GrandmaAirplane

It gets a bit squishy here although I have a strong sense the RCG isn't squishy on this at all. In trying to figure out an answer to this question, the one thing we don't know that they do know is the testing device that RCG intends to deploy for it's first screen and second confirmatory test. My guess is that the device they'll use for the first test is an antigen test using one of many cassette based products that provide results in under 15 minutes. Keep in mind, Antigen tests can be considered diagnostic per the CDC when the subject is symptomatic. They are considered screening tests when the subject is asymptomatic as our cruise embarking cohort would be we would hope. To be diagnostic, to be confirmatory of COVID diagnosis, a second test is required in this cohort.  
The second test could be the Abbot labs, ID-NOW. It's a "molecular test" but to my knowledge it is not a Reverse Transcriptase (RT), Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test - the gold standard for COVID diagnosis. It simply amplifies the RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so it can be detected. What it does do is provide a second testing platform, using a different technology with a rapidly produced result ...... it is also in the 15 minute range. So, two tests in around 30-40m. Abbot claims that the ID-NOW test can be used as a diagnostic test in a screening or surveillance mode of asymptomatic subjects.
In researching the likely testing devices RCG would use, I cannot confirm that a second test using Abbot's ID-NOW test meets the same CDC criteria as RT/PCR tests to be diagnostic. It may, however, be moot. IOW, RCG considers screening by antigen testing that results in a positive test, followed by a medical evaluation and a second confirmatory test, both done within 30-40m time, is all they need to declare the guest is COVID positive and deny boarding or allow boarding if that second test is negative.
In this circumstance, it seems to me, the question you ask and quoted above isn't relevant because it won't happen in the longer time frame I think you are considering. A guest denied boarding within a 30-40 minute COVID screening/embarkation process is just like any other guest denied boarding ..... except as a confirmed positive by RCG's method of determining that, additional measures defined by local COVID regulations, would pertain to how the guest is handled by local public health authorities once he leaves the terminal. I would think RCG would both compensate the guest denied boarding and will have already coordinated with local port and public health officials on how that guest will be transported, quarantined and if necessary receive appropriate medical care. Does this make sense?
Given other layered mitigation measures and additional surveillance testing, I could certainly argue RCG has created a bubble on a cruise ship with a very small but still a non-zero risk of having an outbreak. From what I gather from the Safe-To-Sail plan, RCG plans to make arrangements with locals for handling COVID positive guests, should it be necessary to disembark them. Is all that enough? I think it is. Will the CDC green light restarting cruising using this among other layered mitigation measures for cruise ships? That seems to be the issue and, I will admit, it is arguable either way.       
  

In a reduced capacity setting, I suspect Diamond and Suite guests may have special access. I could just as well see, under the circumstances, an egalitarian approach where  everyone gets treated without regard to status. Great time though for the lines to support their loyalists with special access perks.
Yes, I am in the medical field. I practiced as a Physician Assistant for 22 years in Emergency and Internal Medicine. I've been retired from practice for a bit over three years. I also write on a whole range of COVID related topics on several blogs ..... my passion is to counter, when it is appropriate to do so, the media's, politicized and generally negative narrative. That narrative is often filled with misinformation, flawed interpretation of data points and, many times that flawed interpretation is taken on knowingly to advance a false narrative.     

rjac .... I'm reading staggered and enforced terminal arrivals. Trained ships medical staff to administer tests with CDC guidelines for conducting, processing and reporting testing data. We live in Fort Lauderdale and cruise frequently out of both Fort Lauderdale and Miami terminals. Both are big enough to allow spacing and crowd control. I'd say a flow of around 100 guests with 20 time slots each about 20m apart. That's around a 7h boarding process - a little longer than now but there is nothing sacred about 4 or 5pm sail times.  

