Positive For Covid on Viking

[shadowlover]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

And that in a nutshell is why Viking still do daily testing.

 

COVID will continue to come aboard cruise ships. With an older demographic and no masks or social distancing, the daily testing helps to mitigate the risks of further spread, as has happened on other ships. I suspect Viking are trying to prevent the same as happened in Brazil, where the authorities quarantined 2 entire ships and suspended cruise ship operations from all their ports.

Hmmm.  Did the brazil ship require vaccinations to take the cruise? 

To think you are "safe" by having daily covid testing on a ship where no one is required to wear masks does not make any sense.  All it is telling us is that we are being exposed to covid....  Covid is highly contagious.  Once someone tests positive they have exposed multiple people. Personally, I have trust in my vaccinations and boosters.  I think that I have a larger chance of testing positive with daily covid testing than I do of getting seriously ill from said infection.   If one feels the need for daily testing for covid among asymptomatic vaccinated passengers to keep from getting seriously ill then I am thinking a cruise vacation where masking is not mandatory is probably not a good choice.   It's also seeming like a horrible choice for those of us who would go stir crazy sitting in a closed space for 10 days, especially with mild symptoms as this op has.

[SJD117]

10 minutes ago, shadowlover said:

If one feels the need for daily testing for covid among asymptomatic vaccinated passengers to keep from getting seriously ill then I am thinking a cruise vacation where masking is not mandatory is probably not a good choice.   It's also seeming like a horrible choice for those of us who would go stir crazy sitting in a closed space for 10 days, especially with mild symptoms as this op has.

 

Yes, choice is everything. You know about Viking's testing policy and you don't like it -- we get it. But you have a choice, which is to cruise or not to cruise on Viking while that policy is in place. Others have the same choice. Viking has a policy; it is what it is; and we all need to plan around it depending on our own circumstances and risk tolerance.

[Heidi13]

9 minutes ago, shadowlover said:

Hmmm.  Did the brazil ship require vaccinations to take the cruise? 

To think you are "safe" by having daily covid testing on a ship where no one is required to wear masks does not make any sense.  All it is telling us is that we are being exposed to covid....  Covid is highly contagious.  Once someone tests positive they have exposed multiple people. Personally, I have trust in my vaccinations and boosters.  I think that I have a larger chance of testing positive with daily covid testing than I do of getting seriously ill from said infection.   If one feels the need for daily testing for covid among asymptomatic vaccinated passengers to keep from getting seriously ill then I am thinking a cruise vacation where masking is not mandatory is probably not a good choice.   It's also seeming like a horrible choice for those of us who would go stir crazy sitting in a closed space for 10 days, especially with mild symptoms as this op has.

 

Since the Brazil incident was this year, I expect that pax were vaccinated. It wasn't just a single ship, it was multiple cruise ships, with 2 of them quarantined.

 

I suspect we clearly have a different definition of "Safe". Making everything 100% safe is neither practical nor ecumenically feasible, hence the reason risk management is all about risk mitigation.

 

I suggest you review the situation on Viking Star, where the same pax have been aboard the vessel for 4 months already. One of the pax wrote an interesting article in his daily blog post, with respect to the COVID situation on board. Although they did go a couple of months COVID free, the ship has experienced a number of COVID infections on board, but lately they are not experiencing any onboard transmission.

 

Having zero on onboard transmission disputes your statement that people have already infected others before they test positive. It might not be scientific, but it is real life data with about 1,000 people on a cruise ship for an extended period. The blog post also notes Viking's response to a question, "Why they don't quarantine close contacts anymore", is because their PCR test identifies the virus before it is contagious. Again, it didn't provide any supported scientific data, but it is proven on the ship.

 

Personally, I look for real life examples and the current situation on the Viking Star seems to be working well, so I for one have no issue with Viking maintaining the non-invasive testing regime.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

"Why they don't quarantine close contacts anymore", is because their PCR test identifies the virus before it is contagious

That's not correct.

 

PCR testing only reveals the presence of the genetic material of the virus in the host, regardless of whether the virus particles are dead or alive. No one knows how much viral material is needed to infect someone and even if we did know the test merely answers a yes/no question about the presence of the dead or live virus, not what the host's viral load is. If I test negative today but positive tomorrow I could infect someone during the time between tests.

