Shorewalk Holmes

Thanks for the review Goodtime.

Hope you both have time to rest--maybe watching Hercules and his friends 🙂.

3 minutes ago, MissP22 said:

Wasn't it enjoyable. 

 

We had a great time! 

I realize that some people aren't used to wearing masks, but if the captain asks, people should either be prepared to wear one, or do as @Keksie does and wait until the 'threat' of wearing a mask is over.

1 minute ago, MissP22 said:

I wasn't. 

Well you're too late. I was on Princess recently, wearing a mask when appropriate.

3 minutes ago, MissP22 said:

Excellent idea. 

I was being facetious, but thanks!

3 hours ago, Keksie said:

Along with doing away with any mask mandates, testing requirements, and vaccine requirements.

Also, since so many people drive to the port, we should get rid of seat belt requirements.  I'm not cruising until they're gone.  How can you live life when you're strapped in a seat...  😀

Oops, forgot to respond to the OP's question.  I wouldn't sail after a recent positive test, not only because I wouldn't want to expose others, but for the reasons mentioned above.

2 hours ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

 

Yep.  I had symptoms while buying groceries.  They quarantined me for a week in the vegetable area.

 

Joking aside, the point is that the consequences of COVID on a cruise are much more dire than the consequences of COVID while shopping or eating at a restaurant at home. 

With grocery shopping you aren't trapped on the ocean, you don't deal with FCC's, you don't miss shore excursions, you didn't pay thousands of dollars to get there only to be sick all week, etc.  So we should expect protocols for cruising to be more strict.

On 8/30/2022 at 9:46 AM, Stockjock said:

Every time you go to the store, somebody probably has Covid. Every time you go to a restaurant, somebody probably has Covid.

Yep.  I had symptoms while buying groceries.  They quarantined me for a week in the vegetable area.

59 minutes ago, SargassoPirate said:

I have no problem with people who choose to wear a mask - just those who wear them selectively

You keep saying this, but I truly don't understand what the problem is.  Not wearing a mask at dinner risks some exposure.  Not wearing a mask at the theatre risks some more exposure. 

Wearing a good mask at the theatre reduces that chance of exposure, so overall less chance of getting COVID.

Just checking to see if someone knows a person who boarded with the US CDC vaccine card.

6 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

Jordan Bauth reported crew stopped wearing masks last month on Voyager and then today, she has stated they are back to the blue masks again😝

So not holding my breath....ya never know!

Interesting.  Bringing the mask requirement back seems like a difficult decision that they would only make reluctantly.  Maybe removing the masks resulted in substantially more infections. 

16 hours ago, OCVTSGIRL said:

 I am vaccinated and boosted but actually I don't understand how me being vaccinated matters.  That is to protect me it doesn't protect others.  I could still carry and spread.

Glad to hear you're vaccinated!

It matters because you are less likely to get seriously ill and cause the ship to divert to provide shoreside medical care. 

More unvaccinated passengers means more disrupted cruises.

7 minutes ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

You are so correct!!

I wish more politicians had some actual in-depth scientific background.

14 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

But the two days before boarding allows for transfer.  That's my point.  Tests are bogus.

Yes, I already agreed that the tests will miss some cases.  I also agree that testing at boarding would miss fewer cases, although it would be even more of a pain for those who test positive.

But your second point, that tests are bogus, doesn't follow at all. 

Tests find positive cases.  Those people don't board.  So there are fewer initial sources of Covid than if they all got on the ship.

1 hour ago, BecciBoo said:

If it were working why are there outbreaks happening in increasing numbers on many ships. 

It's because there are other sources of Covid.  People can get exposed after the test, they can have Covid and not yet be positive, they can get Covid from shore excursions, etc.

But each valid positive test eliminates a possible Covid source.

So people can talk about missed cases, other diseases, cruises vs. Walmart, whatever.  None of that gets around the fact that halting testing would mean more Covid sources aboard ships.

More Covid sources could mean more quarantining and disruption.

How much more?  Wish we had those numbers.  

6 hours ago, UNCFanatik said:

 

Narrator: "Your testing and masking did not stop the crew from getting Covid"

Bill wears a seatbelt, but still was injured in an auto accident.  According to your logic, this proves seatbelts don't work.

2 hours ago, Lane Hog said:

You can still test negative for a week or longer after exposure, so all that testing is stopping is the few who were exposed over a week ago and don't have symptoms...

Those who got past the testing will then be at their most contagious partway thru the cruise.

 

It would be great to know how many cases the testing is not finding. But the number that counts the most is the number of positive cases that testing finds before boarding.  Because if this number is actually very small, then maybe testing wouldn't be warranted. 

Unfortunately, out of thousands of passengers, there could be many who were exposed a week before and test positive. I haven't seen data that suggest any credible number.

