1st cruise after Covid......a success

[jetsfan58]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And how will everyone feel if and when something like this occurs and then it is discovered that it was a FALSE positive?

Precisely why there has to be extensive and exhaustive rationale thinking and regulation (for all) regarding "Covid Cruising"  prior to resuming. Unless all of my adult teachings and education have been false there are always at minimum two sides to very episode.

 

The Industry will have to consider all passenger rights (none left out) as they still need us "paying" passengers to exist.    

[firefly333]

10 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And how will everyone feel if and when something like this occurs and then it is discovered that it was a FALSE positive?

I'm hearing these nasal swab tests detect tiny particles in the nasal passage that dont always mean you have covid. Lots of these college positives are like that. They might have breathed it in but not have covid. 

 

Positives are hard to measure.

[BlerkOne]

25 minutes ago, fyree39 said:

I started to multi-quote, but it became hopeless. I'm siding with MSC when they refused boarding to any who had been in contact with the positive passenger. This is called contact tracing and it's been used since about April when this country finally got serious about Covid. I will continue to support contact tracing for all cruise lines to weed out those who could pose a threat to others on board the ship, particularly those who work and live on the ship. 

 

That this is even a topic for rebuttal astounds me.

 

With the reversal in CDC guidance that people who have been exposed do not necessarily need to be tested unless showing symptoms, the pandemic is going to take off again right as flu season begins.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/health/covid-19-testing-cdc.html

 

I hope the cruise lines succeed with contact tracing and that they are better at testing and follow up than some countries. I also support cruise lines being proactive instead of reactive when it comes to C19. It is the only way to currently deal with the monster. Better to be safe than sorry.

[BlerkOne]

10 minutes ago, jetsfan58 said:

Precisely why there has to be extensive and exhaustive rationale thinking and regulation (for all) regarding "Covid Cruising"  prior to resuming. Unless all of my adult teachings and education have been false there are always at minimum two sides to very episode.

 

The Industry will have to consider all passenger rights (none left out) as they still need us "paying" passengers to exist.    

 

No, there really doesn't.  There are no passenger rights concerning being denied boarding because of C19.

[sanger727]

25 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And how will everyone feel if and when something like this occurs and then it is discovered that it was a FALSE positive?

 

And that is one of the limitations of this pre-cruise testing. But they certainly can't let someone on with a positive just in case it was a false positive. Better off not testing then and going back to fevers. 

[jetsfan58]

6 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

With the reversal in CDC guidance that people who have been exposed do not necessarily need to be tested unless showing symptoms, the pandemic is going to take off again right as flu season begins.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/health/covid-19-testing-cdc.html

 

I hope the cruise lines succeed with contact tracing and that they are better at testing and follow up than some countries. I also support cruise lines being proactive instead of reactive when it comes to C19. It is the only way to currently deal with the monster. Better to be safe than sorry.

There always has to be rebuttal when discussing this most important safety elements. In any discussion you should welcome opposing viewpoints as this is how to you achieve the maximum results that cover everyone (Ship Captain, Crew, Port workers and Passengers). My concern is that the few passengers that were denied boarding (assumed positive by incidental contact) were probably as safe as all other boarded passengers. Does this also mean that the 3000 or so people that passed the "covid testing" prior to boarding will be "dismissed" at the next port when another boarded passenger tests "positive " during the Cruise? How many individuals did they come in contact with on board? Potential to be thousands. 

 

It may sound outlandish to some but this is real world discovery and I will feel much better when all (not some) areas of safety have been thoroughly analyzed and certified safe. 

[glrounds]

On 8/29/2020 at 8:05 AM, MsTabbyKats said:

Although this isn't bad news, it really isn't any news:

 

MSC Cruises said that their first cruise back was a success.

 

What brand is going to tell you that their product isn't good? 

 

This article is  100% public relations, as reported by MSC.

 

 

 

 

EXACTOMUNDO !

