JeffB

Define the "healthy" guest that you won't test. This has been a problem with COVID since day one. Asymptomatic transmission. It's well documented it's happening - we can argue viral load and all that but in the end, the lines have to deal with this. An outbreak is an outbreak and they don't want any of that or have a COVID + disembarked guest be patient zero in a community he passes through that then results in an outbreak. It seems that for now, they have protocols and plans in place with shore based agencies to take care of business. It's working. I agree there is probably a cost threshold for doing this that a line may not wish to cross. At that point, they'll probably be able to do a risk assessment and determine which ships and itineraries are the most risky and those will be cancelled. That is absolutely the worst outcome. I just don't see that happening but I'm a glass half full kind of guy and I'm constantly looking for data that backs up my optimism that cruising has successfully restarted and will continue to expand. There are plenty of pessimists. I'm not one of them.

I'd have to check but I think the language in cruise insurance policies that covers evacuations is "Medical Evacuation." I don't think an "emergency" is necessary. What is required in the fine print I've read is that for a medical evac to be covered, the medical facility aboard ship isn't equipped to care for the patient or the level of care that needs to be provided is beyond that of the ship's staff physicians. That is a decision that is made by the ship's physician in consultation with the receiving physician and the approving MD with the insurance agency. Lots of potential barriers to cross. I think it would depend on the situation involving the infected guest. I don't think an asymptomatic positive will cross the threshold for a medical evac paid for by the insured cruise insurance policy. I think RCL knows this and, for now, they are prepared to transport this level of infected patient rather than risk a a soft but nevertheless bad outcome, e.g., the guest in question somehow gets tracked and traced to an outbreak in the airport, on the airplane or anywhere else he might be proceed to after he's disembarked and told to make his own way home.

I wouldn't count on that. I'm sailing tomorrow on Celebrity Equinox and my sense Celebrity anyway is being pretty strict about this. Here's the link to a post I made on the Celebrity thread on where to get antigen tests in Fort Lauderdale. You have to be very careful to make sure the clinic you're going to is administering the rapid antigen tests. Some clinics are either hard to schedule (I found that true of CVS in my Fort Lauderdale Neighborhood) or only do PCRs with the attendant delays in that test result. Walgreens (the one at the link) has two benefits: They are staffed by U of Miami Heath Care System and they take most insurance including Medicare. They have a central scheduling number to make an appointment that actually works. Just make sure you're scheduling for the Walgreens I linked to when you talk to them.

No, this is a fair take. But my consternation over the OP's treatment has noting to do with the two cruises directly (one being fully refunded). That's nice of RCL and comports with their typically generous approach and wish that guests are happy. This isn't a fly in the soup kind of complaint. It is springing a highly disruptive policy on guests that were not informed of it and is probably buried in some 2000 word Health and Safety page and that even the ship's staff appear to have been unaware of. I don't buy the excuse that RCL is dealing with a lot and can be excused for this kind of error. No they can't. One simple thing for them to have done pre-cruise was recognize the second leg of the B2B involved kids under 12, that policy prevents B2Bs in that circumstance and cancelled the 2nd leg straight way, then refunding the OP in accordance with existing policy to do that...... or and the right thing to do in the now is to advise the OP, as they did for @Matt that we understand you were probably not advised of the new policy welcome aboard. Don't do it again.

Well, here's another thing to do ....... pray that the spike in FL goes down like it mysteriously has in India first and now the UK. Steep rises followed by precipitous declines ..... ALL WITHOUT ANY NEW MITIGATION MEASURES in these two countries. In fact, Boris Johnson cancelled all mitigation measures in the UK on July 19th. Cases plummeted. NB, the UK has a high vax rate, India does not. It's early but this is a snap shot of FL's vax rates and new case numbers for the previous week (7/23-7/29. I've highlighted Broward (PEV) and Dade (POM) counties. Vax rates have jumped considerably from 3 weeks ago - like 20% or more. Note that these two counties also have the highest vax rates state wide and also have the lowest (below the state average) % positives. These are down a lot from a week ago. Note also % positives in these two counties is declining and by a lot. What these two metrics portend is herd immunity is being approached in S. FL counties with high vax rates. I'd predict steep declines in new case numbers over the next two weeks in these counties. If they get down below the 8% threshold the pre-boarding testing requirement could be relaxed. Fingers crossed.

