Eight Passengers Test Positive on Costa Cruise

[RICCruisers]

Here is an article from USA Today about positive tests from a recent Costa cruise.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/10/16/costa-cruises-eight-passengers-have-covid-19-cruise-ship-italy/3677815001/

 

In addition, one crew member from an MSC had a preliminary positive on a MSC cruise and passengers were denied disembarking in Malta.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-malta-cruiseship-idUSL8N2H74VM

Edited October 17, 2020 by RICCruisers
Update

[TeeRick]

Yes this was reported here earlier on Cruise Critic in the News section of the website.  It was a charter with 600 people.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5666

[Fouremco]

There were at least two breaches of what seem now to be accepted protocols for the return to cruising. First, the two cruises were 14 days in length each, and then there were some passengers cruising b2b on both cruises. It certainly illustrates why the short cruises and no b2b approach is being adopted by most lines.

[SHIP TRAVELER]

13 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

There were at least two breaches of what seem now to be accepted protocols for the return to cruising. First, the two cruises were 14 days in length each, and then there were some passengers cruising b2b on both cruises. It certainly illustrates why the short cruises and no b2b approach is being adopted by most lines.

I wanted to verify the "no B2B" comment.  I am having trouble finding the reference for that comment.

I am honestly just asking because we have still been able to book B2B recently and we have been looking for the wording of the protocols about B2B since we booked.

Thanks

Phyllis

[wrk2cruise]

There was nothing in the Healthy Sail Panel report that I could find although their was a recommendation that cruises be no more than 10 days in length.   It however is in the return to sailing protocols for TUI and MSC in Europe and has been reported in the "Live from" threads from those cruises.

[nps001]

42 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

There were at least two breaches of what seem now to be accepted protocols for the return to cruising. First, the two cruises were 14 days in length each, and then there were some passengers cruising b2b on both cruises. It certainly illustrates why the short cruises and no b2b approach is being adopted by most lines.

Can you note where you found this?  I have a B2B booked and also spoke to Celebrity last week who confirmed there is no restriction and they are still allowing customers to book B2B.

[Fouremco]

13 minutes ago, SHIP TRAVELER said:

I wanted to verify the "no B2B" comment.  I am having trouble finding the reference for that comment.

I am honestly just asking because we have still been able to book B2B recently and we have been looking for the wording of the protocols about B2B since we booked.

Thanks

Phyllis

It would have been more accurate had I said that TUI and MSC have been front runners in the restart of cruising and both have disallowed b2b bookings. There has been a lot of talk about other lines following suit, but we still don't know what the future holds for Celebrity or many other lines. The Costa incident may well influence them further in adopting this protocol. 

 

4 minutes ago, nps001 said:

Can you note where you found this?  I have a B2B booked and also spoke to Celebrity last week who confirmed there is no restriction and they are still allowing customers to book B2B.

Bear in mind that your ability to book a b2b doesn't mean that it will happen. Since March, Celebrity has allowed people to book cruises knowing full well that they would have to be cancelled. As a case in point, when the Canadian government closed our ports to cruise ships on March 13, Celebrity continued to take booking for Hawaiian, Alaskan and East Coast cruises requiring Canadian ports of call.

 

Consider too that at the restart, cruises will definitely sail with a smaller passenger load. We don't know when things will restart, but there is absolutely no doubt that more people are currently booked for these cruises than will be allowed to sail. That's simply another example of being able to book not necessarily meaning being able to sail.

[SHIP TRAVELER]

7 day

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

It would have been more accurate had I said that TUI and MSC have been front runners in the restart of cruising and both have disallowed b2b bookings. There has been a lot of talk about other lines following suit, but we still don't know what the future holds for Celebrity or many other lines. The Costa incident may well influence them further in adopting this protocol.

 

Thanks for your response.  I think this year we are all aware that nothing is a "for  sure" thing even in September of 2021 when we have our B2B of a 7 day Alaska tied to a 14 day Trans Pacific.

Edited October 17, 2020 by SHIP TRAVELER

[Fouremco]

50 minutes ago, SHIP TRAVELER said:

7 day

 

Thanks for your response.  I think this year we are all aware that nothing is a "for  sure" thing even in September of 2021 when we have our B2B of a 7 day Alaska tied to a 14 day Trans Pacific.

Hopefully by September things will have improved to the point where you can sail as planned. Sounds like a great b2b combo!