 

We're all frequently victims of the statistical fallacy , "sample too small" and believing of good news no matter how biased the source may be.

 

I contend that cruising will never return to its glorious self, sans masks and distancing, until we have a VACCINE. And then it will be hideously expensive for us "cheapies" that cruise for the transportation to one port after another to mix with the locals. The thought of an outbreak and endlessly searching for a port that will allow me to get off the ship is very unappealing. For now, not being able to mix with the locals is a deal breaker for me for sure.

[jetsfan58]

13 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

No, there really doesn't.  There are no passenger rights concerning being denied boarding because of C19.

This is why there will have to be a separate "Covid Rules of Engagement" with all of these talking points thoroughly examined and certified by all involved Powers. You can't think "traditional" when dealing with this outbreak. Has to be broader thinking to keep and maintain our safety. 

 

Quick Scenario:

 

What happens if the Ships Captain mysteriously tests "positive" during a voyage? Let's pray that there is a replacement that has not been within 6 feet of that person? The rules will have to be written to cover us all.   

[PhillyFan33579]

42 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And how will everyone feel if and when something like this occurs and then it is discovered that it was a FALSE positive?

You bring up a good point but unfortunately in the current environment we are in, you have to error on the side of caution, at least in my view. 

[ProgRockCruiser]

52 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And how will everyone feel if and when something like this occurs and then it is discovered that it was a FALSE positive?

What should happen is everyone, including the person who tested (falsely) positive, would breathe a sigh of relief, thinking "I won't have to potentially go on a ventilator."

 

It should be the same reaction you get when you park your car and release the seat belt - "good, didn't need it this time".

 

It is unfortunate that the folks got denied boarding, but it is simply a case of absolute safety first for these first rounds/months of cruises.

 

Next year, maybe that won't be such an issue.  Maybe that one person will be denied boarding, or allowed to board but quarantined until the test result is confirmed or reversed, and everyone else tracked for the first couple of days.

 

But, right now, under the current situation,  if anyone from that group had boarded and then tested positive and spread it to others, everyone would be screaming for a lawyer.

 

If you don't like it, don't cruise.  It isn't like the cruisers didn't know these were the pre-conditions to boarding - it would have been made quite plain to them.

Edited August 31, 2020 by ProgRockCruiser

[jetsfan58]

23 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

What should happen is everyone, including the person who tested (falsely) positive, would breathe a sigh of relief, thinking "I won't have to potentially go on a ventilator."

 

It should be the same reaction you get when you park your car and release the seat belt - "good, didn't need it this time".

 

It is unfortunate that the folks got denied boarding, but it is simply a case of absolute safety first for these first rounds/months of cruises.

 

Next year, maybe that won't be such an issue.  Maybe that one person will be denied boarding, or allowed to board but quarantined until the test result is confirmed or reversed, and everyone else tracked for the first couple of days.

 

But, right now, under the current situation,  if anyone from that group had boarded and then tested positive and spread it to others, everyone would be screaming for a lawyer.

 

If you don't like it, don't cruise.  It isn't like the cruisers didn't know these were the pre-conditions to boarding - it would have been made quite plain to them.

They will possibly have an attorney on speed dial if they were "assumed positive" and denied without immediate testing. I have been cruising Carnival for many years and hope that they rewrite "universal" rules for all.  

[BlerkOne]

54 minutes ago, jetsfan58 said:

 

It may sound outlandish to some but this is real world discovery and I will feel much better when all (not some) areas of safety have been thoroughly analyzed and certified safe. 

 

As this is a new disease, that will take years. Life goes on.

[BlerkOne]

12 minutes ago, jetsfan58 said:

They will possibly have an attorney on speed dial if they were "assumed positive" and denied without immediate testing. I have been cruising Carnival for many years and hope that they rewrite "universal" rules for all.  