I'm hesitant to start a new thread but I've not seen this posted on this web site so, here it is.......
CLIA ocean cruise line members worldwide have agreed to conduct 100% testing of passengers and crew on all ships with a capacity to carry 250 or more persons – with a negative test required for any embarkation," Bari Golin-Blaugrund, vice president of strategic communications for Cruise Lines International Association, said today." 
It was actually yesterday at a virtual CLIA sponsored cruise industry wide conference held about this time every year. There's a ton of misinformation about "testing" out there. I hope to clear the fog with this post:
First there are several general categories of testing. I'm only going to talk about two of them: Diagnostic testing and Surveillance testing. These are the ones you will come across when we start cruising again. Within those categories, there are different types of tests and different manufacturers of them. The ones currently in use in the US are FDA approved, most of them under what is called EUD or Emergency Use Authorization. That process makes it easier to get FDA approval not by lowering the quality bar for them but rather reducing the red tape. You've probably heard that the FDA is being prevented from doing this or that. Not true. They continue to do a great job protecting the public.
Diagnostic tests are molecular tests abbreviated as RT/PCR tests. These tests look for a set of specific markers that differentiate the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from its more common corona or common cold viruses. They are both more sensitive and specific than surveillance tests and this is by design not by fault. You will have had one of these if you had a swab placed in you nasophayrngeal cavity to obtain a sample. Right now, if everything goes smoothly, the sample gets packaged at the testing site and sent to a lab. There it takes 2-3d to process these and get a result. They are the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19. These test costs cost anywhere from $35 to $50; processing costs may add more.
Surveillance tests also look for specific markers of the SARS-CoV-2 virus but they are not as specific and may or may not be as sensitive as an RT/PCR test. They are that way by design to make them what is called RAPID point of care (POC) tests where a sample is collected at the POC and results are available in minutes, not hours or days. The testing devices that you'll encounter (there are other types) are in what is called a cassette about the size of a credit card. If you've had a test for influenza A/B, you've seen one of these.  RAPID POC tests cost under $5 and there are no processing costs.
What about Antibody tests? These are the tests that supposedly can tell you if you HAVE HAD the virus. They look for human immune system response to the virus in the form of antibodies or good guys. Antigen tests look for markers of the virus itself while you are having an ongoing infection. Antibody tests are not terribly accurate. You may have a reason for getting this kind of test. Going on a cruise and complying with pre-cruise testing requirements is not one of them.
Cruise lines may require you to obtain a COVID Antigen test within a certain time period before boarding, test you again in the terminal and again at various points in the cruise.
Before cruise testing at a commercial health care facility: You may be able to obtain a COVID test from your primary care provider but chances are good he's going to write an order for one and send you to a commercial lab to get it done. Ask about whether or not they are doing RAPID POC testing, if they send you to a lab or if they collect a sample at their clinic and send it out. Be aware that your average medical assistant who is answering your phone call may have no clue. Talk to the office manager or message/talk to your own PCP.
Alternatively, you can obtain COVID tests at a local pharmacy licensed to administer them (CVS, Walgreen's and Target that I know of - there may be more). I've been to the CVS web site to see how that works. It's pretty straight forward. Depending on your state's public health guidelines, getting a COVID test may require you to meet certain criteria. At the CVS web site there was a questionnaire. When I ticked I was over 65 and nothing else among the list, bingo, a schedule opened up for me to pick a store near me and a time. Availability of RAPID v. Lab based tests varies by store. In my case, no rapid tests were available. Processing time for a lab based test was described as taking 1-3 days. If you can find a pharmacy offering RAPID POC tests and you are pretty sure you don't have it, pick that over a lab processed test. If you test positive on a pharmacy administered RAPID POC test, you'll need an RT/PCR test to rule in or rule out a COVID diagnosis. Choose the type of test carefully
COVID Testing in the cruise terminal and aboard.  Going through the boarding process, you will potentially be required to obtain two tests, the second only if you test positive on the first. The first test is likely to be a RAPID POC, Cassette based test. I'm reading that, at first, the RAPID POC cassette type test may not be available. In that case you'll be administered a rapid saliva test (the real difference between a RAPID POC and a rapid saliva test like the NBA and MLB are using is in collecting and handling). If you test positive on one of these tests, you'll be administered a second confirmatory test that is going to a lab, possibly aboard ship and you would be quarantined until results are available. Best case is hours, worst case is a day or two depending on what kind of confirmatory testing device they are using. Sounds harsh but the cruise lines want a bubble to the extent possible and they are going to get it.
During the cruise, among other layered mitigation measures, you are going to get a RAPID POC or rapid saliva test periodically for the purpose of surveillance. It's not entirely clear at this point how that will be done. It could involve pool testing - a perfect type of surveillance testing for cruises but that would require some pretty sophisticated lab equipment on board. Crew and ship's company also get surveilled.
IMO, life aboard ship would be safer than anywhere on the planet when it comes to COVID infections under these circumstances. Certainly, protocols have to be followed precisely to guarantee that but even then, it's going to be super safe. With strict controls on tours, possibly only porting at first at private islands, it's pretty obvious to me cruising can be done safely. CDC? What's the hold-up?
   