[steamboats]

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

There were at least two breaches of what seem now to be accepted protocols for the return to cruising. First, the two cruises were 14 days in length each, and then there were some passengers cruising b2b on both cruises. It certainly illustrates why the short cruises and no b2b approach is being adopted by most lines.

 

These were full charters... and over here in Europe there´s nothing prohibiting 14 days cruises.

 

steamboats

[mnocket]

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

There were at least two breaches of what seem now to be accepted protocols for the return to cruising. First, the two cruises were 14 days in length each, and then there were some passengers cruising b2b on both cruises. It certainly illustrates why the short cruises and no b2b approach is being adopted by most lines.

However, b2b had nothing to do with this.  The outbreak occurred during the first leg.  That said, it's obvious that the longer the cruise - the greater the odds of an outbreak.

[Fouremco]

28 minutes ago, steamboats said:

 

These were full charters... and over here in Europe there´s nothing prohibiting 14 days cruises.

 

steamboats

Are you suggesting that cruise lines should have different safety protocols for full charters than they do for regular sailings?

[WonderMan3]

Let’s get real here. The only reason the cruise lines want to nix longer cruises is because it reduces the chances of someone turning up with a positive test during the cruise due to the incubation period prior to symptoms showing being generally 5-10 days after exposure. In most cases people will be off the ship before they test positive and it will be next to impossible to trace it back to the cruise as the source of infection.

[Arizona Wildcat]

1 hour ago, mnocket said:

However, b2b had nothing to do with this.  The outbreak occurred during the first leg.  That said, it's obvious that the longer the cruise - the greater the odds of an outbreak.

The timeline is a bit confusing, but two things would be concerning to me - there were passengers on the first cruise also on the second.  Also a crew member tested positive.  You have positive tests with asymptomatic individuals.  Should others have been at least isolated.

My DW commented on Malta refusing entry.  Brought back bad memories of March.  Lucky all 600 passengers were French and could be disembarked there

What happens next?

[wrk2cruise]

The interesting take away I had from this event was once they tested positive they were disembarked asap even though asymptomatic.   I guess I was sort of hoping (naively I guess) that they would allow you to remain onboard in isolation back to the embarkation port.   My thinking was it might be easier for them to have the continued isolation/transportation concentrated at the home ports.  Where these sailings are happening I guess I might not worry as much but on a Caribbean sailing that would give me pause.

 

The following is from the Royal Caribbean FAQ's for the Quantum Singapore restart cruises.  I find the wording very confusing.  I'm not sure what the difference is between the first sentence and the remainder of the statement.

 

If applied to this case as an example.  They tested positive onboard so from the second sentence on would apply.

1. 100% refund of the cruise cost for travel party  (as you are all getting booted off!)
2. All medical onboard covered    (is it included in the $20000?)
3. Arrange safe quarantine            (arrange or provide?)
4. Make arrangements for safe return home   (arrange or provide?)

Assuming none of these passengers get severe illness during quarantine I suppose if you are paying out of the $20000 cap you should be ok.  It's going to be interesting to see what supplemental travel insurance will be available when the time comes.

 

"Should the need arise, Royal Caribbean will cover COVID-19-related costs up to $25,000 SGD ($20,000 USD) per person in your travel party, for onboard medical costs, cost of any required quarantine, and travel home. If you test positive for COVID-19 when you are onboard, we will provide a 100% refund of the price of your cruise for you and your travelling party; we will provide your medical treatment onboard; we will arrange safe quarantine for you; and make arrangements for your safe return home. We encourage you to take out comprehensive travel insurance for any supplementary costs, in accordance with our standard booking conditions."

[phoenix_dream]

39 minutes ago, wrk2cruise said:

The interesting take away I had from this event was once they tested positive they were disembarked asap even though asymptomatic.   I guess I was sort of hoping (naively I guess) that they would allow you to remain onboard in isolation back to the embarkation port.   My thinking was it might be easier for them to have the continued isolation/transportation concentrated at the home ports.  Where these sailings are happening I guess I might not worry as much but on a Caribbean sailing that would give me pause.

 

The following is from the Royal Caribbean FAQ's for the Quantum Singapore restart cruises.  I find the wording very confusing.  I'm not sure what the difference is between the first sentence and the remainder of the statement.

 

If applied to this case as an example.  They tested positive onboard so from the second sentence on would apply.