 

Positive is positive. Maybe they can keep getting tested and when negative catch up to the cruise at their own expense. Or maybe there will be Covid insurance for such things. I see Carnival's job to do the best they can to protect passengers and crew - that is their number one job.

[jetsfan58]

Please ponder this point. Carnival's biggest issue is going to be "Who Will Be The First Passengers" to return? I am a true Carnival Cruiser but I will not be among the initial "test subjects" to try and prove all the theorists wrong. 

 

Who among us (mask wearers) will be the first? Be Bold and Be Proud and Be American!! 

[PhillyFan33579]

2 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

 

Positive is positive. Maybe they can keep getting tested and when negative catch up to the cruise at their own expense. Or maybe there will be Covid insurance for such things. I see Carnival's job to do the best they can to protect passengers and crew - that is their number one job.

I think every cruise line departing from a US port, whenever that happens, needs to be extremely cautious and do everything possible to ensure an outbreak doesn’t occur during a cruise. If that were to happen, I think you would see the CDC reinstate a no sail order for a LONG time. 

[jimbo5544]

4 hours ago, St.Pete said:

Too soon to know if this is a "FLAT OUT" success.

How much after it happened could we change it.  I did not say it solved everything, there were no issues, nada, nunca, nothing.  You can read it any way you want, but cant get much better than that on sailing number 1.

 

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

 

Positive is positive. Maybe they can keep getting tested and when negative catch up to the cruise at their own expense. Or maybe there will be Covid insurance for such things. I see Carnival's job to do the best they can to protect passengers and crew - that is their number one job.

So positive is positive even when it is really negative?

 

You buy the transfer from the cruise line, and then the cruise line does not let you cruise even though you tested negative because you were on there transfer bus, really?

 

Here comes the class action suit. You might get $5-10, while the lawyers got several hundred thousand dollars.

 

Of course if they let you cruise and then there is an outbreak, here comes the class action suits,

 

[SOCACRUISEGUY]

I actually like what MSC is doing. If someone tests positive the first time before boarding, they are tested again. They also sell 18 euro insurance in case you are denied boarding due to a positive covid test.  I think that is reasonable and smart. 

[BlerkOne]

18 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

So positive is positive even when it is really negative?

 

You buy the transfer from the cruise line, and then the cruise line does not let you cruise even though you tested negative because you were on there transfer bus, really?

 

Here comes the class action suit. You might get $5-10, while the lawyers got several hundred thousand dollars.

 

Of course if they let you cruise and then there is an outbreak, here comes the class action suits,

 

 

How can it be negative when it is positive? For a test to be positive, there has to be some bad juju in the sample.

 

False negative is far more likely - you were tested, but the tester failed to pick bad juju on the sample.

 

The ambulance chasers are waiting, no doubt, but nobody can file a class action suit. A (Florida) judge would have to grant class action status. I'm sure Carnival lawyers have been working on ways to indemnify Carnival.

[TNcruising02]

11 minutes ago, SOCACRUISEGUY said:

I actually like what MSC is doing. If someone tests positive the first time before boarding, they are tested again. They also sell 18 euro insurance in case you are denied boarding due to a positive covid test.  I think that is reasonable and smart. 

I like it too.  I would also definitely try to keep my distance from people until I got to the port and took the covid test, including taking a cab or uber to the port.

[BlerkOne]

52 minutes ago, SOCACRUISEGUY said:

I actually like what MSC is doing. If someone tests positive the first time before boarding, they are tested again. They also sell 18 euro insurance in case you are denied boarding due to a positive covid test.  I think that is reasonable and smart. 

 

MSC kreuzfahrten

 

https://www.msckreuzfahrten.at/de-at/assets/MSCCruisesS.A.Covid19Product_DACH.pdf

 

[ProgRockCruiser]

2 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

 

How can it be negative when it is positive? For a test to be positive, there has to be some bad juju in the sample.

 

False negative is far more likely - you were tested, but the tester failed to pick bad juju on the sample.