 

I agree, it makes sense to keep the land border closed until after the holidays. There has already been a softening of the restrictions to allow the movement of family members. I really don’t see being able to drive across the border until January, at the very earliest.
As for the 14-day quarantine, I think that we’ll have that kept in place well into next year, at least until the summer. As long as we keep, “relaxing” then seeing exponential spread, we’ll be stuck with it. 
 
Keeping schools open is a priority, as well as not flooding our health care system... heading into flu season just complicates matters even more.

I’m so very tired of the covidiots.
 
Despite restrictions and being in a “red zone”, there was a party at my neighbours’ last night that didn’t start until the wee hours of the morning, after by-law officers went “off the clock”. Carloads of mask-less young guys showed up at 2am, to start their Canadian Thanksgiving long weekend-end party. ?

I have to believe the guilty plea to negligent homicide came about as a result of being advised by attorneys that the prosecution had a solid case for at least murder in the 2nd degree, if not murder in the 1st. Putting the case to rest in this way was how the "grandfather" minimized his prison time.
 

A lot of public opinion was to the effect "He has suffered enough, why is PR torturing this grandfather by persecuting him?".
I'm not saying I subscribe to the notion that he shouldn't have been charged.  A child died because of his actions.  When parents leave kids in hot cars and they die charges are usually filed despite the grief, guilt and loss that results.
The sleazy way the family tried to spin it didn't sit well with me and still doesn't.  Were it not for surveillance cameras their fabricated lies might have changed the outcome of the legal proceedings.
The plea deal will end with people who view it differently.  If it is consistent with other similar cases in this jurisdiction then one can understand the deal.  A child lost their life.  Is probation enough?  If a stranger had done something accidently that led to the same outcome should that stranger get away with only probation?  "Oops. Sorry".  Would the parents be so supportive of that stranger? 
I think not.