 

A more carefully constructed justification for daily testing could say that the more closely spaced tests are the less likely it is that someone newly infected will have had the opportunity to spread the virus before they're detected as being infected, but saying that the test identifies the test before it's contagious is nonsense.

[SJD117]

30 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

That's not correct.

 

PCR testing only reveals the presence of the genetic material of the virus in the host, regardless of whether the virus particles are dead or alive. No one knows how much viral material is needed to infect someone and even if we did know the test merely answers a yes/no question about the presence of the dead or live virus, not what the host's viral load is. If I test negative today but positive tomorrow I could infect someone during the time between tests.

 

A more carefully constructed justification for daily testing could say that the more closely spaced tests are the less likely it is that someone newly infected will have had the opportunity to spread the virus before they're detected as being infected, but saying that the test identifies the test before it's contagious is nonsense.

I assume you meant to say "test identifies the virus" in your last paragraph, rather than "test identifies the test."

Edited May 2, 2022 by SJD117

[njhorseman]

37 minutes ago, SJD117 said:

I assume you meant to say "test identifies the virus" in your last paragraph, rather than "test identifies the test."

Obviously

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

That's not correct.

 

PCR testing only reveals the presence of the genetic material of the virus in the host, regardless of whether the virus particles are dead or alive. No one knows how much viral material is needed to infect someone and even if we did know the test merely answers a yes/no question about the presence of the dead or live virus, not what the host's viral load is. If I test negative today but positive tomorrow I could infect someone during the time between tests.

 

A more carefully constructed justification for daily testing could say that the more closely spaced tests are the less likely it is that someone newly infected will have had the opportunity to spread the virus before they're detected as being infected, but saying that the test identifies the test before it's contagious is nonsense.

 

When quoting something, I suggest including all the relevant information.

 

I noted that it did not include any scientific data, but was based on the experience of having about 1,000 people on a ship for over 4 months. Yes, I agree it is somewhat far-fetched, but you can't dispute the results experienced, especially over the past 6 weeks when they have docked almost every day.

 

As you noted, nobody knows the virus load required to infect others, so in the absence of such data, the Viking Star experience provides a reasonable experience.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Heidi13

[SJD117]

42 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Obviously

You're welcome.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

When quoting something, I suggest including all the relevant information.

 

I noted that it did not include any scientific data, but was based on the experience of having about 1,000 people on a ship for over 4 months. Yes, I agree it is somewhat far-fetched, but you can't dispute the results experienced, especially over the past 6 weeks when they have docked almost every day.

 

As you noted, nobody knows the virus load required to infect others, so in the absence of such data, the Viking Star experience provides a reasonable experience.

I agree it would have been better to quote your entire post because you did say that it wasn't based on scientific data.

[brianw123]

On 4/30/2022 at 7:36 PM, jasardeax said:

What??

Let me get this straight. You are saying it’s Viking’s fault because they tested and found you positive for Covid, and then quarantined you to help prevent an outbreak or you possibly infecting other passengers?

I think the uninfected on board would feel differently. 

Yes that's what I'm saying. On a ship full of vaccinated people the covid threat is minimal. It's 2022 not 2020.

[KBs mum]

15 hours ago, SJD117 said:

 

Yes, choice is everything. You know about Viking's testing policy and you don't like it -- we get it. But you have a choice, which is to cruise or not to cruise on Viking while that policy is in place. Others have the same choice. Viking has a policy; it is what it is; and we all need to plan around it depending on our own circumstances and risk tolerance.

The problem is that lots of people booked and paid before the policy existed. We thought the testing etc was dictated by the countries visited, and would be adjusted as appropriate. 

The cruise we have booked goes to countries with no mandatory covid rules, other than an entry requirement to be fully vaxed, and a 5 day self isolate (not quarantine) if symptomatic. 

I don't think catching covid on the ship is any more likely than when ashore or at home. We've both had Omicron recently. We are more worried about a ruined holiday than catching it again. The vaccines work. I live in a country with no covid regulations at all. Case numbers are falling, covid is rarely mentioned. 

