CDC Issues The New Guidance for Cruise Ships on the Mitigation and Management of COVID-19

[polabear]

I personally like the idea of pre-testing, since people can have COVID, not know it, and still spread it.  

 

But with this new variant, the antigen test isn't as sensitive.  So, its can take days after first onset of symptoms for the tests to go to positive.  I personally had COVID symptoms for three days before I finally had a positive at home test.   So the test requirement may not be as protective as I'd like it to be.  🤔

[Mary229]

Just now, Rusty_lock said:

Most ports no longer require testing to enter their country if vaccinated. 

 

 

Testing is about to go away.

We still have Canada.  

[Ourusualbeach]

39 minutes ago, cruisingator2 said:

Oh you can bet that he and every other cruise line exec knows it.🙂 They’re all watching to see who will blink first. Hopefully this announcement by Virgin gets the ball rolling for the rest. This will help bookings and the cruise lines know it. 
 

It was easy for VV to make this decision as they only have a couple of ships in service. For the larger cruise lines I’m sure there is more to figure out but hopefully they were working on a plan to execute before the latest CDC announcements. 

What VV and Azamara do is really irrelevant to what Royal, Carnival and NCL do as it's a small and totally different market.  It's the big three that will have to stay stay together or risk losing market share.  Once one of those three announce their plan the other 2 will most likely follow fairly quickly.

[exm]

3 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

What VV and Azamara do is really irrelevant to what Royal, Carnival and NCL do as it's a small and totally different market.  It's the big three that will have to stay stay together or risk losing market share.  Once one of those three announce their plan the other 2 will most likely follow fairly quickly.

 

I am guessing the following changes:

- Pre-cruise testing optional but recommended for everyone except non-vaccinated (at this point, children under 12)

- Sign a waiver prior to boarding that you don't have any Covid symptoms and/or self-tested

 

They might not drop the vaccine mandate yet, but if they do, they'll probably required testing for those people (fine by me).

[Cruising89143]

6 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

What VV and Azamara do is really irrelevant to what Royal, Carnival and NCL do as it's a small and totally different market.  It's the big three that will have to stay stay together or risk losing market share.  Once one of those three announce their plan the other 2 will most likely follow fairly quickly.

I’m fully aware of that but it’s a start regardless. The ‘big three” can’t ignore what the small lines are doing. Time will tell but I’m on the side that testing is about to go away and quickly.

[crewsweeper]

Some time late fall the FDA will approve a booster that can better handle variants.  Could be early winter before wide distribution is available.  In the meantime, fall will probably bring on another variant but if "progressing" like prior variants, it will be more contagious in spread but less serious in effects.  My layman sense is that the newer variants will have relatively serious impacts on those who are most susceptible to serious consequences from the yearly flu.  There's also a "skin test" in the works with is supposedly 90% accurate and less "painful" than the nasal tests.  

But as long as the powers that be insist on mitigating COVID via fear mongering versus data driven science studies, don't expect any "return to normal", especially on cruising.

[eaflorida]

Princess already did the 90% Vaccinated, 10% unvaccinated deal like Virgin did. I believe Royal and Carnival will also do the 90% 10% mix of passengers. It remains to be seen what other if any restrictions  they may have for the. unvaccinated. I know 1st hand of several family and friends who would cruise in a heartbeat, when the cruise lines allow unvaccinated to sail. 

[Babr]

1 hour ago, firefly333 said:

people tell me I'm deluded wanting pre testing gone by sept when I cruise next.

 

I'm at not booking unless it's free or pre testing is gone.

Maybe not until Oct. 1 as others have stated. If they change it now, they’ll still be obligated to pay expenses for people who catch it onboard until Sept. 30.

[rudeney]

52 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

We still have Canada.  

 

Yep.  I've been hoping RCCL would end the testing requirement before our Oct. 2nd cruise, but since it's going to Canada, they'd have to stop testing for cruise ships, too.  I won't speculate on whether or not that might happen, but I can hope that both RCCL and Canada end testing. 

