Looks like Puerto Rico is a no go

[mmcgann11]

We're booked on Anthem, Friday, and just got word from RCI that our stop in Puerto Rico is not happening. While I'm disappointed, I'm not shocked. There has been a massive outbreak — despite high levels of vaccination — on the island the last few weeks. I wonder whether St. Thomas will remain in play — not to mention St. Maarten. Like sailing in hurricane season, you book knowing there are risks of things going sideways....we get our COVID tests tonight, the next place where things could go off plan. Hopefully, everything shakes out and the cruise happens, albeit in somewhat different form than anticipated. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by mmcgann11

[silvil]

Nope, on Odyssey right now & both St Thomas today & PR tomorrow have been cancelled, replaced with day at sea + Puerto Plata. Still having a great time though!

[crewsweeper]

There's no CDC directive canceling cruises yet.  One US Senator (Blumenthal, D- CT, who is typically a day late and a $ short) has asked them to consider pausing cruises.  But cruise ship infections are well below the infections in any city in the US.  So it's up to each individual line to decide whether or not to cancel.  Most likely cruises scheduled for certain ports will be redirected to other ports without restrictions.  This may result in a "cruise to no where", but even so, a day at sea on a large cruise ship is better than a day at work in a stuffy office.

[mmcgann11]

Assuming our COVID tests are good (knocks wood), I fully expect to board Anthem, Friday. It will sail to warm places. Whether they let us off the ship remains to be seen. But again, you have to live with whatever, because yes, being on a ship in warm weather beats sitting in the (home) office and working.

[luckyinpa]

does this mean cruises out of PR wont go as well?

[Jimbo]

28 minutes ago, crewsweeper said:

There's no CDC directive canceling cruises yet.  One US Senator (Blumenthal, D- CT, who is typically a day late and a $ short) has asked them to consider pausing cruises.  But cruise ship infections are well below the infections in any city in the US.  So it's up to each individual line to decide whether or not to cancel.  Most likely cruises scheduled for certain ports will be redirected to other ports without restrictions.  This may result in a "cruise to no where", but even so, a day at sea on a large cruise ship is better than a day at work in a stuffy office.

How would you know infections rate on the ships is lower then on land since once on the ship the passengers aren't getting tested?

[Biker19]

Just now, luckyinpa said:

does this mean cruises out of PR wont go as well?

Those should be OK as you'll need to get there first.

[RoyalC]

10 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

How would you know infections rate on the ships is lower then on land since once on the ship the passengers aren't getting tested?

Until you pcr and antigen test people 3 to 5 days after the cruise you don't.  Cruising would be shut down if people only knew.

[luckyinpa]

47 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

How would you know infections rate on the ships is lower then on land since once on the ship the passengers aren't getting tested?

 

how do they know the infection rate on land? wouldnt that mean you test all people in the USA and see how many are positive. i dont think this is being done. now if you test people who already think they are exposed or are sick, by definition thats a much higher rate. ive always believed stats can be molded to whoever wants to mold them to say a certain thing. 

[bajathree]

1 hour ago, luckyinpa said:

does this mean cruises out of PR wont go as well?

That may be a real possibility as PR positivity rate has now exceeded 25%

https://newswep.com/puerto-rico-reaches-a-record-number-of-positivity-due-to-covid-19-at-25-9/

[alwaysflyin]

7 minutes ago, bajathree said:

That may be a real possibility as PR positivity rate has now exceeded 25%

https://newswep.com/puerto-rico-reaches-a-record-number-of-positivity-due-to-covid-19-at-25-9/

I hope that going forward decision makers will focus on hospitalizations instead of case numbers or positivity rates.  That would be a much better indication of whether a place should allow visitors.

[ticketsunlimited]

1 hour ago, Jimbo said:

How would you know infections rate on the ships is lower then on land since once on the ship the passengers aren't getting tested?

Oh are they doing it different on land? I’m a bit confused. Could you explain?

