Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
jtwind

Get Tested Shortly Before Required Testing?

Recommended Posts

Folks have been concerned about taking a test per the rules of their cruise line, and receiving an unexpected and unwelcomed positive result.  Besides being inconvenient, there may be financial consequences.

 

The science is currently telling us that that a large percentage of those infected show no symptoms.  It is also being suggested that a person may test positive for months after having and recovering from the virus.  So, there are travelers out there who may feel fine, but test positive.

 

If I was scheduled to cruise in the near future, I would have myself tested about a week before any required tests.  That way, I could avoid some inconveniences and have a better chance of getting refunds.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

COVID 19 insurance, don't leave home without it.

Nice idea (if you can find it). Most travel insurers have already excluded Covid for trip cancellation/interruption. Unless it's a PEC, once you're traveling, there would be medical  insurance (most policies) for Covid acquired during the trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jtwind said:

Folks have been concerned about taking a test per the rules of their cruise line, and receiving an unexpected and unwelcomed positive result.  Besides being inconvenient, there may be financial consequences.

 

The science is currently telling us that that a large percentage of those infected show no symptoms.  It is also being suggested that a person may test positive for months after having and recovering from the virus.  So, there are travelers out there who may feel fine, but test positive.

 

If I was scheduled to cruise in the near future, I would have myself tested about a week before any required tests.  That way, I could avoid some inconveniences and have a better chance of getting refunds.

 

Thoughts?

What you're suggesting is common sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take a flight to where you embark, but you don't get to board because you test positive, I don't think trip insurance would refund the cost of the flight.

 

If you fly to where you are to embark, and test positive, wouldn't you be morally obligated not to board a flight home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jtwind said:

If you take a flight to where you embark, but you don't get to board because you test positive, I don't think trip insurance would refund the cost of the flight.

 

If you fly to where you are to embark, and test positive, wouldn't you be morally obligated not to board a flight home?

When push comes to shove - do you think the average person who has just been denied boarding is highly likely to accept a morally obligated incurring of the significant costs involved in hotel stays, etc.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jtwind said:

If you take a flight to where you embark, but you don't get to board because you test positive, I don't think trip insurance would refund the cost of the flight.

 

If you fly to where you are to embark, and test positive, wouldn't you be morally obligated not to board a flight home?

Would that be trip interruption ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ashland said:

Would that be trip interruption ?

 

Don't know.  The person actually took the flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jtwind said:

 

If you fly to where you are to embark, and test positive, wouldn't you be morally obligated not to board a flight home?

 

54 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

When push comes to shove - do you think the average person who has just been denied boarding is highly likely to accept a morally obligated incurring of the significant costs involved in hotel stays, etc.? 

 

Well, I think the average person would accept the need to quarantine whether or not they liked the cost.    A dishonest person would not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

When push comes to shove - do you think the average person who has just been denied boarding is highly likely to accept a morally obligated incurring of the significant costs involved in hotel stays, etc.? 

 

Many would just get on a plane and fly home.  Well before Trump got it, there were stories about people in our neighborhood who had tested positive, but couldn't bother to be quarantined.  And so the virus spreads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

 

Well, I think the average person would accept the need to quarantine whether or not they liked the cost.    A dishonest person would not.   

I think you have a higher opinion of the "average person".  When you see the spread of Covid - which could have been avoided if that "average person" wore a mask as suggested - the notion that someone who was disappointed at being denied boarding would still incur substantial additional costs and delay in getting home does not strike me as something an "average person" would opt for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, navybankerteacher said:

 

 

2 hours ago, jtwind said:

 

Many would just get on a plane and fly home.  Well before Trump got it, there were stories about people in our neighborhood who had tested positive, but couldn't bother to be quarantined.  And so the virus spreads.

