If Viking can do it, Celebrity can too…. No more mandatory Pre-departure Covid testing !

[canderson]

1 minute ago, schittenden said:

I’ve had some long restaurant meals, but I don’t think any of them have quite made it to 7+ days yet. 

I'd estimate your 'not-safe-in-cabin' time to be no more than 16 hours per day x 7 days = 112 hours. 

Most people in service industries (e.g., restaurants) were happy to get back to work, and most have put in more than 112 hours every 3 weeks since re-opening occurred (some a LOT more due to short staffing).

 

Gotta keep things in perspective here, and keep cumulative exposure time in mind in more than just cruising environments.  If you're talking COVID, working has been a lot riskier than taking a cruise.

 

 

[Ken the cruiser]

22 minutes ago, schittenden said:

I’m really confused about what is so exciting about being able to get onboard a ship infected with a highly contagious virus. 

It’s been on every one of the 10 cruises (90 days in all) we’ve been on since we started cruising again back in August. But I have to say my DW did just test positive for the first time after we got home last month after 18 days on a Panama Canal cruise.
 

Now she’s only in her late 60s, but she said the symptoms which lasted 7 days were like a slight cold. So, yes, as far as we’re concerned as long as everyone is still required to be fully vaccinated, we’re good we going on our upcoming 21, 24 and 38 day cruises.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Ken the cruiser

[Guppy99]

Viking has less than 1,000 passengers when full. Celebrity has 3,000+. It's absurd to compare the two. 

 

[canderson]

46 minutes ago, Guppy99 said:

Viking has less than 1,000 passengers when full. Celebrity has 3,000+. It's absurd to compare the two. 

 

It's not size, it's density that matters when you talk about spreading disease, but I'm sure you had considered that.  Gross tonnage per passenger (how many people packed into how much space) isn't all that different.  Viking's ships are a good deal smaller.

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by canderson

[CNPGOLF]

This virus is not like the common cold. 

 

People have do what they are comfortable with and not worry about others opinions. 

[Ronin23]

3 hours ago, CNPGOLF said:

This virus is not like the common cold. 

 

People have do what they are comfortable with and not worry about others opinions. 

But influenza is…and that has been around forever. People were not concerned about testing and isolation for that prior to COVID.

[gold1953]

22 minutes ago, Ronin23 said:

But influenza is…and that has been around forever. People were not concerned about testing and isolation for that prior to COVID.

Many people have symptoms for weeks and months following  covid. I live in a small province. At this point we have 1600 lab confirmed tests a week , 15 people die and about 40 a week hospitalized. Influenza does not do this. I have a 24 year old healthy family member who bikes to work. He just got over very mild covid and can't bike due to his lungs.

[Mark_T]

9 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Then there are the EU pre-cruise testing requirements listed at paragraph 7.4 in the EU Health Gateways Operational Guidelines. Would these be considered similar to CDC guidelines, but applicable to all EU countries?

These are not requirements, they are a collection of recommendations which individual countries are free to adopt or ignore as they see fit.

 

 

[RichYak]

9 hours ago, Guppy99 said:

Viking has less than 1,000 passengers when full. Celebrity has 3,000+. It's absurd to compare the two. 

 

Not at all. I haven't sailed Viking, but I'm sure they have bars, cocktail lounges and dining rooms where passengers congregate unmasked. Whether it's 1000 passengers or 3000 is of no consequence.

[Guppy99]

6 minutes ago, RichYak said:

Not at all. I haven't sailed Viking, but I'm sure they have bars, cocktail lounges and dining rooms where passengers congregate unmasked. Whether it's 1000 passengers or 3000 is of no consequence.

That just doesn't make sense mathematically. 

[RichYak]

16 minutes ago, Guppy99 said:

That just doesn't make sense mathematically. 

If you only consider the venues I listed above, which is where covid would spread, the ships are more alike than not.

[Ken the cruiser]

2 hours ago, Mark_T said:

These are not requirements, they are a collection of recommendations which individual countries are free to adopt or ignore as they see fit.

By chance do you know if Spain, Italy or the UK have adopted the EU 48/72 hour testing recommendation to board a ship in their country? I know Greece has a 24 hour requirement, but rumor has it that it's going to possibly expire on June 15.

 

From what I can tell on the Celebrity site, you have to have tested negative within 2 days of boarding a ship in pretty much any of the European countries.

 

Travel Requirements for Europe Cruises | Celebrity Cruises

 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Ken the cruiser

[Fly and Sail]

13 minutes ago, RichYak said:

If you only consider the venues I listed above, which is where covid would spread, the ships are more alike than not.

 

The flashpoints are usually Casino, Theatre, Bars and Dining Rooms and most especially CREW QUARTERS. I'd still say that the multiplication factor is higher on a ship with 3000 pax (+crew) than a smaller ship although the density might be similar.

[Guppy99]

7 minutes ago, Fly and Sail said:

 

The flashpoints are usually Casino, Theatre, Bars and Dining Rooms and most especially CREW QUARTERS. I'd still say that the multiplication factor is higher on a ship with 3000 pax (+crew) than a smaller ship although the density might be similar.

Exactly.  You can, for argument sake, assume that the number of positive passengers boarding would be three times greater. Therefore, in those high contact venues (including crew quarters) the number of persons milling about spreading infection is 3 times greater.  Therefore the number of newly infected people (given a 10 day cruise) who in turn infect others before being symptomatic is exponentially greater.