 

As far as we are concerned, the daily testing is largely pointless, and is a major negative, not a positive. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by KBs mum

[shadowlover]

I would also say that it would be reasonable to believe that there are minimal covid outbreaks on viking ships as a direct result of the vaccination status of all on board.  You have exposed others PRIOR to a positive test (not necessarily infected them).  I would further state that mask wearing makes a lot more sense than daily testing... Until we stop quarantining EVERY single positive we will not know how much of an outbreak there will be on a fully vaccinated ship (which I highly doubt the Brazilian ship was).  We will also, in my opinion which is based on science and statistics, see mainly mild symptoms even if there is a widespread outbreak on a viking ship full of fully vaccinated passengers.  We are at most protecting a small outlier of passengers.

[LindaS272]

So don’t travel with Viking, people, if you don’t like the precautions against Covid. We’re still in a pandemic! Just because many countries have removed mandatory restrictions, it doesn’t mean there is not still a risk for getting Covid. Too many people think that removing mandates means the protocols aren’t necessary. Quite the contrary, in fact. It just puts the onus on the individual to manage the risk. The medical professionals are still recommending masking and social distancing. We just completed a three week trip—two on Viking—one in SJ/BCN/London—masked up and social distanced everywhere—and did not get Covid. Tested 16x in those three weeks.

[SJD117]

2 hours ago, KBs mum said:

The problem is that lots of people booked and paid before the policy existed. We thought the testing etc was dictated by the countries visited, and would be adjusted as appropriate.

 

"Lots of people booked and paid before the policy existed"? Your source? Daily testing has been in place on Viking ocean ships since the company resumed cruising a year ago.

 

If someone did book and pay before the policy existed, for a cruise in 2021 or thereafter, that person had three options if he or she didn't like the policy: (1) cancel and invoke the risk-free guarantee that Viking offered; (2) cancel under Viking's usual cancellation schedule; or (3) cancel and make an insurance claim. Viking didn't force anyone to cruise. If someone didn't like the policy, but decided to cruise anyway, then that decision was on him or her. (See Comment #25 for an example.)

 

Lastly, I've never understood that the "countries visited" somehow "dictated" Viking's testing policy. Viking dictates its own policy based on a myriad of factors. Yes, Viking does seem to be unique in terms of daily testing. But that's Viking's choice, not a dictate by Italy or Greece or Great Britain or any other country that Viking visits.

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, shadowlover said:

I would further state that mask wearing makes a lot more sense than daily testing... 

 

If you have that much faith in a mask, then I suggest it is a fairly safe bet that you have never worn a mask in an environment that is dangerous to life and health. Having worked in environments on Chemical Tankers where 1 breath meant death, I don't have the same level of faith in the average COVID mask.

 

Prior to wearing a mask at work, we required training, fitting (mask sizing), testing and a mandatory requirement of being clean shaven. Yes, masks can and do work, but they must fit properly and most importantly, they must seal properly. In addition, the filter, or fabric must be appropriate for the risk. When wearing a mask, if you can smell anything, the mask isn't working.

 

Most masks that I see people wearing are providing minimal protection. At best, they are a single layer of a multi-layer protection, in accordance with the swiss-cheese model of risk management.

[shadowlover]

1 hour ago, LindaS272 said:

So don’t travel with Viking, people, if you don’t like the precautions against Covid. We’re still in a pandemic! Just because many countries have removed mandatory restrictions, it doesn’t mean there is not still a risk for getting Covid. Too many people think that removing mandates means the protocols aren’t necessary. Quite the contrary, in fact. It just puts the onus on the individual to manage the risk. The medical professionals are still recommending masking and social distancing. We just completed a three week trip—two on Viking—one in SJ/BCN/London—masked up and social distanced everywhere—and did not get Covid. Tested 16x in those three weeks.

We have absolutely EVERY right to voice our opinions just as you do.  Many of us love viking cruises and have made suggestions for change in many areas, this covid testing is just one.    I am all for masking.  I will continue to suggest stopping daily covid testing and there are many others who agree with me.  To tell us "just don't sail with viking" isn't really that helpful.  Many of us have money already tied up in trips planned well before covid.

There are reasons why countries as well as CDC wouldn't necessarily agree with viking current policy.