I'm paying pretty close attention to this stuff and I've not seen it. First time I've heard about it. If you haven't done this already/exhausted all options on board, I'd fight it up to asking for a sit down with the Guest Services Department Head AND the Chief of Staff (usually a Captain in waiting). Ask them to show proof that this restriction was published and that you were notified. It may not get you anywhere right now but showing a track record of how you handled this on board could be important post cruise. Post cruise, I'd go right up the chain of command and ask for compensation in some form. This, to me, is no small matter. TBC, I rarely complain about anything. I'd be furious about this.

Agree with the comments above. Here's my 2 cents posted at another thread where this thread's question was brought up:

Glad to hear RCL has come through to make this doable ...... and glad negative tests! In retrospect and in the likelihood that person zero on this sailing was infected traveling to the cruise and not while on it,, is there any doubt why RCL is now requiring guests to get tested before being allowed to board? While it's accurate to say that there's an incubation period of 3-5d from SARS2 initially infecting respiratory system tissues, this is going to catch some leakers, not all, some but that's still a good thing. If this keeps happening, I would expect RCL to implement a pool sampling protocol similar to that used for crew members (required by the CSO). What this entails is the collection of random samples (the number being mathematically dictated by the size of the sampled pool) to catch more leakers, esp. asymptomatic ones. A certain number of samples are tested. One positive will prompt a test of the entire sample. Testing is relatively inexpensive with the cost of, for example, BinaxNOW under $10 wholesale, maybe lower now. Stopping revenue sailings, something that for now is up to the companies themselves but I have no doubt they would do it if necessary, would be way more costly on a number of levels.

Don't blame you. I think limiting your exposure to hi transmission risk venues for at least 10d prior to your cruise is a good idea right now. Things could be much improved in October for sure. I think risky venues have become obvious - don't go to bars packed with kids under 30. Use caution in restaurants - eat outside. Don't go to indoor weddings, theaters or indoor sporting events. You can think of others I'm sure - don't go overboard. Evaluate your own risk tolerance based on viral prevalence in your community and the dynamics of the environment you're considering going into. I just posted a link for upon arrival testing options in Fort Lauderdale in the Celebrity Thread. Have a look if you're sailing from PEV.

I just posted the process and experience in getting my antigen test done for my Sunday Cruise at the Celebrity thread. I'll post about my boarding experience in that thread after the fact.

I posted about this in the thread talking about RCL imposing a requirement for a negative antigen or PCR test taken within 72h of boarding to board a ship sailing from a US port. Celebrity followed about 18h later. I sail tomorrow. Between Friday at noon and 8pm, I received 4 emails from Celebrity on this each of them requiring me to acknowledge receipt. They are not fooling around. You won't get aboard without the test and for now, they are not offering in cruise terminal testing. That might change. Since I live in S. FL, a state with many testing sites due to Governor Desantis setting this up months ago though a public/private undertaking involving the state's Public Health Department, Walgreens, CVS and Publix grocery stores, it was easy for me to secure an appointment at Walgreens, about 10 minutes from my house, and get an antigen test. It took about 45 minutes from walking in the front door of Walgreens to getting in my car with a form documenting the details of my negative antigen test. If you are traveling to FL for a Celebrity cruise on Edge or Equinox out of PEV and you are unable to secure a test locally where you are traveling from and in the right time frame (within 72h before boarding), you can get a test in Fort Lauderdale or surrounds several ways. The first is assured and close at hand after you arrive at FLL but you'll pay $99 for it. They don't take insurance and some insurances won't pay for repeat travel related COVID testing anyway. The testing facility is in the Fort Lauderdale airport. Here's the link: https://fasttestnow.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyETd6-amgXeBAj1ulPANx2FEMFoi9ySGvP8F8zFkYvpK0_3ykMNaR0aAsKkEALw_wcB This facility is not in the terminal but it's close: https://www.covidfll.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyEN4e3QoIFYo2frrvuRRSJqXrtZHJH9mUgZxKqcQ83utkgISoJ5ZuoaAgSdEALw_wcB Finally, you can google CVS or Walgreens to get a test. I recommend Walgreens because some of their clinics are run by U of Miami Heath Care System and they have a central scheduling number where a human actually picks up when you dial. These Walgreens with their clinics staffed by U Miami Health take most insurance including Medicare. Here's the link for the closest one near the airport (not that close but close enough). https://umiamihealth.org/locations/uhealth-clinic-at-walgreens-commercial-blvd