The investor call in February was to review Q4 2019 performance and discuss the future outlook.  It seems to me they were very clear stating they didn't know how this would play out.   
February 4th Earnings Call Transcript:
Richard D. Fain -- Chairman and chief executive officer
Thank you, Jason, and good morning, everyone. Obviously, the biggest issue of the day is the Wuhan coronavirus. And as you all know, this virus has infected over 20,000 people in China, and they have taken unprecedented steps to contain it. They've essentially locked down the country and they're acting quickly and aggressively to combat the spread, so have other countries. Unfortunately, no one knows how this outbreak will play out, and we don't know how it will ultimately impact us. So far, we've canceled some sailings, and we've modified some itineraries that extend through March 4. These actions will cost us approximately $0.25 per share. But it seems likely that we will have to cancel more, but we don't yet know how many. We also expect that there will be an impact on future bookings in China especially in the immediate aftermath of the illness. But again we just don't know. One important bright spot is that looking beyond the current outbreak we aren't seeing a big impact on overall bookings elsewhere. But again and here I'm sounding like a broken record, we just don't know.  Between February 4th and March 23rd the Dow Jones Industrial involving stocks across the spectrum saw a major crash.  Somehow these litigants expected Royal stock to be maintain it's value while virtually every other stock in the world could not. 
Since March 23 Royal stock has trended upward.
What has impacted Royal stock isn't future bookings but governments around the world closing cruise ports and establishing travel bans forcing the cruise lines to cancel cruises and experience no revenue.  Future bookings isn't the problem, not being able to sail is the problem that has impacted Royal as an investment opportunity.  
The second part of the suit claims Royal oversold their ability to prevent spread.
The next investor call was on May 20. 
It seems very clear to me they did oversell the task at hand or take it lightly.  Instead they acknowledged they are still trying to determine how to attempt to operate given the pandemic.
Richard D. Fain -- Chairman and chief executive officer
Our goal is to raise our standards to entirely new levels, and we believe that the Healthy Return to Service program will help us get there. We have the time, we have the determination, and we have the expertise. It is tempting to starting talking now about all the individual components of how things will change. However, we're still defining all those enhancements, and we're still taking guidance from our expert advisors. And this process will continue in keeping with our mantra of continuous improvement. We are better prepared today than we were yesterday, and we will be better yet prepared tomorrow, but the one thing that won't change is our determination that we will not start operations until we are fully ready to do so with all the hygiene and other health protocols solidly in place. The next investor call was on August 10.
Again they didn't appear to oversell the steps that would be required to deal with the virus.  
Richard D. Fain -- Chairman and chief executive officer
Against this backdrop, we will not rush to return to service until we are confident that we have figured out the changes that we must make to offer our guests and crew strong health and safety protocols with the enjoyable experience that they rightly expect. We believe that our healthy return-to-service program will help get us there. As I mentioned before, this new program will focus on four key aspects: Upgraded screening of guests and crew prior to boarding, enhanced health processes and protocols on board, a special focus on addressing the destination we visit and lastly, procedures for addressing any reports of exceptions. We recognize that this is extremely complex. Nothing in these statements suggest it would be easy or they have it all figured out or that they will be able to 100% prevent spread.

What sort of public administration retirement plan oversight committee would allow this kind of a corporate investment anyways?   Where does the fiduciary responsibility of the plan administrator kick in?

Might not be skyrocketing in relative terms but it's still completely out of control and only going to worsen as it goes into winter.
US Daily cases - 50,000+
Singapore Daily cases - 2
It's not hard to see why they have chosen Singapore as the testing ground.

I agree, it makes sense to keep the land border closed until after the holidays. There has already been a softening of the restrictions to allow the movement of family members. I really don’t see being able to drive across the border until January, at the very earliest.
As for the 14-day quarantine, I think that we’ll have that kept in place well into next year, at least until the summer. As long as we keep, “relaxing” then seeing exponential spread, we’ll be stuck with it. 
 
Keeping schools open is a priority, as well as not flooding our health care system... heading into flu season just complicates matters even more.

I’m so very tired of the covidiots.
 
Despite restrictions and being in a “red zone”, there was a party at my neighbours’ last night that didn’t start until the wee hours of the morning, after by-law officers went “off the clock”. Carloads of mask-less young guys showed up at 2am, to start their Canadian Thanksgiving long weekend-end party. ?

Nope..pretty sure Canada closed their ports to US cruise ships.