I think you have nailed it -- the primary reason most states have increasing rates of infection is that because of gross stupidity or - more likely - gross selfishness a significant number of people refuse to comply with common sense procedures.  The guy who just got denied boarding is less likely than the average to put other peoples health above his own wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 

I think you have nailed it -- the primary reason most states have increasing rates of infection is that because of gross stupidity or - more likely - gross selfishness a significant number of people refuse to comply with common sense procedures.  The guy who just got denied boarding is less likely than the average to put other peoples health above his own wallet.

"Gross stupidity" a.k.a. = mistaking "herd stupidity" for "herd immunity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I think you have a higher opinion of the "average person".  When you see the spread of Covid - which could have been avoided if that "average person" wore a mask as suggested - the notion that someone who was disappointed at being denied boarding would still incur substantial additional costs and delay in getting home does not strike me as something an "average person" would opt for.

 

Huh, I must hang out with a different crowd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Nice idea (if you can find it). Most travel insurers have already excluded Covid for trip cancellation/interruption. Unless it's a PEC, once you're traveling, there would be medical  insurance (most policies) for Covid acquired during the trip.

Cruise line like MSC is offering COVID 19 insurance and the cost is rather inexpensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

When push comes to shove - do you think the average person who has just been denied boarding is highly likely to accept a morally obligated incurring of the significant costs involved in hotel stays, etc.? 


If you get denied boarding due to the cruise line giving you a positive test, I don’t think they are going to simply give you instructions to quarantine. I think part of their return to cruising plan will include a plan for this and will involve them booking a hotel for you and arranging transportation straight there. I recall reading that when the uniworld cruise was cancelled over a false positive they had already returned to port and put all of the passengers in a hotel for a 2 week quarantine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sanger727 said:


If you get denied boarding due to the cruise line giving you a positive test, I don’t think they are going to simply give you instructions to quarantine. I think part of their return to cruising plan will include a plan for this and will involve them booking a hotel for you and arranging transportation straight there. I recall reading that when the uniworld cruise was cancelled over a false positive they had already returned to port and put all of the passengers in a hotel for a 2 week quarantine. 

That may be the case -- but the topic under discussion here is whether the individual would feel morally obligated to  incur cost and delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

That may be the case -- but the topic under discussion here is whether the individual would feel morally obligated to  incur cost and delay.

I dont think it is ?   the topic is  or should be whether  there is

merit in getting a test a week before you need a test to board.

That is what the OP asked.

Edited by Aulanis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was TPG who reported a flyer who had taken a COVID test and had the digital report on his phone was denied boarding until he got that test result printed, so just a heads up here to have a paper copy available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is underreported by the media is the high percentage of false negatives (especially when using the fast Abbott antigen test) and an unexplained number of false positives.   The truth is that relying on testing as a means of clearing travelers is just folly!  The untold story of unreliable antigen tests (this is the one where you can get results within a half hour) needs to be told.  The false negatives have become such a problem that even the authorities who administer the tests no longer trust them.  We just saw a great example when a family member in NYC recently developed a high fever and some other symptoms.  They immediately went to nearby testing facility (in NYC) where they were immediately given the Abbott antigen test and ALSO had a sample taken to do a more reliable PCR test.  The Abbott test results were available within a couple of hours (she was negative) but she was told to quarantine for several days until they got the results of the PCR test (results from this test can take 3 days to weeks depending on where you are tested and the lab).

 

So here is the problem.  The cruise lines (and many other institutions) talk about reliance on the fast Abbott antigen test as a condition of cruising.  But this test has a false negative rate in excess of 20% (it is argued that it is closer to 50% since it does not show positive results for 3-6 days after exposure to the virus).  So relying on these tests as the price of entry to a cruise ship will eventually result in an unmitigated disaster when some cruisers (and crew) escape COVID detection until they have been aboard for a few days (and have likely infected many others on the vessel).  There is no good answer to this problem other then to ignore it!  We are now seeing the results of this testing dilemma in Europe where Costa had multiple cases onboard one of their ships and MSC also had a positive COVID case (which recently caused Malta to deny them permission to disembark anyone!)