Welp, back to Matt, we now have two threads dealing with this. I know, it happens. Can you merge this new thread on the same subject matter as the original with the original thread. Thanks.

Getting tested is doable, even on short notice. Look, some of the best advice to appear on this board is that if you want to cruise during the COVID pandemic, you must be completely flexible. If your work doesn't allow that or your personal preferences prefer things not changing, don't book a cruise and/or cancel an upcoming cruise for an FCC or refund if you meet all the parameters for that. RCL has gone above and beyond to make almost any cancellation under almost any condition doable. Moreover, you have the option of insuring your cruise with the option to "cancel for any reason." Being flexible and planning for the worst is going to apply well into 2022. If you don't like that, well, ........ I was notified around 12 noon today that the cruise I'm booked on that leaves on Sunday August 1st from PEV (Celebrity Equinox) that to be allowed to board, I would require a negative antigen or PCR test administered within 72h of boarding. There were no provisions offered for in terminal testing although I have a feeling from the way the email was worded that there is a contingency plan for guests that show up at the terminal to board claiming there was not enough time to get a test that terminal testing will be made available. Most likely at the guests expense. I'm not going to throw my responsibility to get tested to board back on Celebrity. I enjoy the benefit that I live in Fort Lauderdale. It might be harder for others on this cruise who are traveling today to arrive in Fort Lauderdale a day before the cruise to suddenly learn they need a negative antigen test to board. Like I said, I have a feeling Celebrity will take care of them in the terminal - they wisely just aren't announcing that. Once I read Matt's post that RCL was imposing a negative COVID testing requirement to board early this morning, I figured Celebrity was soon to follow which is exactly what happened only about 18h later. Even before the notification from Celebrity, I had already looked at multiple options for testing. Last absolutely sure option was to pay $99 X2 for antigen testing at a lab at Fort Lauderdale International Airport. I'm also lucky in that testing sites, even public health department sites are plentiful in my area. That's because, our Governor, implemented a plan to enlist local pharmacies and Publix grocery stores for testing and vaccines very early in this thing. These are up and running. Hate it for those living in states where government isn't doing stuff like that. Oh well. Vote. After about an hour of searching the web (easy to do but make sure the site you select are doing rapid antigen testing if on a short notice) I was able to secure an appointment at a Walgreen's Clinic. I showed up 15 minutes early, completed the paperwork drill, was seen on time by a very competent APRN, administered a COVID antigen test with plans to collect (mid-nasal) and submit a PCR test to follow (not required but that is how to correctly do all COVID testing) with results in 72h via email. I'll get the PCR results by email.... while I'm cruising. I left 45 minutes later with a letter in hand, signed by the APRN attesting to my negative COVID antigen test. Medicare and my supplement covers the testing. DONE in under an hour, testing covered by insurance. Yes, Virginia, it can be done.

Matt, I'm confused. The post from @DanielB above is from RCL Singapore and deals with testing protocols on Quantum. It has nothing to do with FL ports. Am I missing something here? If not. Please remove this thread.