57 minutes ago, rudeney said:

Short of that, or until the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates to the point of being benign, there will always be COVID on cruise ships, and other places where large numbers of people closely congregate.  A snapshot test taken two days prior to boarding is a waste of time, money, and anxiety.

Agree that some covid is always likely to be on cruise ships, at least for now. 

But can we agree that less covid is better than more covid?  Every time someone with covid doesn't board, you get less covid on the ship.

We apparently don't have the data to be absolutely sure it's worth the time and money.  I hope somebody in charge does.

57 minutes ago, cured said:

Ah yes, the old "if I put my head in the sand it does not exist" thought process. Now where have we heard the "if we stop testing, it will go away philosophy" propaganda? 

 

Guess if I don't take a pregnancy test, I can't possibly be pregnant.

 

I just read an article today that said that while immunity from both vaccines and natural immunity is slowing deaths down to its lowest point in the pandemic, the death rate is still higher than car accidents or strokes (covid 300+ deaths a day, motor vehicle accidents 100 per day.)  You are more 3x more likely to die from covid than from driving to the port. But more importantly, debilitating long covid is still a big issue.

 

That said, as anal as I am about mask wearing still (immune compromised) and vaccine proponent, I do think testing 2 days before is ridiculous. Nobody is isolating after their negative tests, they are going about their business. With Omicron's approximately 3-5 day incubation period, a test 2 days before is not going to stop a whole lot of covid from getting on the ship.

 

And no, because of my immune system, cruising is not in the cards right now, so before anyone says just stay home, that is exactly what we are doing.

 

You have been a voice of reason on these boards, and I respect your opinion greatly.  So before quibbling about one of your points, I should make sure I understand it.

I agree that people could be exposed to covid after a negative test on Days 2 or 1, so current testing misses those people.  Testing at boarding would stop more covid than testing two days out. I can see why, from a medical point of view, you'd say testing 2 days out (instead of at boarding) is ridiculous. But as a passenger with a few cruises since opening, I'm not sure I would have booked them if I could be denied boarding after flying all the way to port. It's a compromise, maybe a bad one.

However people do actually test positive at Day 2 and Day 1 (from being exposed in the days previous), and they do get denied boarding.  The number of such people will depend on how widespread covid is. 

Clearly, as you say, this number would be smaller than you'd get if everyone were tested at port. But is there a reason why this number must be insignificantly small?  Why couldn't it be large (but not as large as port testing) if community spread is high?

2 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

...... and what if It was zero out of 5000 ? Shall we continue on with this nonsense ? You need to let it go....... 

Of course not. See post #38.  

Just now, hazeleyes46 said:

Exactly and that is not fair because nothing else contagious is being quarantined.

Maybe officials are just being extra cautious about covid because it is new. Maybe they are afraid that uncontrolled spread could allow it to mutate again and evade the vaccines.  I'm not sure that we know the end of the covid story yet.

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

But the quarantines aren't required because someone has cold symptoms and a positive test. They're required because the CDC says so. If the CDC said "you can end quarantines" the cruise lines would do that in a heartbeat.

In that case it would be especially useful to have the positive test and case data from the cruise lines so we could make up our own minds.

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

 

But what difference has it made?  If your criteria is simply "preventing known cases from boarding" then maybe. But in today's covid era, where for the majority it's nothing more than a cold, what are you really gaining when many others with colds are getting on board already? 

Presumably the cruise lines believe they are gaining fewer disruptive required quarantines, among other logistical hassles.

Haven't had covid yet, so I don't know for sure, but I suspect that for someone in his seventies, it could be much more than a cold.  Nevertheless I agree that the key question is how many positives the tests are picking up.  If it's 2  or 3, and none of these is a superspreader, then by the end of the cruise there might be a relatively small effect.  Doubt if I could justify testing in that case.  On the other hand, if its 100...

15 minutes ago, hazeleyes46 said:

It's time to move on. No one is worried if someone comes on board with the flu or pneumonia or another virus but we HAVE to test ONLY for Covid, which is not 2020 Covid anymore.

It's true that the whole system treats covid differently than these other diseases. For example, covid could get you quarantined and ruin your cruise.

5 minutes ago, BND said:

A theory is something that isn't proven so it is a theory.

 

I never said anything about vaccines, masking or testing not "working".  What I said was there is no way to prove that pre-cruise testing makes any difference.

 

 TA's have no clue about how many people are denied boarding except for their own clients.  Our TA's are good friends and they have no inside information.

 

And, as I said previously, testing will be going away.

 

 

As long as precruise testing correctly detects positive cases before they get on the ship, it has already made a difference.  Not sure what other kind of proof you are looking for.

As I said, the important question is how many positive cases testing detects.  If it's 100 out of a ship of 5000, then I don't want to see testing go away. 

I don't know any of the TAs who post here personally but to me they seem to know a whole lot about cruising.