Also many would argue that we are now in an endemic.

[shadowlover]

2 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

If you have that much faith in a mask, then I suggest it is a fairly safe bet that you have never worn a mask in an environment that is dangerous to life and health. Having worked in environments on Chemical Tankers where 1 breath meant death, I don't have the same level of faith in the average COVID mask.

 

Prior to wearing a mask at work, we required training, fitting (mask sizing), testing and a mandatory requirement of being clean shaven. Yes, masks can and do work, but they must fit properly and most importantly, they must seal properly. In addition, the filter, or fabric must be appropriate for the risk. When wearing a mask, if you can smell anything, the mask isn't working.

 

Most masks that I see people wearing are providing minimal protection. At best, they are a single layer of a multi-layer protection, in accordance with the swiss-cheese model of risk management.

Actually I am an ob/gyn and work with covid patients.  Have since the beginning.  Have never gotten the infection.  I am vaccinated and boosted times two.  My partner is a pediatrician- has worked with children from the beginning of the pandemic.  No infection.  Masks religiously.  All of my children in health care, mask and no infection.   I strongly believe in masks,,, yes.  I also believe in vaccines.  I also believe in common sense.  I follow the science.  I follow the statistics.  I am not opposed to changing my mind if the situation changes.

[Heidi13]

2 minutes ago, shadowlover said:

There are reasons why countries as well as CDC wouldn't necessarily agree with viking current policy.

 

 

This is hardly an effective point to raise, as the US CDC has never agreed with Viking's COVID policy, since it was first promulgated in December 2020.

 

The US CDC has never equalled Viking's standards for daily testing or even 100% vaccinations.

[SJD117]

11 minutes ago, shadowlover said:

We have absolutely EVERY right to voice our opinions just as you do.  Many of us love viking cruises and have made suggestions for change in many areas, this covid testing is just one.    I am all for masking.  I will continue to suggest stopping daily covid testing and there are many others who agree with me.  To tell us "just don't sail with viking" isn't really that helpful.  Many of us have money already tied up in trips planned well before covid.

There are reasons why countries as well as CDC wouldn't necessarily agree with viking current policy.

Also many would argue that we are now in an endemic.

Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right to voice your opinion. Don't get overwrought.

 

You also have the right not to cruise with Viking. It's your choice whether to do so or not. We all have agency in that regard.

[Heidi13]

5 minutes ago, shadowlover said:

Actually I am an ob/gyn and work with covid patients.  Have since the beginning.  Have never gotten the infection.  I am vaccinated and boosted times two.  My partner is a pediatrician- has worked with children from the beginning of the pandemic.  No infection.  Masks religiously.  All of my children in health care, mask and no infection.   I strongly believe in masks,,, yes.  I also believe in vaccines.  I also believe in common sense.  I follow the science.  I follow the statistics.  I am not opposed to changing my mind if the situation changes.

 

You also have employment experience where you hopefully have an employer that provided training, appropriate sized masks and additional levels of protection.

 

My comment on masks are also based on my experience and science. Our HSE rules required an annual fit test and seal test with an irritant spray. If you could smell it you failed, since the mask wasn't working.

 

Yes, I wore a mask diligently and endeavoured to create the best seal possible, but I was under no illusion that the mask provided the 100% protection, I attained with masks at work. For that reason alone, the mask was only a single layer of protection.

 

Most of the general public have no training and many of the masks I observed were too small, badly fitted or of an inappropriate material to provide any meaningful protection.

[shadowlover]

17 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

This is hardly an effective point to raise, as the US CDC has never agreed with Viking's COVID policy, since it was first promulgated in December 2020.

 

The US CDC has never equalled Viking's standards for daily testing or even 100% vaccinations.

Well if you want to trust more in viking than the CDC that says it all.  I don't mean to be argumentative.  I'm sure viking is trusting their choice to test daily and I'm sure they are bearing the brunt of costs involved of which there are many. 

