Covid Testing Requirement on Celebrity

[ScottC4746]

I just read on AP, US lifts COVID-19 test requirement for international travel (msn.com) that the Covid Testing to reenter the US is being lifted.  Is Celebrity going to keep their pre-boarding testing requirement or lift that as well?

[gerelmx]

With this measure, the demand for tests will decrease and possibly many test centers will disappear, it will be more difficult to find a test center

[RichYak]

I suspect one has very little to do with the other in terms of timing.

[Jeremiah1212]

The pre-embark ban has very little to do with guests and everything to do with the crew. If the crew is sick, can't work or has a big outbreak, cruises get canceled, staffing levels drop, services suffers, people gripe and moan about it taking 30 extra seconds to get coffee, etc and blast the cruise line in reviews.

 

You catch COVID on a ship, you go home, (and now) even if you do have COVID you just hop on a plane and fly home. Their hands are washed. I don't foresee it going away for quite some time given their already stretched crew levels.  

[cangelmd]

Cruising is a very high risk activity for spreading airborne infectious disease - I think we have proven that over the last year and in early 2020. It is similar to living in a nursing home or other congregate living arrangement and you get to go to bars whenever you chose!

Testing passengers has implications for protecting the crew and maintaining service levels. Until the prevalence of Covid decreases significantly, I think they will test passengers pre-boarding. Quarantine may continue to be modified and other procedures change and maybe become more uniform, but as long as the crew is threatened with outbreaks taking out whole groups of people, there will be testing.

[DCPIV]

I would expect the pre-cruise testing to remain for some time.

[Mark_T]

The problem I have with the pre-boarding test is that from a 'protect the crew' perspective it is mostly theatre rather than a really useful activity.

 

Testing people within 48 hours of the majority flying or traveling and mixing with large numbers of people in the process, doesn't show up the newly infected who will need a couple more days before they are detectable. ... or worse perhaps is just long enough for them to test before traveling so there is zero chance of noticing if they have just become infectious.

 

If there was a serious intent to reduce the spread there would need to be daily testing as the progress of time and each port brings new opportunities for the illness to be contracted and spread.

 

So I'd probably vote for daily testing for everyone or no testing, and just respond as symptoms arise, it remains unclear to me what is gained by testing upon boarding?

 

[Jeremiah1212]

37 minutes ago, Mark_T said:

The problem I have with the pre-boarding test is that from a 'protect the crew' perspective it is mostly theatre rather than a really useful activity.

 

Testing people within 48 hours of the majority flying or traveling and mixing with large numbers of people in the process, doesn't show up the newly infected who will need a couple more days before they are detectable. ... or worse perhaps is just long enough for them to test before traveling so there is zero chance of noticing if they have just become infectious.

 

If there was a serious intent to reduce the spread there would need to be daily testing as the progress of time and each port brings new opportunities for the illness to be contracted and spread.

 

So I'd probably vote for daily testing for everyone or no testing, and just respond as symptoms arise, it remains unclear to me what is gained by testing upon boarding?

 

 
Mitigate does not mean eliminate. They had to come up with a solution to make it not terribly difficult for passengers while still being someone effective. Just because they can’t eliminate all COVID from ships doesn’t mean there should make no effort at all. 

[cangelmd]

27 minutes ago, Mark_T said:

The problem I have with the pre-boarding test is that from a 'protect the crew' perspective it is mostly theatre rather than a really useful activity.

 

Testing people within 48 hours of the majority flying or traveling and mixing with large numbers of people in the process, doesn't show up the newly infected who will need a couple more days before they are detectable. ... or worse perhaps is just long enough for them to test before traveling so there is zero chance of noticing if they have just become infectious.

 

If there was a serious intent to reduce the spread there would need to be daily testing as the progress of time and each port brings new opportunities for the illness to be contracted and spread.

 

So I'd probably vote for daily testing for everyone or no testing, and just respond as symptoms arise, it remains unclear to me what is gained by testing upon boarding?

 

This cab affect their bottom line so I’m sure they have crunched the numbers and I’m just speculating, but here goes. Testing everyone daily is not practical financially or time wise. I wouldn’t be surprised if the pre-cruise positivity rate is 5%. The prevalence right now is high enough that there is Covid circulating on virtually every sailing, even with pre-cruise testing. The crew is short handed already, and the nature of Covid outbreaks is such that circles or small groups of people tend to get infected - if those people have specialized jobs, like blackjack dealers or singers or heaven forbid, the engine room staff - the sailing or passenger experience is in trouble.

Requiring passengers to be negative doesn’t cost them anything and stops at least some people. The same could be said about the international flights into US - the big difference is that people were flying into an area of high incidence from areas that were often low incidence, on the ship pax still really are bringing it in from outside.