Twangster, I think you're right from a political standpoint but probably not from a factual and practical one.
The infection of President Trump with SARS-CoV-2 does not disprove the efficacy of testing. Not even close. Testing is absolutely fundamental, as a layered measure, for virus control and thinking it's not is foolhardy and counterproductive. I don't think you were implying this. Others who have just posted were.
From the beginning, the WH has been dismissive of the virus. Cruise lines? No - they have very seriously addressed every aspect of its impact and probably more completely than any organization that features congregate settings.
As a reflection of that dismissiveness, masks were rarely worn in side or around the WH. I expect cruise lines to enforce masking rules while aboard ship and in public areas, unlike the WH. Most importantly the WH relied on the Abbot product known as ID-NOW that was released with great promise in March. We saw the device in one of Trump's press conferences when he bragged about it. As early as April, labs using the device were reporting high false negative rates necessitating confirmatory RT-PCR, Molecular tests to rule COVID in or out. Abbot claims that inappropriate sampling and testing too soon after infection was the problem, not the device itself. The ID-NOW product works but (it detects antibodies), the company says, only 7d after becoming infected. That's a lot of time for the purpose the WH was using it or for the purposes the cruise lines would test. 
As far as I know, this Abbot ID-NOW device continued to be used by the WH, despite it's limitations, to insure the president did not come in contact with COVID positive people. I don't know what the testing regimen was for staff in terms of frequency. I do know that everyone visiting the president is tested before seeing him in person and I assume they used the Abbot Labs ID-NOW device. I also know that not everyone was tested that attended Judge Barrett's nominating events and social gatherings in DC. It was hit or miss, typical of the attitude the WH routinely displayed with Trump leading the way with his dismissiveness. One simply cannot use the WH's expereince with infections of key support staff or super-spreader events associated with the Barrett nomination in DC and generalize it to all congregate events, including cruising. 
There's dozens of manufacturers producing FDA approved COVID testing products. They utilize various testing mechanisms to do that. The newest, with sensitivity and specificity for detecting COVID having accuracy > 95%, are the rapid antigen tests. Abbot Labs has one called BINAX-NOW. It detects antigens, or the components of SARS-CoV-2, not the antibodies to it. There's no time delays. If you become infected with the virus BINAX-NOW (and other similar products) will detect it.  It's also easy to use and the testing device is packaged in a cassette about the size of a credit card. If you've ever been tested for Influenza A/B, you've seen on e of these. It's this type of test that I presume the cruise lines would use for passengers and onboard surveillance, possibly other RT/PCR products for crew. Each type of testing device has it's own unique capabilities.
The point here is that COVID testing is complex. Details are important. Hot-takes are usually wrong.     

The White House has basically just proven that testing isn't an effective mitigation step to stop the spread.  So what does that mean for cruise lines that were counting on testing to be an important step in making cruising safe?   With the current situation with the President's infection will the WH still stand up to the CDC?  Only time will tell.  
If I was a cruise line I'd be hesitant to begin bringing thousands of crew back for two ships until there was an absolute green light from the CDC or CV Task Force that a restart is a sure thing.  

The actual PVSA says $798 here:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf
"Non-coastwise-qualified vessels The Passenger Vessel Services Act September 2019 9 U.S. Customs and Border Protection that transport passengers between coastwise points will be penalized $300 for each passenger transported and landed on or before November 2, 2015 and $798 for each passenger transported and landed after November 2, 2015."
As far as visiting a country but not getting off I'm not sure CBP would accept that.  Technically as soon as a ship is within territorial boundaries they are subject to laws of that nation as if they landed.  There are exceptions that allow transit through territorial waters by international convention so in cases where a ship must transit through a nation's territorial limits to get somewhere else that is permitted and not counted as if the ship at that moment is subject to the jurisdiction of that nation.  Visiting a pier but not debarking is a gray area in between transiting and visiting. 
If a nation doesn't "clear" the ship and process passengers as visitors regardless if they don't debark then there's a strong argument those guests never visited that nation. 
Today, or up to this point, you might not get a physical stamp in your passport when you visit Canada but your passport is marked electronically that you entered Canada and CBP can see that when you return as they share data with Canada.  Would Canada be willing to allow a ship into port, process all guests as visitors but deny then debarking privileges?  I'm not sure Canada would sign up for that.  Why would they?  If Canada has closed a port due to health concerns why let a potential "plague ship" reach the pier at all?  Once a ship has been admitted to enter a port, if a medical emergency is declared that nation can't just close the port and force it off the pier.  Japan got stuck with a COVID ship very early on in this manner.   
Canadians are nice people and all, but I'm not sure they are going to bend the rules with no benefit and only risk just so Americans can vacation to Alaska on a cruise.
This idea seems to be accepted in certain European cruise itineraries that did exactly this "touch & go" recently but that's within Europe.  Something tells me that CBP wouldn't accept that here in the U.S.A. or that Canada isn't going to allow a ship from a country that doesn't have control of the virus to enter it's ports.