[steamboats]

2 hours ago, Itchy&Scratchy said:

how interesting. My boss went to Germany a couple of months ago and had to pay 30 euros for each of the 2 covid tests that were required.

Whereas we tested for free at CVS and Walgreens for 2.5 years (GA).

 

Antigen tests were free until the end of June in Germany. Now we have either to pay 3 Euro or the regular price (my pharmacy charges 23 Euro but you get them for 12 Euro and up). In certain cases you also get a free PCR.  30 Euro for an Antigen test is really a high price here in Germany. I can get PCRs for 50 Euro.

 

steamboats

[Tolkmit]

42 minutes ago, Babr said:

Maybe not until Oct. 1 as others have stated. If they change it now, they’ll still be obligated to pay expenses for people who catch it onboard until Sept. 30.

 

Actually, Royal's policy has always had a "subject to change" disclaimer. Their obligation to pay for expenses for people who catch it on board ends whenever they choose to say it ends.

[orville99]

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I don't think that'll be an issue

 

1 hour ago, Rusty_lock said:

Most ports no longer require testing to enter their country if vaccinated. 

 

 

Testing is about to go away.

 

2 hours ago, orville99 said:

Speculation is fun, but the reality is that as long as a port of call on a given itinerary requires testing, pre cruise testing will remain in place.

I will never understand the propensity for some to completely misread a post. Regardless of whether some countries (or most) have dropped testing requirements, as long as (and try to keep up with me on this) a given port on a given itinerary requires testing, only two options are available for a cruise line:

1) skip the port or

2) keep testing in place for those cruises.

 

And, cruise lines don’t like skipping ports of call$$$$$$

[Rusty_lock]

28 minutes ago, rudeney said:

 

Yep.  I've been hoping RCCL would end the testing requirement before our Oct. 2nd cruise, but since it's going to Canada, they'd have to stop testing for cruise ships, too.  I won't speculate on whether or not that might happen, but I can hope that both RCCL and Canada end testing. 

I wouldn't expect Canada to drop the testing but every other country will rather quickly.  My guess is that with the exception of the ships doing the Alaska circuit and possibly ships docking in Barbados testing goes away.  Otherwise almost all other places don't require it.

[Babr]

2 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

 

Actually, Royal's policy has always had a "subject to change" disclaimer. Their obligation to pay for expenses for people who catch it on board ends whenever they choose to say it ends.

I was just going by the current written policy. People who booked under those terms are expecting them to remain in place, but I suppose RCL could revise everything in light of the new guidance.

 

If passengers no longer need to show they are free of disease, at least on Day 1, then why should the cruise line pay any expenses if they are sick after embarkation?

 

People can buy travel insurance to cover cancellation, trip delay/interruption, and medical.

[hotsauce126]

1 hour ago, Ourusualbeach said:

What VV and Azamara do is really irrelevant to what Royal, Carnival and NCL do as it's a small and totally different market.  It's the big three that will have to stay stay together or risk losing market share.  Once one of those three announce their plan the other 2 will most likely follow fairly quickly.

I’m already planning on taking 1 VV and 1 RC cruise in the near future. If royal is requiring pre cruise testing and Virgin isn’t, I’ll just make it two virgin cruises

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

The CDC recommended cruise industry guidelines were posted by the CDC yesterday 7/20 basically the recommendation have not changed just that they are recommendations not something they will enforce.

[Tolkmit]

1 hour ago, Babr said:

I was just going by the current written policy. People who booked under those terms are expecting them to remain in place, but I suppose RCL could revise everything in light of the new guidance.

 

If passengers no longer need to show they are free of disease, at least on Day 1, then why should the cruise line pay any expenses if they are sick after embarkation?

 

People can buy travel insurance to cover cancellation, trip delay/interruption, and medical.