No need to panic ......... From this morning’s Washington Post, they are reporting that an internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slide presentation has a lot of people freaked out. It says “........there are 35,000 symptomatic infections per week among 162 million vaccinated Americans.” That comes out to 1 out of every 4,628.57 people. I like those odds! If you are vaccinated you are highly unlikely to suffer from COVID. If you are unvaccinated, you are in COVID's cross-hairs. I’m sure someone would say “yes, but that’s per week, meaning you face the same risk the next week!” Okay, so every week, I face a new metaphorical lottery of being that one person out of 4,628 or so who has a symptomatic breakthrough infection. I can live with that, and you can, too. Yes, it will stink to feel sick for a couple of days, but symptomatic breakthrough infections almost never results in hospitalization or death (something like 95%/99%. People accept that much higher level of risk all the time. The chances of dying in a car crash are roughly one in 107, and the average person is involved in three motor vehicle accidents in their lifetime. If someone told you they refused to ever get into a motor vehicle because the odds of dying in an accident were too high, you would urge them to get counseling for runaway anxiety. People are suffering from what is called "recency bias." What this means is that based on what you hear on day one, hour one or hour7, and so forth, influences your perception of future events. Is there any doubt, based on the "dire consequences" media narrative that people are scared? I absolutely do not want to be dismissive of those who are close to acquaintances, friends or loved ones who have suffered from COVID or health care workers in hiospital who see the surge and suffering first hand. I am continually struggling with how this group perceives the threat of COVID compared to those of us, including myself that have been fortunate enough to not be burdened by it. Still, in the big picture .........PERSPECTIVE PLEASE.

Not released to the public and I doubt it will be. I would further offer, this is not a reasonable rabbit hole to go down. All the approved vaccines are fundamentally equal in terms of both efficacy and effectiveness. While there are news stories that suggest some vaccines are better than others, there's no solid research that is peer reviewed and suitable to draw conclusions from wrt one US approved vaccine being better than another.

Once again, protocols are working. The concern on the part of the lines and the communities hosting home ports and ports of call has to be an increasing number of these events. Until the peak of infections occurs locally and starts to decline - and it will - the math suggests there will be more of these. The next question becomes, not as a matter of health policy but as matter of business, how long can RCL continue to pay for medical evacuation on private carriers of guests that become infected with COVID on board. This is an enormously expensive undertaking for just a few. Dozens are going to be cost prohibitive. Let's hope the numbers stay low. WHne viral prevalence in a home port or port of call is high, establishing pre-cruise negative antigen testing for boarding is one good way to keep these events low in number. Another is limiting tours to those offered by the ship.

Agree with all the foregoing posts. Quintana Roo, the state within which most of the beach resorts are located, is awash with new COVID cases having risen from a viral prevalence as measured by percent positives of all tests and before April of under 5% to around 15%. Vax rates are around 30% which partly explains the rise in new cases. The other factor is the mass of tourists that flooded the resorts in April and May as Mexico already opened to international tourism opened further. I start a Western Caribbean cruise on Sunday with port calls in Coz and Costa Maya. As of right now, guests can't get off the ship and explore on thier own. That should tell you which venue, a cruise ship or a Mexican Riviera beach resort, is a safer place to visit re COVID risk.

Correct policy making for the cruise lines wrt to health protocols is to not over-react. A policy like @Tyrois suggesting is an over-reaction. Too many governments are over-reacting to the current delta "surge" and imposing renewed mandates. Here's why this is a bad idea:

First, I agree with you that FL will win their law suit. Second, I am absolutely convinced that if the CDC tries an end run, and as you suggest, uses mandatory health inspections as a club to coerce compliance with the CSO, FL"s attonery's will be all over this. If you are unaware, FL already filed a motion in the Middle Court of GA in opposition to the CDC's "Dear Colleague" letter that in no uncertain terms told the cruise lines that we won't rigorously enforce mask mandates aboard cruise ships (a lawful action they could take under different US Code) if you voluntarily comply with the CSO and to "please let us know if you plan to comply." All the cruise lines said they would. The basis for the FL motion was that the CDC was coercing compliance with the CSO that had been enjoined by the Merryday court and upheld by the 11 USCOA. Merryday, IMO, correctly deferred a ruling stating that FL was objecting based on the potential for harm, no such harm having yet occurred. He left it open to FL to comeback to him if and when actual harm resulted. FL is watching what the CDC does closely.