[coaster]

Have an Eastern Caribbean cruise booked end of January on Jewel that includes Puerto Rico. Thinking might switch to a Western out of Tampa. Mexico is being more receptive to cruise ships.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by coaster

[Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, alwaysflyin said:

I hope that going forward decision makers will focus on hospitalizations instead of case numbers or positivity rates.  That would be a much better indication of whether a place should allow visitors.

Well you can bet the PR doesn't have that many hospitals over there, compared to in the US on the mainland. So PR is probably saying we don't need any cruise passengers that need to be taken to a hospital. No room for any additional sick people.

I'm sure their hospitals are filling up with just the people that live on the island all ready.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Jimbo

[A&L_Ont]

1 minute ago, coaster said:

Have an Eastern Caribbean cruise booked end of January on Jewel. Thinking might switch to a Western out of Tampa. Mexico is being more receptive to cruise ships.

It could change by then, but who knows. 🤷‍♂️

[Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, ticketsunlimited said:

Oh are they doing it different on land? I’m a bit confused. Could you explain?

Then can you explain first   why Royal Caribbean is saying it's less on a cruise ship then on land?  I’m a bit confused. Could you explain?

 

Truth is it's bad on land, But it is not any better on a cruise ship as Royal is touting, It's pure BS.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Jimbo

[Tolkmit]

4 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Then can you explain first   why Royal Caribbean is saying it's less on a cruise ship then on land?  I’m a bit confused. Could you explain?

 

Because that's how math works? The population of Symphony at the time of their statement had taken ~6,000 tests over the previous 7 days, around 1% were positive. Over that same time period, Florida had given around 150,000 tests, around 5% were positive.

1 is less than 5.

[ticketsunlimited]

1 minute ago, Jimbo said:

Then can you explain first   why Royal Caribbean is saying it's less on a cruise ship then on land?  I’m a bit confused. Could you explain?

Do the numbers.  The guidance that most of the islands are using to accept a ship is less than 1% positive cases.  The problem has not been the guests it has been the crew.  the outbreaks are causing the ships to go over the 1% benchmark.  this is why you are seeing ships shuffle positive crew members to other ships.  they are both trying to stem the spread among the crew and stay below the 1% thresh hold so the ships can go to their scheduled ports and leave the ship.

If you can show me that we are under 1% on land than I will eat my hat.  The positive cases on land are being caught because people are sick and getting tested or they are voluntarily testing to be sure they are not sick.

They are not rounded up like cattle and tested daily to see if they are positive like you are implying the ships should do.

We all can agree on one thing the more people you test the more asymptomatic covid cases you will find.  Can you even imagine the % of people in the world right now that would test positive if we did it the way you are proposing for the cruise lines to do to their vacationing clients?

Makes no sense and the issue should be null and void going forward.

[Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

 

Because that's how math works? The population of Symphony at the time of their statement had taken ~6,000 tests over the previous 7 days, around 1% were positive. Over that same time period, Florida had given around 150,000 tests, around 5% were positive.

1 is less than 5.

 

4 minutes ago, ticketsunlimited said:

Do the numbers.  The guidance that most of the islands are using to accept a ship is less than 1% positive cases.  The problem has not been the guests it has been the crew.  the outbreaks are causing the ships to go over the 1% benchmark.  this is why you are seeing ships shuffle positive crew members to other ships.  they are both trying to stem the spread among the crew and stay below the 1% thresh hold so the ships can go to their scheduled ports and leave the ship.

If you can show me that we are under 1% on land than I will eat my hat.  The positive cases on land are being caught because people are sick and getting tested or they are voluntarily testing to be sure they are not sick.

They are not rounded up like cattle and tested daily to see if they are positive like you are implying the ships should do.

We all can agree on one thing the more people you test the more asymptomatic covid cases you will find.  Can you even imagine the % of people in the world right now that would test positive if we did it the way you are proposing for the cruise lines to do to their vacationing clients?

Makes no sense and the issue should be null and void going forward.