So...the number of maximum passengers on a sailing is a significant factor mathematically to the potential outcome.  So, not a valid comparison.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Guppy99

[prmssk]

7 minutes ago, Guppy99 said:

Exactly.  You can, for argument sake, assume that the number of positive passengers boarding would be three times greater. Therefore, in those high contact venues (including crew quarters) the number of persons milling about spreading infection is 3 times greater.  Therefore the number of newly infected people (given a 10 day cruise) who in turn infect others before being symptomatic is exponentially greater.

So...the number of maximum passengers on a sailing is a significant factor mathematically to the potential outcome.  So, not a valid comparison.

Not exactly because a ship with more passengers is going to have more bars, restaurants, and other venues and so the number of possibly infected passengers per venue is still going to be pretty similar.  On a smaller ship, your chances of repeat exposure to those infected is pretty high as you are more likely to repeatedly interact with a larger percentage of the passengers. On a ship of 3,000, there are a lot of passengers you will never have any contact with. 

[RichYak]

1 minute ago, prmssk said:

Not exactly because a ship with more passengers is going to have more bars, restaurants, and other venues and so the number of possibly infected passengers per venue is still going to be pretty similar.  On a smaller ship, your chances of repeat exposure to those infected is pretty high as you are more likely to repeatedly interact with a larger percentage of the passengers. On a ship of 3,000, there are a lot of passengers you will never have any contact with. 

Bingo. A smaller ship will have a higher concentration of passengers congregating in fewer venues resulting in a theoretically higher incidence rate per passenger. At any given time, I'm exposed to the 30 or so people in my proximity at the bar, in the casino, or dining nearby. The other 970 or 2970 passengers are not a concern. That's the math. It is certainly not "absurd to compare the two" which was stated upthread. It's helpful to compare the two in order assess one's own risk.

[Fouremco]

19 hours ago, Schmoe38 said:

Not sure what you are referencing. We live in Canada and, if you are vaccinated we do not need a test to fly domestically, or return home from international travel. We previously needed a test to fly from a Canadian airport to a US destination but that has now been eliminated. If you are talking about random testing of vaccinated travellers, that has been temporarily suspended for the period of June 11-30/22 and is expected to re-instated July 1/22 for vaccinated travellers.

Keeping within the cruise context of the thread, you still need to provide a negative test to board any cruise embarked in Canada or destined for Canada.

[TeeRick]

5 hours ago, gold1953 said:

Many people have symptoms for weeks and months following  covid. I live in a small province. At this point we have 1600 lab confirmed tests a week , 15 people die and about 40 a week hospitalized. Influenza does not do this. I have a 24 year old healthy family member who bikes to work. He just got over very mild covid and can't bike due to his lungs.

Those numbers are high.  I live in a county in PA with 850,000 people and our numbers are much lower overall.  Almost no hospitalizations or deaths these days.  Even with a slight surge with Omicron.  What is happening in Nova Scotia?

[gold1953]

10 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Those numbers are high.  I live in a county in PA with 850,000 people and our numbers are much lower overall.  Almost no hospitalizations or deaths these days.  Even with a slight surge with Omicron.  What is happening in Nova Scotia?

We had very little covid during the first 2 years.. well until we opened our borders to the world. Maybe it is catching up with us. We get a report every Thursday and I am still shocked at our numbers. We also have very high vaccination and booster rates

Edited June 13, 2022 by gold1953

[Mark_T]

2 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

By chance do you know if Spain, Italy or the UK have adopted the EU 48/72 hour testing recommendation to board a ship in their country? I know Greece has a 24 hour requirement, but rumor has it that it's going to possibly expire on June 15.

The UK does not have any particular requirements, but the cruise lines are following the EUHG recommendations as they are almost always sailing to multiple EU countries when they leave the UK.

 

It going to get complicated for a while if individual countries are dropping out of that system as you are going to need a full itinerary with nobody using EUHG before the pre-boarding requirement will go away.

 

[Guppy99]

3 hours ago, prmssk said:

Not exactly because a ship with more passengers is going to have more bars, restaurants, and other venues and so the number of possibly infected passengers per venue is still going to be pretty similar.  On a smaller ship, your chances of repeat exposure to those infected is pretty high as you are more likely to repeatedly interact with a larger percentage of the passengers. On a ship of 3,000, there are a lot of passengers you will never have any contact with. 

Not so. The public space per passenger on Viking is far more than the public space on Celebrity ships, so if anything it adds more to the argument rather than less.

[Guppy99]

2 hours ago, RichYak said:

Bingo. A smaller ship will have a higher concentration of passengers congregating in fewer venues resulting in a theoretically higher incidence rate per passenger. At any given time, I'm exposed to the 30 or so people in my proximity at the bar, in the casino, or dining nearby. The other 970 or 2970 passengers are not a concern. That's the math. It is certainly not "absurd to compare the two" which was stated upthread. It's helpful to compare the two in order assess one's own risk.

disagree entirely...but that's ok

[canderson]

13 minutes ago, Guppy99 said:

Not so. The public space per passenger on Viking is far more than the public space on Celebrity ships, so if anything it adds more to the argument rather than less.

GT per pax runs about 20% more on Viking - a long way from the 1000 to 3000 (300%) passenger count comparison made earlier.

 

[Virginia100]

3 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Those numbers are high.  I live in a county in PA with 850,000 people and our numbers are much lower overall.  Almost no hospitalizations or deaths these days.  Even with a slight surge with Omicron.  What is happening in Nova Scotia?

We have in my county in Virginia 100,000 people  and numbers are so low it’s not even discussed any more.

[zap99]

7 hours ago, Mark_T said:

These are not requirements, they are a collection of recommendations which individual countries are free to adopt or ignore as they see fit.

 

 

A bit like the pirate code.......guidelines.🤣