Covid on Iona

[Megabear2]

36 minutes ago, bamfordsbeans said:

The Spanish Authorities said we could leave the hotel and fly home after our 10 days were up.

Our insurance company said they would send a doctor to do another test once the 10 days were up.

If we were negative they would then look into arranging flights for us.If we were still positive (I understand about 30% of people still are -although not infectious) we would have to do another 10 days of isolation.

After a very stressful few hours we decided to book our own flights and with Fred Olsens port agent arranging a taxi for us.This was all at our own expense (the taxi cost more than the flights) and we are trying to claim this back together with the part of the cruise we were unable to enjoy.

May I ask which insurance company? They seem to have stepped up in some regards but not in others. The hours trying to make contact on your return sound appalling.  

[wowzz]

8 minutes ago, tring said:

 

Thank you for sharing this information.  I hope you are successful in your further claims. 

 

Can I ask which cruise you were on and which ship?

Fred  - Borealis.

[Megabear2]

44 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Even an old cynic like me thinks that is a little unfair. 

How does the port benefit from the hotel costs  ?

And £4000 over 10 nights for two people,  is in line  with the costs  charged  by the UK government for hotel quarantine. 

I think this is more or less a standard amount to budget, except for USA.  Barbados for instance is US$150 per day minimum, plus US$35.00 for food.  As you say, UK charges £2,200 per person.

[wowzz]

8 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

I think this is more or less a standard amount to budget, except for USA.  Barbados for instance is US$150 per day minimum, plus US$35.00 for food.  As you say, UK charges £2,200 per person.

£1430 for second person.

[Megabear2]

35 minutes ago, wowzz said:

£1430 for second person.

Hopefully never going to use it!

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, Cruisemeister2002 said:

With regards to consumer programs I agree. They have a few minutes, half an hour or maybe an hour to process several problems. One thing that does stand out though is that in 8 out of 10 cases a settlement is made and classed as a "Goodwill gesture" this is just words to say there's no liability which we will admit to. But they are liable. People shouldn't have to threaten with or actually contact these programs to get what is rightfully theirs. I suppose at the end of the day why we get pages and pages of literature to view or not as the case may be is because the Insurance Companies are legally bound to have them and to rather than cover you for every aspect of a cruise or whatever, but to cover themselves.

Goodwill gesture it may well be.  You cannot say definitively they are liable, quite often they aren't but want to be seen as customer friendly.  Good example, car insurance with tow bar on the back is declarable as an extra. Many forget there is one because it was there when they bought the car and they've never used it so it doesn't get declared. Accident occurs and the insurance company says they wont pay out because the declaration wasnt made, technically they are right but the driver feels hard done by.  Who's right or wrong?  

 

We get reams of pages because the law states they have to spell out in minutiae what we are covered for. It's to protect us, not them.  It is scientifically proven human beings read paper printed documents more thoroughly than electronic ones and the brain takes in more information as a result, ie book v Kindle or tablet.

 

If we learn one lesson from this affair it's to read and check absolutely every insurance policy we purchase from home insurance to funeral plans, cars, pets, in fact anything we want to protect.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Megabear2
Additional text

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, wowzz said:

Even an old cynic like me thinks that is a little unfair. 

How does the port benefit from the hotel costs  ?

And £4000 over 10 nights for two people,  is in line  with the costs  charged  by the UK government for hotel quarantine. 

What other reason can there be? As many have already said why would a port authority, or govt dept,  want to take someone off a cruise ship if they are not in need of medical attention that the cruise ship cannot provide, especially when the cruise ship will be leaving anyway.

 It makes sense for people wanting to  enter a country, but not someone in transit.

[wowzz]

1 minute ago, terrierjohn said:

What other reason can there be? As many have already said why would a port authority, or govt dept,  want to take someone off a cruise ship if they are not in need of medical attention that the cruise ship cannot provide, especially when the cruise ship will be leaving anyway.

 It makes sense for people wanting to  enter a country, but not someone in transit.

Whilst I agree with you that the reasoning behind the decision seems flawed, I was just pointing out that the charges are in line with those charged elsewhere, and are certainly not high enough to convince me that there is an ulterior motive. 

[terrierjohn]

11 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Whilst I agree with you that the reasoning behind the decision seems flawed, I was just pointing out that the charges are in line with those charged elsewhere, and are certainly not high enough to convince me that there is an ulterior motive. 

The charges may be standard, but what if the port authority have had to finance a hotel just in case it is needed. In that situation might they not want it as full as possible so that it reduces their costs?

[wowzz]

11 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

The charges may be standard, but what if the port authority have had to finance a hotel just in case it is needed. In that situation might they not want it as full as possible so that it reduces their costs?

If that was indeed the case, the Port Authority is doing a woeful job, as the number of cases are minute.

I think you are looking for a conspiracy that does not exist. 

[lujaha]

On 11/8/2021 at 10:36 PM, terrierjohn said:

I'm intrigued by the offloading full stop, I cannot see why any port would want to accept covid positive passengers, unless they carry a bounty like foxes tails used to, possibly a kick back from the quarantine hotels?

Just back from Ventura.  We heard 2 passengers off loaded in Gran Canaria, but on Captains Log we were given last night Captain says "several passengers were taken off".  I guess he must know!  They landed at midnight and left at 3.00 am.