Things will change eventually. In our medical news, the current “wave” is being described as more of a “swell”. Hospitalization and death rates still go up and down with case numbers and are still way higher than flu, but slowly getting better or at least tolerable. The seriousness or not of long Covid is a real worry because of the sheer numbers of people who have had Covid. The death rate for the unvaccinated has not changed.

Cruising is high risk and cruising restrictions will be some of the last things to disappear.

But no test to return is huge!

[Mark_T]

1 minute ago, cangelmd said:

This cab affect their bottom line so I’m sure they have crunched the numbers and I’m just speculating, but here goes...

Sadly I suspect this piece of theatre has more to do with the optics than any real protection for anyone... I totally understand why they want to give people the feeling that the ship is clear of all sources of covid as it does I am sure impact on bookings...

 

However, it makes no sense to just test people at the one point in the whole cruise where they are most likely to have been careful to limit their exposure before traveling, and then not test them 4 days later after they have been most at risk by traveling and queuing in the boarding areas then mixing onboard...

 

I really don't have any objection to a meaningful testing regime, I just have a dislike for processes put in place simply to deliver the illusion of protection.

[RichYak]

48 minutes ago, Mark_T said:

If there was a serious intent to reduce the spread there would need to be daily testing as the progress of time and each port brings new opportunities for the illness to be contracted and spread.

Testing 2 days prior is a serious intent to reduce the spread. Testing daily would be an attempt at eliminating spread, but still ineffective as one can be contagious for days prior to testing positive.

 

As long as there are quarantine/isolation requirements, there will be testing. Once those are lifted, testing will begin to fade away. It's likely that none of this happens until public perception of covid's severity changes to match it's actual severity.

[Mark_T]

4 minutes ago, RichYak said:

Testing 2 days prior is a serious intent to reduce the spread. Testing daily would be an attempt at eliminating spread, but still ineffective as one can be contagious for days prior to testing positive.

Testing before the highest risk of infection and declaring people 'clear' then not testing after the highest risk period doesn't feel like it has a lot to do with prevention...

 

...but in the end it is up to Celebrity, nobody else is forcing their hand at this point so it is their choice to continue with the current process, modify it, or stop it...

 

[prmssk]

10 minutes ago, Mark_T said:

Testing before the highest risk of infection and declaring people 'clear' then not testing after the highest risk period doesn't feel like it has a lot to do with prevention...

 

Exactly!  Pre-cruise testing is not catching ANY COVID cases that are picked up during the trip to the port (from flights, shuttles, hotels, restaurants, etc.) which is by far the most likely time for a passenger to get infected.  I just can’t imagine it is truly doing anything to prevent COVID on ships besides giving passengers a false sense of security. 

[Denny01]

As we get into extended discussions on how 1-2 day prior testing isn’t that affective, can you picture 2,000+ people lining up at the terminal to get tested, waiting for results and then just as the one person I saw on the news who actually accused the Line of lying that she was positive, we’ll have that ongoing. 

 

No, the whole idea is to lower the risk. @Jeremiah1212is right…. mitigation. I’m cruising on Viking on a ship of 200 or so and it has daily testing. Want to see all the complaints on that!?! 

 

Den

[RichYak]

50 minutes ago, Mark_T said:

Testing before the highest risk of infection and declaring people 'clear' then not testing after the highest risk period doesn't feel like it has a lot to do with prevention...

 

36 minutes ago, prmssk said:

I just can’t imagine it is truly doing anything to prevent COVID on ships besides giving passengers a false sense of security. 

Since the restart, how many people have been forced to cancel/denied boarding due to a positive pre-boarding test? I'll save you the trouble--neither of you know the answer (nor do I), but it is certainly non-zero. That has absolutely reduced the risk of spread on board.

 

Mitigation is a delicate balance between reducing spread and maintaining a profitable business. The "covid testing is theater" and "covid is a death sentence" groups will never be satisfied.

[broadwaybaby123]

I don't see why they would stop the pre-cruise test, even if they lift the post-cruise test. With the post-cruise test, there's very little risk of an outbreak. With pre-cruise testing, there's a very high risk of outbreaks since you have a new set of passengers who could be carrying the virus even before they board.

[Mark_T]

1 minute ago, RichYak said:

Mitigation is a delicate balance between reducing spread and maintaining a profitable business. The "covid testing is theater" and "covid is a death sentence" groups will never be satisfied.

I wouldn't want to be misquoted or labelled incorrectly, I have nothing against testing, or meaningful attempts at mitigation, and a good testing plan is certainly not theatre, what I do not support is a testing regime designed to give an impression that is in fact not matched by the reality.

 

Of course the tests before boarding will have caused some people to cancel, and no, we have no idea how many.