 

The only reliable method would be to test folks with a PCR test, put them in supervised quarantine for about a week and then test them again.  At that point, while still maintaining quarantine standards that person is very likely COVID free and could socialize with other folks who went through similar testing.   The cruise lines are following such a protocol in Europe with their crew members but not the passengers.  So even though the crew is theoretically safe that ends the instant they come into contact with any passenger!  Go figure.

 

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those false negatives is the reason that folks will have to continue to wear masks, social distance, wash hands, and avoid touching their faces while cruising.

 

Even if the cost of a quarantine was covered by a cruise line, I'd rather do whatever I could to avoid it altogether. 10-14 days locked up in a hotel room doesn't appeal to me.  I'll test myself a week before required tests.

 

Anyone have an answer on whether trip interruption insurance would refund the cost of a flight if you test positive at the embarkation facility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aulanis said:

I dont think it is ?   the topic is  or should be whether  there is

merit in getting a test a week before you need a test to board.

That is what the OP asked.

That was OP’s question - but, as happens on most threads, there was a tangent - concerning whether a moral obligation to self- isolate might exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, getting tested a week before the required date would only help you if you tested positive and could thus recover your fare and other expenses before heading off to the embarkation port.  If you tested negative and then got exposed you could then turn positive.

 

There are still a lot of logistics that cruise lines need to work out.  As one example the Alaska Marine Highway System has such a requirement for passengers boarding in Bellingham, Washington.  Not only must the passenger present documentation of a negative test performed within 72hrs of boarding the test must be a molecular-based test which detects viral RNA.  I bring this up because I can just anticipate a number of passengers not paying attention.  They get a rapid antigen test and then be turned away because it wasn't an approved test.

 

I solved this moral/ethical problem on a personal level by deciding not to book until the "old normal" can return.  The restrictions that the line I sail just put out would make the voyage no fun whatsoever for a solo traveler. 

 

Fortunately it sounds like we are very close to a vaccine in the US as a distribution system is being set up with two major drug store chains with first priority to nursing home residents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

OP, getting tested a week before the required date would only help you if you tested positive and could thus recover your fare and other expenses before heading off to the embarkation port.  If you tested negative and then got exposed you could then turn positive.

 

There are still a lot of logistics that cruise lines need to work out.  As one example the Alaska Marine Highway System has such a requirement for passengers boarding in Bellingham, Washington.  Not only must the passenger present documentation of a negative test performed within 72hrs of boarding the test must be a molecular-based test which detects viral RNA.  I bring this up because I can just anticipate a number of passengers not paying attention.  They get a rapid antigen test and then be turned away because it wasn't an approved test.

 

I solved this moral/ethical problem on a personal level by deciding not to book until the "old normal" can return.  The restrictions that the line I sail just put out would make the voyage no fun whatsoever for a solo traveler. 

 

Fortunately it sounds like we are very close to a vaccine in the US as a distribution system is being set up with two major drug store chains with first priority to nursing home residents.  

I don’t think we’re that close. Probably not until the beginning of 2021. High risk individuals will get it first. Then medical workers. Then the rest of us. Possibly not until 2022. 
 

We are booked on a four night cruise in June out of Miami. Hoping that is still a go. I’m also hoping that rapid testing will be more accurate. Because I don’t think I’ll be vaccinated by then. 
 

We have eight months. Fingers crossed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

OP, getting tested a week before the required date would only help you if you tested positive and could thus recover your fare and other expenses before heading off to the embarkation port.  If you tested negative and then got exposed you could then turn positive.

 

Exactly my point.  Some folks will unexpectedly test positive because either they show no symptoms or they had it in the last several months without realizing it.  Finding out before leaving home will save some trouble (possible 10-14 day quarantine at undesirable place) and/or give them a better chance to get refunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...