[molecrochip]

16 minutes ago, lujaha said:

Just back from Ventura.  We heard 2 passengers off loaded in Gran Canaria, but on Captains Log we were given last night Captain says "several passengers were taken off".  I guess he must know!  They landed at midnight and left at 3.00 am.

Believe it was 12.

[Dermotsgirl]

2 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Believe it was 12.

I'm sure the number 12 was mentioned at some point, but they seem to have been told on board that it was 2.

 

Do we know why 12 people were offloaded, as there is a thread on this board that  is confidently entitled 'No Covid on Ventura'

 

 

[free from work]

4 minutes ago, Dermotsgirl said:

I'm sure the number 12 was mentioned at some point, but they seem to have been told on board that it was 2.

 

Do we know why 12 people were offloaded, as there is a thread on this board that  is confidently entitled 'No Covid on Ventura'

 

 

This thread:

 

Post No 34. 

[Dermotsgirl]

5 minutes ago, free from work said:

This thread:

 

Post No 34. 

There's also this thread 

 

 

[Megabear2]

It was this newspaper mentioned 12

 

https://www.madeiraislandnews.com/2021/11/outbreaks-on-cruises-affect-stops-and-drop-passengers-in-funchal.html?fbclid=IwAR3d877jDBMrXwiVLmJG6hQjfK94BzcyNrrB_w5nAayX-bcC7ljo5fcuBrk

 

We couldn't find any further information but another poster onboard said 2 people had flown home after disembarking.  No mention of a further 10, first mention of them being from Ventura is above.

[lujaha]

1 hour ago, Dermotsgirl said:

I'm sure the number 12 was mentioned at some point, but they seem to have been told on board that it was 2.

 

Do we know why 12 people were offloaded, as there is a thread on this board that  is confidently entitled 'No Covid on Ventura'

 

 

Just read the Captains Log again.  The reason for this was "operational reasons and covid restrictions".  I would read this as passengers with covid.

[Dermotsgirl]

5 minutes ago, lujaha said:

Just read the Captains Log again.  The reason for this was "operational reasons and covid restrictions".  I would read this as passengers with covid.

I think I would too, it's just that Dai, who was also onboard seemed adamant that there was no Covid.

 

I think it would be much more helpful if the cruise companies were more open about the situation on the ship, as they seem very coy about advising their passengers when Covid is onboard.  They tell us if there's a norovirus situation onboard, so they should really be doing the same for Covid, IMO

[lujaha]

2 minutes ago, Dermotsgirl said:

I think I would too, it's just that Dai, who was also onboard seemed adamant that there was no Covid.

 

I think it would be much more helpful if the cruise companies were more open about the situation on the ship, as they seem very coy about advising their passengers when Covid is onboard.  They tell us if there's a norovirus situation onboard, so they should really be doing the same for Covid, IMO

When the Captain announced this  and our not stopping in Madeira he said that he couldn't  say any more than the medical facilities were better in Las Palmas, because of privacy and data protection.  Our friends have just boarded Ventura for the next cruise.  It will be interesing to hear if they have any similar experiences.  Hopefully not!

[Megabear2]

Well Molecrochip seems very certain these were  our 12.  If two flew home I assume the other 10 are still in the Canaries!

[daiB]

1 hour ago, Megabear2 said:

Well Molecrochip seems very certain these were  our 12.  If two flew home I assume the other 10 are still in the Canaries!

Sorry no mention at all of 12 people only 2. No gossip on the ship either.

 

No extra precautions taken after they left, as they used to do with NV.

 

The captain said 2.

 

Not read the log.

[Megabear2]

Well regardless of whether its 2 or 12 we now know P&O have apparently only had two incidents (which was the same as Natasha stated).  In the scheme of things that's a pretty small number with three large ships sailing.  

 

There are considerable reports coming in from the US of events but these need to be viewed in context of vaccination situation.

[wowzz]

3 hours ago, daiB said:

No extra precautions taken after they left, as they used to do with NV.

What extra precautions are realistically possible,  over and above those in force already ?

It is relatively easy to take extra measures when NV breaks out, less so with Covid. 

[Megabear2]

17 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

The charges may be standard, but what if the port authority have had to finance a hotel just in case it is needed. In that situation might they not want it as full as possible so that it reduces their costs?

Interesting thought occurs from this.  With the USA now open to the UK and QM2 about to start her Atlantic crossings will there have to be some sort of quarantine facility available in Southampton "just in case" or will any suspected cases be shipped to the Heathrow hotels designated by the government?  I can't imagine they will be left onboard with the one day turnaround and also crossing into Hamburg.  It may be a very remote possibility but certainly it is there.

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Interesting thought occurs from this.  With the USA now open to the UK and QM2 about to start her Atlantic crossings will there have to be some sort of quarantine facility available in Southampton "just in case" or will any suspected cases be shipped to the Heathrow hotels designated by the government?  I can't imagine they will be left onboard with the one day turnaround and also crossing into Hamburg.  It may be a very remote possibility but certainly it is there.

The two Princess ships that were based in Southampton recently returned to the US with a couple of thousand passengers between them, mainly Americans.   

AFAIK no quarantine facilities were available in Southampton,  and given the small numbers involved, it would be impractical to have quarantine facilities available. I presume the LHR hotels would be used,  but given  how few "red" countries still remain, do these hotels still exist ?