 

Yeah, I mean the current written policy specifically says this might change; so yeah, you are right some people will think it won't change, but I kind of doubt Royal is going to be overly worried about them.

 

I'm not even sure Royal would be changing the current policy, as it only says Royal would cover "required" quarantine. With the CDC no longer having requirements, just recommendations, Royal's current policy doesn't actually say they'll cover anything anymore, at least in the US.

[smokeybandit]

4 hours ago, polabear said:

I personally like the idea of pre-testing, since people can have COVID, not know it, and still spread it.  

They may be pre-symptomatic and spread it later, but there's no on the ground evidence that asymptomatic people are spreading it.

[smokeybandit]

57 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

 

Yeah, I mean the current written policy specifically says this might change; so yeah, you are right some people will think it won't change, but I kind of doubt Royal is going to be overly worried about them.

 

I'm not even sure Royal would be changing the current policy, as it only says Royal would cover "required" quarantine. With the CDC no longer having requirements, just recommendations, Royal's current policy doesn't actually say they'll cover anything anymore, at least in the US.

The interesting thing here is if they're not paying for your quarantine anymore, then there should be no more quarantine rooms either. Just have it like any other illness on board.

[Babr]

5 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

The interesting thing here is if they're not paying for your quarantine anymore, then there should be no more quarantine rooms either. Just have it like any other illness on board.

The expenses in question were for shoreside quarantine. RCL allowed $250 per night for hotel plus $100 for food. Canada, for instance, requires quarantine so if you had to complete the required number of days after disembarkation, your expenses up to that amount would be reimbursed, but there is no longer any compensation for transportation.
 

Quarantine on the ship is a different matter. They refunded per diem in the form of FCC, but I’m not aware of anything else.

 

Having it like any other illness means that you are financially responsible for any disruptions the same as if you had a heart attack on board or prior to embarkation.

[smokeybandit]

5 minutes ago, Babr said:

Having it like any other illness means that you are financially responsible for any disruptions the same as if you had a heart attack on board or prior to embarkation.

That's what I'm saying. They don't force quarantine for any other illness, so it's time covid is treated that same way.

[Babr]

2 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

That's what I'm saying. They don't force quarantine for any other illness, so it's time covid is treated that same way.

The downside is that people have become accustomed to having the cruise line allow last-minute cancellations (CWC), refunds for positive tests, and reimbursements for extra expenses - things that are the passenger’s responsibility for any other illness. If restrictions go away, so do all the other freebies that help ease those restrictions. People will have to buy travel insurance, which many have complained about, or they will have to assume the financial risk when things go wrong.

 

As well they should, but there will be a lot of wailing and complaining when that happens.

[Tolkmit]

9 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

That's what I'm saying. They don't force quarantine for any other illness, so it's time covid is treated that same way.

 

I'm not sure where you heard they don't force you to quarantine onboard for any other illness, but that's completely wrong. Cruise lines have always forced passengers to quarantine if they believe you have certain communicable diseases, like norovirus.

What is changing is the CDC requiring you to quarantine after you get off the ship. Cruise lines covered the cost of that CDC required quarantine. Now that the CDC is no longer requiring that, it's unlikely the cruise lines will continue paying for it.

[smokeybandit]

3 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

Cruise lines have always forced passengers to quarantine if they believe you have certain communicable diseases, like norovirus.

Yes, you're right. Norovirus, which is extremely contagious and very easy to swallow a ship. So that makes sense.

 

But for any airborne upper respiratory virus, not as much.

[cruisefan0110]

Everyone keeps talking about CDC suggestions/recommendations. That’s all fine.  It what happens after the first outbreak on a ship. The news media would be all over it. Public opinion goes viral against cruising and things go back to square one. The ships are full. People are complaining  but following the rules. How many topics on here talked about lying on the health questionnaire. That would return in a minute. I, for one, am okay with the current procedures. Just my 2 cents.