1. 100% refund of the cruise cost for travel party  (as you are all getting booted off!)
2. All medical onboard covered    (is it included in the $20000?)
3. Arrange safe quarantine            (arrange or provide?)
4. Make arrangements for safe return home   (arrange or provide?)

Assuming none of these passengers get severe illness during quarantine I suppose if you are paying out of the $20000 cap you should be ok.  It's going to be interesting to see what supplemental travel insurance will be available when the time comes.

 

"Should the need arise, Royal Caribbean will cover COVID-19-related costs up to $25,000 SGD ($20,000 USD) per person in your travel party, for onboard medical costs, cost of any required quarantine, and travel home. If you test positive for COVID-19 when you are onboard, we will provide a 100% refund of the price of your cruise for you and your travelling party; we will provide your medical treatment onboard; we will arrange safe quarantine for you; and make arrangements for your safe return home. We encourage you to take out comprehensive travel insurance for any supplementary costs, in accordance with our standard booking conditions."

One of my biggest concerns continues to be the situation where you get sick onboard.  It sounds like they dump you at the next port of call, where they will have quarantine available.  But what happens if one (or more) in your party is so sick they need hospitalization?  Are you then stuck in, potentially, a third world country (thinking Caribbean here) with dubious medical care?  And what happens with the part of your party that is not sick, or not sick enough to be hospitalized?  Do they stay in the quarantined area until you can fly home with them?  How would anyone like to be stuck, seriously ill, in a third world hospital where your travel partners are either quarantined and can't help you out/visit, or perhaps are put on the next flight home??  And what kind of travel home is it?  No airline is going to let you on if you test positive.  If they use some kind of charter flight who pays for that - I suspect it is you!    These are real scenarios that are really possible. 

[Baron Barracuda]

As I read the news pieces 10 days into sailing seven passengers returning from shore excursion test positive.  They are put ashore a day or two later and ship calls at two more ports before sailing concludes. 

 

I see everyone who went ashore was tested on day 10 but what about those who never left ship?  Also no word of additional testing being performed at subsequent ports or during disembarkation.    The seven sick passengers may have been contagious for days prior to their positive test and would have expected entire ship to have been tested at disembarkation.  Surprised Italian health authorities weren't more vigilant.  

[wrk2cruise]

That was the concern I was trying to articulate as well as the personal financial risk.   If not sick enough to require hospitalization I'd much rather be on the deck 2 covid isolation ward for the trip back to FL rather than be put off in Labadee.

[Arizona Wildcat]

The following was published by Cruise Law on 17 October.  The author asked the cruise line for clarifications and to date has received to reply.  

Eight Passengers Positive with COVID-19 on Costa Diadema

By Jim Walker on October 17, 2020

POSTED IN DISEASE

This week, eight Costa Cruises guests tested positive for COVID-19 during two cruises on the Costa Diadema. As USA TODAY reported yesterday, the Costa cruise ship departed from Genoa on September 28th and ended its voyage on October 12th. The ship then departed on a second 14-day cruise with many of the same passengers on board from the pevious cruise and returned to Genoa yesterday 10 days earlier than intended.

There was COVID-19 on the ship during both cruises notwithstanding Costa’s so-called “strenuous” protocols which promise a “totally safe cruise.“ An Italian newspaper, Il Secolo XIX, reported that seven passengers were tested on Monday and were positive for the virus. Carnival told USA TODAY that “following excursions in Greek islands, they were tested again before returning to Italy, and seven preliminarily tested positive.” The guests were then retested in facilities in Palermo, again found to be positive for the virus, and then isolated ashore.

On Wednesday, another guest, a French national, became ill on the Costa Diadema and a test taken on the ship was also positive for COVID-19. The passenger was then disembarked from the ship and transported to a hospital in Naples where the patient’s doctor characterized his condition in somewhat conflicting terms. Although one newspaper account in Italy indicated that the guest had a fever and other “mild” symptoms, the 78 year-old man was described in other accounts to be in a “serious” and “worrying” condition.

The Costa cruise ship then discontinued the cruise and returned to Genoa. Costa claimed that the cruise was cut short because of the “the epidemiological situation in France.”

Although the guest was hospitalized on October 14th, Costa issued a statement on October 15th not acknowledging the hospitalization of the guest for COVID19 in Naples just the day before. The Italian newspaper, Il Secolo XIX, first learned of the COVID19 illness and reported it yesterday. Costa’s less-than-forthcoming press release raises more questions than answers.