I'm quoting my self here to make a point. I just finished reading a rare NYTs article that runs completely counter to the current media narrative regarding the delta variant "surge." It's paywalled so, I'll post my takeaways after I relate them to cruising. This thread started by asking the question "what if." The question further asked what sorts of further mitigation measures, specifically an extension of the CSO, might we expect given increased COVID infections? Let's be clear, IMO, outside of the over-sized reporting requirements, the strict requirements for contracts between the cruise lines and shore agencies that might be asked to handle passengers or crew infected with COVID and the imposition of fines for non-compliance with the CSO, the health protocols contained therein aren't bad. Moreover, they are working. I don't think anything more in the way of mitigation measures is necessary. Will the CDC add more? Will local governments return to mandatory masks, and mobility restrictions? Here's why PH policy makers should carefully consider the costs of doing any of those things weighed against the potential PH benefits: My take aways from the this morning's NYT's article: Policy makers need a strong dose of humility when implementing COVID mitigation strategies. To wit: humans can intervene with prescribed mitigation measures that can theoretically reduce transmission but thinking that only human interventions can end the pandemic is foolishly naïve. There are no plausible explanations involving human interventions alone for the peaks then precipitous falls of new case numbers. Virologists agree that after steep climbs, the steep drops in new case numbers in India and the UK are NOT a result of imposed mitigation measures. They are mysterious. Drops like this - the petering out of the spread of a virus - has repeated itself in almost every viral outbreak in the history of the human race. We simply do not know why and our efforts to impose measures to stop this thing pale in comparison to the behavior of the virus we do not fully understand. Noted by @smokeybanditabove. The article nibbles around the edges of stating masking and social distancing mitigation measures, including lock-downs (Australia and China are in the midst of re-imposing them) don't really do much and might be unnecessary imposition of inconvenience - actually unlawful restrictions on guaranteed liberties in the case of mobility restrictions - on those affected by these mandates. The one human intervention that does work? Vaccines. PH policy makers would be well advised to carefully examine the cost of further mitigation measures in the face of the Delta "surge" balancing the social and economic cost of such measures against what are emerging as questionable PH benefits. Vaccination should be at the forefront of PH policy aimed at stemming the pandemic. In FL, Governor Desantis is getting hammered for his stand against counties mandating masking for kids in schools. I suspect he is a staunch adherent to the concepts that have been articulated in this rare NYT's piece that actually questions the role of mandated mitigation measures. In the end, I don't think there will be any question that Ron Desantis is one smart dude wrt to the current pandemic.

The pre-boarding negative COVID testing requirement is within the bounds of reasonable when viral prevalence in the community hosting a cruise port is high. Last time I checked Broward Co., home of PEV, % positive was hovering around 15%. That's up from a sustained 3-5% a month ago and that percentage signals high levels of community transmission. Not many vaccinated people are getting "breakthrough infections." You'd not know that listening to the news reports. According to the CDC, a total of 5,492 cases of fully vaccinated people were hospitalized or died from COVID-19. That's out of 160 million people fully vaccinated in this country. Let me do the math for you. That's 3.43%. 96.6% of you vaccinated folks have no chance of serious illness if you get re-infected and your chances of that appear to be even lower. Though the CDC only tracks breakthrough infections that lead to hospitalization and death, some states are keeping track of every case, even the mild ones. In Massachusetts, there have been about 4,450 confirmed breakthrough cases or about .1% of all vaccinated people. Read that again 0.1% Almost all new cases are among the unvaccinated - 94% to 98% is being reported. Unvaccinated account for 98% of Hospitalizations and 99% of deaths https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-delta-variant-and-covid-19-vaccines-what-to-know-11627079604 Here is a compilation of all the case studies done for each of the approved vaccines in the US https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant#Key-takeaways The Delta variant is causing local hyper-accelerated rates of infection. The tendency is to generalize that to a massive nationwide outbreak. The NE and CA have the highest regional rates of vaccination and accordingly the lowest number of new cases. Fl and TX are about in the middle and FL is considered by the CDC to be a hot spot. So, yeah, get tested before you board.