If you remember back to the beginning of the pandemic, there was a mask shortage.  (the reason why cdc was hesitant to recommend).  I had one surgical mask that I literally wore for weeks.   We knew so little of this crazy virus.  Now we know more but not everything.  We were scared!  My clinic patients certainly didn't wear their masks correctly.  Sick children certainly have difficulty wearing masks correctly but yet even in those early days we did not get sick.  I guess that has added to my faith in the good old surgical mask.  I know they are uncomfortable to wear for hours on end but don't you think it makes little sense to test everyone every day as they mingle amongst the entire cruise without masks being mandatory?  Do both or neither but I would suggest just masks and testing symptomatic passengers.  Then treat the positive patients with the antivirals to protect against worsening infection.

[KBs mum]

1 hour ago, SJD117 said:

 

"Lots of people booked and paid before the policy existed"? Your source? Daily testing has been in place on Viking ocean ships since the company resumed cruising a year ago.

 

If someone did book and pay before the policy existed, for a cruise in 2021 or thereafter, that person had three options if he or she didn't like the policy: (1) cancel and invoke the risk-free guarantee that Viking offered; (2) cancel under Viking's usual cancellation schedule; or (3) cancel and make an insurance claim. 

 

Lastly, I've never understood that the "countries visited" somehow "dictated" Viking's testing policy. Viking dictates its own policy based on a myriad of factors. Yes, Viking does seem to be unique in terms of daily testing. But that's Viking's choice, not a dictate by Italy or Greece or Great Britain or any other country that Viking visits.

We booked before covid tests existed, it's a postponement/changed booking for a cruise that would have been bubble only ashore It is usual for viking cruises to be booked more than a year in advance. They sell cruises up to three years ahead. It is virtually impossible to get a refund of cash paid, unless the cruise is significantly altered or cancelled. Vouchers are not a cash refund, and only delay the problem. Viking's USA cancellation scheme is different to the rest of the world, a full refund is unlikely. Cancel for any reason insurance only exists in the US, most policies that include covid cover only cover government mandates. 

We either have a sub par holiday or loose the cash. We could postpone it again, but again, this only delays the problem. 

Individual country policies affect Viking policy. Some require 12 day quarantine ashore, or masking at all times, precluding quarantine on the ship. 

The point is though, what is the point of testing etc. on the ship when it is not a closed system and the chance of serious illness is slim. Passengers will be mingling with non tested and possibly not vaccinated people as soon as they go ashore. 

Covid is no longer pandemic in the countries I mentioned, its endemic. 

Interestingly, the documents we have from Viking, and promotional leaflets etc don't mention the possibility of getting stuck in a random hotel or a cabin much smaller than the one we paid for. 

[KBs mum]

12 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

You also have employment experience where you hopefully have an employer that provided training, appropriate sized masks and additional levels of protection.

 

My comment on masks are also based on my experience and science. Our HSE rules required an annual fit test and seal test with an irritant spray. If you could smell it you failed, since the mask wasn't working.

 

Yes, I wore a mask diligently and endeavoured to create the best seal possible, but I was under no illusion that the mask provided the 100% protection, I attained with masks at work. For that reason alone, the mask was only a single layer of protection.

 

Most of the general public have no training and many of the masks I observed were too small, badly fitted or of an inappropriate material to provide any meaningful protection.

Completely agree with you on this, I've got training in PPE for chemical use, when required I wear a mask, but given that most people don't have a clue, I protect me and don't worry what others are doing, same as for noro. 

The general standard of hand washing/sterilising is also abysmal, ineffectual and nothing more than a placebo. 

 

[KBs mum]

16 hours ago, njhorseman said:

PCR testing only reveals the presence of the genetic material of the virus in the host, regardless of whether the virus particles are dead or alive. No one knows how much viral material is needed to infect someone and even if we did know the test merely answers a yes/no question about the presence of the dead or live virus, not what the host's viral load is. If I test negative today but positive tomorrow I could infect someone during the time between tests.

A thought occurs, given covid is often asymptomatic, are the tests picking up unknown prior 'recovered' infections?

[SailorPaulH]

2 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

A thought occurs, given covid is often asymptomatic, are the tests picking up unknown prior 'recovered' infections?

I believe this is a possibility. I am taking a home test every week during the 90 day window in case I need to get an official positive test and recovery proof. This after a neighbor of mine, who is required to test weekly, tested positive and never had or developed symptoms.