I am all for acting on the cautious side, so I agree with MSC's approach.

 

But testing positive does not guarantee you have it - no test is 100% accurate.  There is no "bad juju" in the sample, just bad luck.  Or something similar (but safe) that detects the same.  Or just crappy protocols.  Like the local guy who got arrested a few years ago for meth - the "white crystalline" substance in his car was sugar coating from a glazed donut he had just eaten, and the cop's portable test kit got it wrong, and the lab messed up.

 

Any test can have false negatives and false positives in different proportions, and the rate of false results in either direction becomes most sensitive when it approaches (or obliterates) the corresponding actual true rate - i.e. if a test generates 10% false positives, but 90% of the population does not have it, then 10% will test positive because they actually have it, and another 9% will test false positive, which messes with perceived accuracy. 

 

And if false negatives are also 10%, then 1/10th of that 10% that actually have it will test negative (i.e. 1% of overall population), which makes the number of false positives the same as the detected positives - 9% of general population.

 

Not good optics.

[BlerkOne]

21 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

I am all for acting on the cautious side, so I agree with MSC's approach.

 

But testing positive does not guarantee you have it - no test is 100% accurate.  There is no "bad juju" in the sample, just bad luck.  Or something similar (but safe) that detects the same.  Or just crappy protocols.  Like the local guy who got arrested a few years ago for meth - the "white crystalline" substance in his car was sugar coating from a glazed donut he had just eaten, and the cop's portable test kit got it wrong, and the lab messed up.

 

Any test can have false negatives and false positives in different proportions, and the rate of false results in either direction becomes most sensitive when it approaches (or obliterates) the corresponding actual true rate - i.e. if a test generates 10% false positives, but 90% of the population does not have it, then 10% will test positive because they actually have it, and another 9% will test false positive, which messes with perceived accuracy. 

 

And if false negatives are also 10%, then 1/10th of that 10% that actually have it will test negative (i.e. 1% of overall population), which makes the number of false positives the same as the detected positives - 9% of general population.

 

Not good optics.

 

The false negative will always be greater. A person could have been exposed recently and not had time to start shedding the virus.

 

Some people who are positive allegedly aren't contagious, but I don't know if I believe that, and there is no way a cruise line could know that.

 

Then yes, you could have a contaminated test, but then I would think the testing company would be the one with liability.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

 

How can it be negative when it is positive? For a test to be positive, there has to be some bad juju in the sample.

 

False negative is far more likely - you were tested, but the tester failed to pick bad juju on the sample.

 

The ambulance chasers are waiting, no doubt, but nobody can file a class action suit. A (Florida) judge would have to grant class action status. I'm sure Carnival lawyers have been working on ways to indemnify Carnival.

Really, there cannot be false positives?

 

The Governor of Ohio tested positive when he was supposed to visit the President, and then of course was kept away from the President. But, it turned out to be a false positive.

 

Baseball in its testing has had some positive tests that were later proven to be false.

 

And those are just some prominent ones that I know of.

[sanger727]

57 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Really, there cannot be false positives?

 

The Governor of Ohio tested positive when he was supposed to visit the President, and then of course was kept away from the President. But, it turned out to be a false positive.

 

Baseball in its testing has had some positive tests that were later proven to be false.

 

And those are just some prominent ones that I know of.

 

There are definitely some false positives. But I agree that the false negative rate is greater. The problem with a negative test is that you can test negative throughout the incubation period which lasts up to two weeks and still have it. And then you can still have a false negative due to testing errors. There certainly are and have been false positives but those are only testing errors. I will say though, with MSC doing a second test if you if test positive (and it was a different type of test), that seems like it would greatly reduce the likelihood of someone getting refused boarding based on a false positive. All of the false positive stories I've heard of were from people who tested frequently and it was like negative, negative, positive, negative. I don't think a false positive is likely to result from two different types of tests taken in a row.