My take is this: No large cruise ship operating anywhere in the world has experienced an outbreak. Have there been isolated infections? Have these been handled without creating an outbreak involving other guests, crew members or local communities. Yes to both questions. I don't think there is an appetite among the deciders at HHS or the CDC or a scientific basis upon which to place more restrictions, via the CSO, on cruise ship operations. The CDC isn't mandating anything on any state government or business entity. Outside of the mandates, now enjoined, contained in the CSO, that's it. They recommend and states are free to ignore them. I've held for a while now that your own experience with further mitigation measures is going to be based on the political make-up of the governments at both the state and local level that you must deal with.

Sure ...... referring to my statement that the CDCis on notice to "tread lightly," applies only to treading lightly on even the hint that they are trying to pull off an end run by coercing or otherwise enticing the cruise lines to comply with the provisions of the CSO. On reading that thing and trying to become familiar with the U.S.C. that applies, IMO, what is in question here is the issue of free pratique and exactly by what means and for how long, the CDC can limit it under existing law. It's clear that Judge Merryday thinks the CDC (on the merits of the case) to have exceeded the powers that they were granted by Congress by issuing the CSO. Of course that thought is not final. The CDC could still prevail. Nevertheless and regardless of the outcome of the litigation, I would think that they'll be hesitant going forward to try to duplicate that action in the future. I think, in retrospect, whatever happens with the litigation and even if FL wins, the maritime law in question is rather narrowly defined. JMO and these are very complex maritime legal issues that I certainly don't claim to be an authority on My take is that your fears aren't warranted. The background here is that it has become clear to me that the CDC and the cruise lines cooperated in the development of the CSO, bumps along the road notwithstanding - maybe not initially but, as time went on. I think that cooperation will continue. I think that is a good thing. I have issues with the CDC's pandemic messaging. Beyond that, they serve an important public interest. When I did the side by side comparison of the HSP and CSO last week, my sense was that the CSO was actually the more current set of guidelines, most reflective of the current pandemic circumstances if not from a practical standpoint, it was from a scientific one. The CDC, IMO, wrongly assumed the sneaky, money hungry cruise industry would figure out ways to get around them and to sail their ships as profitably as possible and damn new, complicated and costly health protocols to address SARS2. Based on that faulty assumption that didn't recognize the substantial motivation the cruise industry had to get their health protocols right, the CDC made the CSO enforceable by levying fines for non-compliance. They also shut down the entire cruise industry from operating from US ports with the NSO and hamstrung it's restart with the CSO. Merryday called them on that. My best guess is that FL will prevail in the end but that is not going to remove the current health protocols implemented so far that have produced a most excellent outcome. They've worked exceedingly well and demonstrated exactly how you contain outbreaks of infectious disease in congregate settings of all types but especially cruise ships. If that continues, and I feel confident it will, cruise ships won't present a question of the need for quarantine of an entire ship if infected people are aboard and upon it's arrival in port going forward. Protocols to deal with infected crew and/or passengers are present and tested. They work. First to prevent outbreaks on board ship (none so far) and second to transport those that are infected off the ship. Using those tested protocols will prevent and have prevented the spread of COVID on cruise ships. Moreover those protocols have protected communities that receive the infected.

Judge Merryday today has approved TX's motion to "intervene" (#26) making them a party to the original FL law suit. If FL prevails in the litigation scheduled to begin on August 12th in Merryday's court, the CSO will be unenforceable on ships sailing from Texas ports too. What this tells me is that Merryday is signaling that a win by FL in their law suit may not invalidate the CSO in its entirety - only for cruise ships sailing out of FL and TX ports. I don't think that is earth shattering news. If FL prevails the CDC's authority to act in a PHE to the extent they did with the NSO and CSO is going to get restricted in two ways. It may not be restricted by the court's precedent in the matter but most likely by Congressional action to limit their authority going forward. That's certainly not guaranteed especially in D controlled legislative and executive branches. The precedential nature of a FL win, though, is going to make the CDC and any government agency vulnerable to state governments or businesses seeking injunctions on overly broad and restrictive actions which governments might impose based on a future emergency, PH or otherwise. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.117.0.pdf