Suggest reading the entire article as well as the Costa presser.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Arizona Wildcat

[steamboats]

11 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Are you suggesting that cruise lines should have different safety protocols for full charters than they do for regular sailings?

 

Nope, but the charter has it´s rules too. And it´s a closed group. If the charterer allowes B2B they might have been o.k. with that.

 

Actually if I was the cruise line I had cancelled the charter in those days.

 

steamboats

[steamboats]

10 hours ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

The timeline is a bit confusing, but two things would be concerning to me - there were passengers on the first cruise also on the second.  Also a crew member tested positive.  You have positive tests with asymptomatic individuals.  Should others have been at least isolated.

My DW commented on Malta refusing entry.  Brought back bad memories of March.  Lucky all 600 passengers were French and could be disembarked there

What happens next?

 

Nope, new crew member has been tested positive - that was MSC Grandiosa - also Malta, Costa does not go to Malta.

 

steamboats

[steamboats]

7 hours ago, Baron Barracuda said:

As I read the news pieces 10 days into sailing seven passengers returning from shore excursion test positive.  They are put ashore a day or two later and ship calls at two more ports before sailing concludes. 

 

I see everyone who went ashore was tested on day 10 but what about those who never left ship?  Also no word of additional testing being performed at subsequent ports or during disembarkation.    The seven sick passengers may have been contagious for days prior to their positive test and would have expected entire ship to have been tested at disembarkation.  Surprised Italian health authorities weren't more vigilant.  

 

At least all crew was tested in Genova upon arrival after the first cruise. And I´m pretty sure that all B2B passengers have been tested too there.

 

There were several ports in Greece and it´s a requiry by Italy that when reentering Italy they need a new test after leaving Greece. I don´t think that there were - it at all - many passengers which haven´t left the ship in any Greek port. So pretty likely all have been tested on the seaday on the way back to Italy.

 

steamboats

[taznremmy]

11 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

Let’s get real here. The only reason the cruise lines want to nix longer cruises is because it reduces the chances of someone turning up with a positive test during the cruise due to the incubation period prior to symptoms showing being generally 5-10 days after exposure. In most cases people will be off the ship before they test positive and it will be next to impossible to trace it back to the cruise as the source of infection.

Finally.  THANK YOU!!   IMHO the cruise lines are catching a bad rap, not only because of the stringent reporting requirements they have to adhere to, but also the length of a cruise.  If you are not in a location for a long period of time, you won't know where you caught it.  I would venture to guess the chances of catching it on a airplane are far greater than on a cruise ship.  It just doesn't have time to develop.

[sanger727]

2 hours ago, taznremmy said:

Finally.  THANK YOU!!   IMHO the cruise lines are catching a bad rap, not only because of the stringent reporting requirements they have to adhere to, but also the length of a cruise.  If you are not in a location for a long period of time, you won't know where you caught it.  I would venture to guess the chances of catching it on a airplane are far greater than on a cruise ship.  It just doesn't have time to develop.

I’m confused by the logic of your post. If chances of catching Covid on a cruise ship is lower because ‘it just doesn’t have time to develop’ then why would the chances of catching it on an airplane be higher?

 

And if airplanes are a higher risk environment to catch Covid - has most people fly to the cruise - wouldn’t that increase the likelihood of someone bringing a fresh infection onboard?

[ipeeinthepool]

1 hour ago, sanger727 said:

I’m confused by the logic of your post. If chances of catching Covid on a cruise ship is lower because ‘it just doesn’t have time to develop’ then why would the chances of catching it on an airplane be higher?

 

And if airplanes are a higher risk environment to catch Covid - has most people fly to the cruise - wouldn’t that increase the likelihood of someone bringing a fresh infection onboard?

 

I'm not sure I agree with suggestion that airlines are safe because only 19 passengers can link their Covid exposure to the airlines.  I'll suggest that the contact tracing hasn't been developed to track people on aircraft.  For me I think a cruise ship is safer than an aircraft.  If the guidelines for potential exposure are 6 ft for more than 15 minutes.  I can control that on a cruise ship.  I can social distance myself from others and limit my time around any individual that I don't know.  I have no control for social distance on an aircraft.  I am seated next to people I don't know at small distances for hours at a time.  Even with the middle seat open it's around 2 ft separation.