 

... but what we do know is that failing to follow up with any further testing to catch those cases which do develop over the next few days and the remainder of the cruise results in the cases spreading onboard anyway.

 

This approach brings into question the actual intent, as if mitigation was the #1 aim, why wouldn't you continue to test... ?

 

Right now, the approach serves mostly to keep an undisclosed number of positive passengers from becoming the ships liability at boarding, then avoiding determining how many passengers actually become positive in the hope that the cruise will end before they self-identify and become the ships liability...

 

 

[Denny01]

Just a thought on prior-to-Pandemic…we use to fill out forms on our current health prior to boarding. I assume part of that was to ‘try’ to reduce the onboard exposure to the norovirus which was the Big cruise disease prior.(and of course the forms were part of the ‘Celebrity did all it could’ lawyer-speak.  two of my daughters are lawyers so I mean No disrespect!). 

 

COVID is still with us and and we are all well aware of how contagious an airborne virus is, and noro was more contact. So my guess, based on squat, is the pre-tests are with us for an extended time. 

 

Den

[zitsky]

1 hour ago, Denny01 said:

As we get into extended discussions on how 1-2 day prior testing isn’t that affective, can you picture 2,000+ people lining up at the terminal to get tested, waiting for results and then just as the one person I saw on the news who actually accused the Line of lying that she was positive, we’ll have that ongoing. 

 

No, the whole idea is to lower the risk. @Jeremiah1212is right…. mitigation. I’m cruising on Viking on a ship of 200 or so and it has daily testing. Want to see all the complaints on that!?! 

 

Den

 

What Viking ship has a passenger count of 200?  A river boat?

[Denny01]

1 minute ago, zitsky said:

 

What Viking ship has a passenger count of 200?  A river boat?

and the new Mississippi that makes the US river run which is a bit larger than the Euro’s. And the bit larger Exploration ships just being introduced. 
 

den

 

[RichYak]

51 minutes ago, Mark_T said:

... but what we do know is that failing to follow up with any further testing to catch those cases which do develop over the next few days and the remainder of the cruise results in the cases spreading onboard anyway.

 

This approach brings into question the actual intent, as if mitigation was the #1 aim, why wouldn't you continue to test... ?

At last check, 100% of the crew is tested at least weekly. Anyone who presents symptoms to medical is also tested. This, in addition to the pre-cruise testing is the very definition of mitigation in my eyes yet you refer to it as a "failing". We simply disagree.

 

Keep in mind, as of now, these are not simply Celebrity's policies. They and other lines are following the guidelines set forth by the US CDC, Canadian Ministry of Health, etc. They are following what many would say is science.

[Ride-The-Waves]

Countries other than the US also have COVID testing directive to board.  Heading to Italy in tens days and as of today Italy still requires pre-boarding testing.  An update is expected on 15 June...

[Mark_T]

1 hour ago, RichYak said:

At last check, 100% of the crew is tested at least weekly. Anyone who presents symptoms to medical is also tested. This, in addition to the pre-cruise testing is the very definition of mitigation in my eyes yet you refer to it as a "failing". We simply disagree.

Indeed, this is probably something we will not agree on, but since you raised it, if the crew and the ship benefits from testing at least weekly, why not the passengers?

 

Not every cruise is 7 days or less, and we seem to be hearing of a reduction in testing the B2B passengers between cruises?

[RLM77]

4 hours ago, Mark_T said:

Sadly I suspect this piece of theatre has more to do with the optics than any real protection for anyone... I totally understand why they want to give people the feeling that the ship is clear of all sources of covid as it does I am sure impact on bookings...

 

However, it makes no sense to just test people at the one point in the whole cruise where they are most likely to have been careful to limit their exposure before traveling, and then not test them 4 days later after they have been most at risk by traveling and queuing in the boarding areas then mixing onboard...

 

I really don't have any objection to a meaningful testing regime, I just have a dislike for processes put in place simply to deliver the illusion of protection.

I agree completely.  Test on Friday, fly with plane changes on Saturday, stay in a hotel Saturday night, embark on Sunday.  The risk of contracting COVID between the time of the test and the time of embarkation seems fairly high.  Theater indeed.

 

Rich

[Jeremiah1212]

If there was more stringent testing and protocols I think some people on here and other social media would have simply have a full mental meltdown. 
 

Before we left for the Beyond in mid May, I was basically left with the impression we would have to take an impossibly difficult to find COVID test, we would certainly get COVID onboard, tossed in an inside cabin with only crackers to eat, no hot water, insufficient oxygen, then inhumanly imprisoned for 21 days at a TBD location…. Turns out none of that happened! 
 

Thet have to try to keep COVID at bay. The idea that because something is imperfect implies it is absolutely ineffective is flawed, but agree to disagree….