concept of "mild covid". If someone is tested positive, how is it determined that only mild symptoms will be experienced ? Surely, no one knows exactly how each individual will be affected ?

Just assuming that people will only get mild symptoms,  so all that is required is to stick them in a quarantine cabin,  is surely medical madness ?  

Well mild covid is all around here now so it’s not a concept but reality.

 

Regardless, if you take the view that all passengers who happen to test positive during a cruise should be taken off, and as I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t disagree with that, then it should be a simple matter for P&O to state up front that this is now their protocol. That is simply my point. Just inform customers or potential customers of the protocol and then they can decide based on that info whether or not they want to cruise. 

[Ardennais]

3 minutes ago, davecttr said:

People who are infected with COVID are similar to young babies. They can 'go off' very quickly indeed and need immediate hospitalisation. The ships don't cater for young babies and they would not have the facilities for treating COVID either which needs oxygen and specialist drugs plus specialist medical staff.

 

Agreed. So P&O, just make that clear. 

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, davecttr said:

People who are infected with COVID are similar to young babies. They can 'go off' very quickly indeed and need immediate hospitalisation. The ships don't cater for young babies and they would not have the facilities for treating COVID either which needs oxygen and specialist drugs plus specialist medical staff.

 

Thank you - that is the point that I am trying to make.

If you are tested positive, the cruise line cannot assume you will only have mild  symptoms,  and therefore has no option but to offload you.

The point of contention is what should happen to the travelling companion of the infected person.

[wowzz]

4 minutes ago, Ardennais said:

Well mild covid is all around here now so it’s not a concept but reality.

I totally agree. But, you cannot tell at the outset how any one individual will react.

I have to say, that I always assumed that if I contracted Covid during a cruise,  I would be off loaded. There is no way I would want to stay on the ship,  as the medical facilities  are insufficient if the symptoms are severe.

Edited October 8, 2021 by wowzz

[Ardennais]

2 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Thank you - that is the point that I am trying to make.

If you are tested positive, the cruise line cannot assume you will only have mild  symptoms,  and therefore has no option but to offload you.

The point of contention is what should happen to the travelling companion of the infected person.

I think most of us agree with the protocol. I have no idea about the insurance situation so can’t comment on that. 
Lack of communication is my point of contention. Moley provides us with great insights on various issues, but I can’t remember him putting us right when we’ve been discussing the quarantine cabins and how they were intending to use them. 

 

[Megabear2]

4 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Thank you - that is the point that I am trying to make.

If you are tested positive, the cruise line cannot assume you will only have mild  symptoms,  and therefore has no option but to offload you.

The point of contention is what should happen to the travelling companion of the infected person.

I'm with you all the way! Take the positive testers off no matter if they show no or mild symptoms and look after them.  If the travelling companion is also forced into on shore quarantine ensure they are aware it is possibly at their own cost before they book the holiday (and I include those who like me have been constantly rebooking cruises planned years ago in that proviso), and enter discussions with the insurance companies about how this scenario can be addressed in insurance policies, even if at the customer's expense. 

[Bobblehat71]

If Portugal/ Lisbon continue to insist on passenger testing before disembarking then most are going to to stay on board. Why would you take the risk of ruining a 2 week holiday for the sake of one day in port. Other than staying in your cabin for two weeks there's no way of avoiding an infected passenger on board. Its also likely that if are infected you may not even know it and would just be taking a gamble every time you took an onboard test.  I've got a cruise coming up which calls at Lisbon in November and unless this situation changes I wont be getting off. I suspect most of my fellow passengers will do the same if they know what the consequences could be . 

Maybe P&O should avoid these ports until they remove the test requirements. 

[Castle25]

55 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Published 6 days ago:

 

According to the New York Times – which collates figures from Johns Hopkins University – only 13 countries were on Friday reporting higher seven-day average daily cases than the UK.

They were: Serbia (101), Bermuda (99), Mongolia (74), Montenegro (72), Grenada (71), Barbados (65), Suriname (61), Antigua and Barbuda (61), Anguilla (57), Cuba (57), Dominica (56), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (56), and Lithuania (54).