Take out all the unvaccinated on land on those tests and then where are the percentages at for on a cruise and on land.

 This issue is with this current covid even vaccinated on a cruise ship are catching it.

[RoyalC]

1 minute ago, Tolkmit said:

 

Because that's how math works? The population of Symphony at the time of their statement had taken ~6,000 tests over the previous 7 days, around 1% were positive. Over that same time period, Florida had given around 150,000 tests, around 5% were positive.

1 is less than 5.

They did not test 6000 people after the cruise to see how many are infected. Plus those 1% are crew or coming from land- exposure time to test positive are two different things. You also cannot equate percentages when you are not comparing the same thing- how much of Florida a a population tested positive? 

Here is the real math- Florida population 21,500,000

5% of 150,000= 7500 

Total percentage (same math as 1% Symphony figure) is .03488% of Florida positive vs 1% RCL.

 

 

[alwaysflyin]

26 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

 

I'm sure their hospitals are filling up with just the people that live on the island all ready.

It really depends on what the variant is.  A study out of the UK showed that omicron has a 70% less chance of hospitalization.  We shall see.

[rs45thompson]

It seems like there is more infection among the crew because they are being tested every week.  No hiding.  As for passengers they are tested 2 days prior and are negative at that point.  If you test all passengers before they get off the ship or on day 5 you will have a very different number.  I think it would be very high, but as it stand many cases are hidden.  Many passengers don't report it because it is just a cold or they are asymptomatic or they don't develop symptoms until off of the ship.  In truth the true number is probably comparable to what it is on land.  Just my opinion. 

[Tolkmit]

9 minutes ago, RoyalC said:

They did not test 6000 people after the cruise to see how many are infected. Plus those 1% are crew or coming from land- exposure time to test positive are two different things. You also cannot equate percentages when you are not comparing the same thing- how much of Florida a a population tested positive? 

Here is the real math- Florida population 21,500,000

5% of 150,000= 7500 

Total percentage (same math as 1% Symphony figure) is .03488% of Florida positive vs 1% RCL.

 

 

 

lol. So Symphony's numbers don't count, because they didn't test everyone again a week after the cruise; but the numbers from Florida that count are the ones that include everyone despite most of them never having received a test at all, let alone one a week ago and one a week later? You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The positive test rate on Symphony only includes those who received a test within 7 days of the statistic being given. The fact that happened to be everyone on board doesn't mean you then compare it to everyone in Florida, you still compare it to the people in Florida who received a test.

 

Number of positive tests over 7 days divided by number of tests given to people who spent last week in Florida.
Number of positive tests over 7 days divided by number of tests given to people who spent last week on Symphony.

 

Compare the two, Symphony is far lower. 

[coaster]

18 minutes ago, rs45thompson said:

It seems like there is more infection among the crew because they are being tested every week.  No hiding.  As for passengers they are tested 2 days prior and are negative at that point.  If you test all passengers before they get off the ship or on day 5 you will have a very different number.  I think it would be very high, but as it stand many cases are hidden.  Many passengers don't report it because it is just a cold or they are asymptomatic or they don't develop symptoms until off of the ship.  In truth the true number is probably comparable to what it is on land.  Just my opinion. 

Many probably aren't reporting symptoms as they have a nice balcony and don't want to be moved to the 'red zone" on lower decks if tested positive.

[bajathree]

28 minutes ago, coaster said:

Many probably aren't reporting symptoms as they have a nice balcony and don't want to be moved to the 'red zone" on lower decks if tested positive.

Absolutely ....we just read about it when a Connecticut couple tested positive and then went to the media after they got home. They reported that they freely walked around the ship and in ports for 3 days after the first sign of symptoms, staying positive and toughing through it telling themselves maybe it's just a cold or sinus infection. They didn't finally  notify the ship and get tested till they went downhill enough not to not ignore it anymore....which was 3 days after first symptoms appeared.

Edited December 29, 2021 by bajathree