Even Fauci thinks the border closure at this time is a good idea...
“Keeping the Canada-United States border closed will help contain the spread of the coronavirus as long as there remains a huge disparity in numbers between the two nations, Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. government official on infectious diseases, said in an interview with Global News.
The coronavirus numbers in the U.S. are “unacceptably high” heading into the fall, Fauci said. As of Friday, there have been more than 6.1 million cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. In comparison, Canada had just over 132,000 cases, according to Johns Hopkins University.
“If you have an area of the country with very, very low activity, obviously there’s concern about letting people in from countries in which there’s a high rate of infection,” Fauci told Global News’ Jackson Proskow on Friday.
Because of the huge gap in numbers between the neighbouring countries, Fauci said he supports the border closure, as “it does have a positive effect on keeping a lid on things.” But when there isn’t such a large gap in COVID-19 numbers, there is debate on the effectiveness, he added.”
The article goes on to discuss the high death rate in the U.S.; Covid-19 fatigue; the fear of a spike in cases with the coming cold weather forcing more people indoors, specifically highlighting the risk with people in bars; and the realistic timing of a possible vaccine to be made available.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7315953/anthony-fauci-canada-u-s-border-closure-coronavirus/

Even Fauci thinks the border closure at this time is a good idea...
“Keeping the Canada-United States border closed will help contain the spread of the coronavirus as long as there remains a huge disparity in numbers between the two nations, Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. government official on infectious diseases, said in an interview with Global News.
The coronavirus numbers in the U.S. are “unacceptably high” heading into the fall, Fauci said. As of Friday, there have been more than 6.1 million cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. In comparison, Canada had just over 132,000 cases, according to Johns Hopkins University.
“If you have an area of the country with very, very low activity, obviously there’s concern about letting people in from countries in which there’s a high rate of infection,” Fauci told Global News’ Jackson Proskow on Friday.
Because of the huge gap in numbers between the neighbouring countries, Fauci said he supports the border closure, as “it does have a positive effect on keeping a lid on things.” But when there isn’t such a large gap in COVID-19 numbers, there is debate on the effectiveness, he added.”
The article goes on to discuss the high death rate in the U.S.; Covid-19 fatigue; the fear of a spike in cases with the coming cold weather forcing more people indoors, specifically highlighting the risk with people in bars; and the realistic timing of a possible vaccine to be made available.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7315953/anthony-fauci-canada-u-s-border-closure-coronavirus/

https://globalnews.ca/news/7304292/coronavirus-canada-extending-international-travel-restrictions-mandatory-quarantine-until-sept-30/
 
“Canada is once again extending emergency orders that place restrictions on international travel and make mandatory 14-day quarantines for anyone entering the country during the novel coronavirus pandemic. The orders will be extended for at least another month.”
- now extended to Sept. 30. 

the elevator rush thing is a classic, especially when it is a person on a scooter. 

First ... I prefer "Status Mr. Spock".  Bones was an emotional wreck.
Second ... I failed to mention that Pickard was the best Captain ever.  Way beyond Kirk, Crunch and Kangaroo.
Third ... MSC Grandiosa is on its final leg.  We will only know in the next couple of weeks how she really did.  Still, it was a breath of fresh air for sails robbed for far too many months.

 
Curt from Canada

I would wait. You have a long time still and airlines are constantly changing itineraries at the moment.  I would set up a fare alert for the route you're looking for. Sky scanner offers this on their website,  I think. It will send you an email when fares change for dates and route you are looking for. 

I bet they were sharing the drink package as well.
 
Just attempting to have a normal cruise board ?