The three countries which have seen the most coronavirus case all have infection rates well below the UK’s.

what is the testing rate for these countries?  Spain have a test rate of 2, the UK is 16 - maybe this is why our positive numbers are much higher than other countires

[Megabear2]

Don't shoot the messenger! I have no idea. These are the figures the CDC apparently looked at when moving Barbados et al to their level 4 highest advisory for US travellers.

 

I am not quoting as an expert merely reading.

[Megabear2]

9 minutes ago, Castle25 said:

what is the testing rate for these countries?  Spain have a test rate of 2, the UK is 16 - maybe this is why our positive numbers are much higher than other countires

Incidentally I am not looking at Spain or the UK when reading that article, but the Caribbean islands where vaccination is known to be very sketchy due to vaccine hesitancy.  Two of my booked cruises are visiting the islands, one 14 night fly cruise and one long Southampton round trip. I doubt John Hopkins University would be massaging figures ?

[Interestedcruisefan]

21 minutes ago, Bobblehat71 said:

If Portugal/ Lisbon continue to insist on passenger testing before disembarking then most are going to to stay on board. Why would you take the risk of ruining a 2 week holiday for the sake of one day in port. Other than staying in your cabin for two weeks there's no way of avoiding an infected passenger on board. Its also likely that if are infected you may not even know it and would just be taking a gamble every time you took an onboard test.  I've got a cruise coming up which calls at Lisbon in November and unless this situation changes I wont be getting off. I suspect most of my fellow passengers will do the same if they know what the consequences could be . 

Maybe P&O should avoid these ports until they remove the test requirements. 

That's the way it's heading 

 

Passengers will want to avoid being tested

 

That won't harm the cruise lines either as it prevents the Covid figures coming out

 

But for any longer cruises all thats  going to do  is lead to lots more superspreader cruises and at some stage entire ships having to be tested and quarantined

 

And more deaths actually on board the ships

 

Shorter cruises will get away with it

 

Longer cruises will not

 

The longer cruises actually need to identify positive cases and get them off the boat asap

[Megabear2]

As I am going to be in the market for a new travel insurance policy in November I am going to start speaking with a lot of insurers today - I have a ski holiday booked for Christmas time and need to add winter sports to our policies so it's not just about the cruise issue. However  I intend to ask the question of the insurance companies about offloading someone who does not have a positive Covid test from a cruise ship into quarantine at the same time and will post any relevant answers here later if it would be helpful?

[Interestedcruisefan]

Just now, Interestedcruisefan said:

That's the way it's heading 

 

Passengers will want to avoid being tested

 

That won't harm the cruise lines either as it prevents the Covid figures coming out

 

But for any longer cruises all thats  going to do  is lead to lots more superspreader cruises and at some stage entire ships having to be tested and quarantined once the positives with time to develop symptoms become too numerous

 

And more deaths actually on board the ships

 

Shorter cruises will get away with it

 

Longer cruises will not

 

The longer cruises actually need to identify positive cases and close contacts get them off the boat asap

It takes a few days for positive Covid to incubate and show in the tests hence why close contacts for covid have to quarantine 

 

If your partner tests positive you may take a few more days to test positive yourself

 

 

[Interestedcruisefan]

14 hours ago, Cathygh said:

Just a quick update. It has been reported elsewhere that currently Cadiz is the only Spanish port insisting that pax with Covid and their companions are quarantined in Cadiz. That certainly gives me some reassurance for my next cruise( not to Cadiz) that if I test positive on board I can stay in an isolation cabin (with the proviso that I don't become so ill I need to be hospitalised)

This makes no sense to me at all?

 

Why on earth would any location insist on receiving people with Covid that they don't need to receive? 

 

Until I see this confirmed officially I'm going to assume ships do want to offload whenever they get positives and it is just the case that right now Cadiz is the only Spanish port allowing it to happen

 

I can't believe Cadiz are actively chasing after extra positive Covid cases from foreign countries. 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Interestedcruisefan

[Bobblehat71]

These longer cruises are a gamble for passengers and cruise lines. 

 

How many of us would volunteer to be tested if we woke up with the sniffles on Day 2 of a 14 night cruise?  Not many I suspect 😶