JeffB

In related news, Bahamas Paradise Cruise announced that it will sail one of its two ships from Florida on December 18th. Their CEO stated in the announcement, “We’re very pleased with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) decision to lift its No-Sail Order on October 31st, 2020. The past few months have been an incredible challenge for the cruise industry at large, and we’re thrilled to welcome our guests aboard for what we know is a much-needed getaway to Grand Bahama Island.” Interesting on its face. What does this company know that the others don't ...... or did this guy just spill the beans. https://cruiseradio.net/cruise-line-announces-december-2020-return-with-one-ship/

CruiseRadio published a story today detailing Costa Cruise Lines early termination of a Mediterranean charter cruise for French passengers. The ship will port in Genoa to discharge passengers. The reason was not that COVID protocols were not working aboard ship. They were. There were no COVID infections reported among crew or passengers. The reason was the increasing number of new cases in France and to allow French passengers to get home quickly and safely. This is the kind of thing we are going to see with any re-start. Officials on both sides of this - cruise line execs and public health authorities ashore - are going to have a very low threshold for pulling the plug on early runs of cruise ships. As I have written previously, new case numbers taken out of context are a poor indicator of COVID risk and disease burden. Regardless, this is the expert's standard and it has become baked in as THE measure for relaxing or tightening mitigation measures. https://cruiseradio.net/mediterranean-cruise-ends-early-over-worsening-outbreak-in-france/

I like objective data not claims of a "fact" related to the COVID pandemic without data to back it up. For example, the WHO claims lots of things to include the virus spreads via aerosols. Subsequently and within days, they backed away from that claim and say "we only know it's airborne." The reason behind the fall-back by the WHO was a lack of data to back up their claim. Claims of fact are one thing. Without data they are empty claims. Matt posted the announcement by RCG results of a study conducted by the University of Nebraska's Medical Center onboard the Oasis of the Seas confirming that cross-contamination of air between adjacent public spaces is extremely low, and undetectable in most test cases. The study marked particles < 1 micron in size (considered to be aerosols) and then injected them into a space aboard ship. Next it followed these particles with equipment designed to detect if they passed through the ship. They didn't. IOW, even if the virus gets introduced in this congregate setting, it's not going to spread in aerosol form (the only way they can do that) via the ship's air handling systems. This was one of the claims, one of the facts, advanced by CDC that isn't supported by objective data. Just want to be perfectly clear about the value of data backed assertions compared to well, it could be or it might be sort of facts. Here's another example. The CDC alleges it's risky to fly and the longer the flight the higher the risk of becoming infected with COVID from an otherwise asymptomatic COVID positive passenger. Don't get on airplanes or cruise ships if you are otherwise at higher risk for becoming infected. Given this very public claim, given that it is frequently augmented by the media, you'd be afraid to jump on an airplane to get to a cruise port, right? Don't be. Results from the Boeing 777-200 and 767-300 airframes showed a minimum reduction of 99.7% of 1 µm simulated virus aerosol from the index source to passengers seated directly next to the source. An average 99.99% reduction was measured for the 40+ breathing zones tested in each section of both airframes. Rapid dilution, mixing and purging of aerosol from the index source was observed due to both airframes’ high air exchange rates, downward ventilation design, and HEPA-filtered recirculation. Contamination of surfaces from aerosol sources was minimal, and DNA-tagged 3 µm tracers agreed well with real-time fluorescent results. Transmission model calculations using the measured aerosol breathing zone penetration data indicates an extremely unlikely aerosol exposure risk for a 12 hour flight when using a 4,000 virion/hour shedding rate and 1,000 virion infectious dose. https://www.ustranscom.mil/cmd/docs/TRANSCOM Report Final.pdf We should not be fearful of flying on commercial aircraft to get from point A to point B even when the flight is even 12 hours long. The data does not support CDC's recommendations not to fly for leisure. It appears this is another example of unsupported advice coming from the CDC, crushing a sector of the travel and leisure industry, in it's role of prevention. There should be no surprise that people don't trust them anymore with it's trustworthiness ratings among Americans plummeting.

Can you quantify the degree to which "long term Covid-19 symptoms" contribute to the public health impact of other known chronic conditions you wish to group these in? Is there evidence that "other near-term burdens to prevent death" that you mention haven't been completely overcome or at the least inovatively ameliorated? I tend not to deal in "could." It is could happen but then doesn't that is inappropriately contributing to policy making errors when it comes to COVID responses. My take is we've seen a lot of that coming from the CDC. I will deal in facts. We know what the CFR is and it is low, much lower in some age groups than others. We know which age groups are most likely to die from C-19. We know how many ED visits there are for ILI or COVID sx. We know, by age cohort, how many COVID and COVID like sx result in hospitalizations. I've dealt with these and shown how these metrics are not increasing or accelerating at the same rate as new cases. If there are increases they are local, for the most part being managed and should not be extrapolated to the national level. There is plenty of good news out there with vaccine developments, with new medications and with improved in-patient management. ....... yet the torrent of bad news drowns the good news out. The "dire consequences" narrative and hand-wringing continues. It's absurd.

A small quibble princevaliantus although I thing you're on the right track. I don't believe that the CDC has any enforcement role on maritime operations although I get that they are providing an aspect of infection control through immigration enforcement by DGMQ. Enforcing port closures, I believe, falls to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agency doing the enforcing is the USCG. Therefore the Pandemic Response Team acting as the executive becomes the sole authority for either extending or letting the current NSO expire on October 31st. The CDC remains in an advisory role to the Pandemic Response Team. Pence can consider what the CDC recommends; he can consider the cruise industry's STS plan; he can weigh the costs v. PH benefits/risks and then decide whether to extend or let expire the NSO. If he decides to let the NSO expire, acting as the executive, he'll put into motion the steps necessary to call the USCG off.

I've personally found it difficult to remain positive about the likelihood of cruising restarting given the torrent of "bad" COVID news. Let's take stock: New case numbers are increasing. That is inevitable given exponential growth. More cases beget, well, more new cases ...... x, 2x, 4x,16x and so forth. Theoretically, unless you eliminate the virus there will be growth. The WHO and the CDC seem to have settled on a 5% percent positive rate in testing presumes containment of the virus. I've argued that managing your responses to the pandemic based on absolute new case numbers or any of its derivatives is a flawed approach. What is more important to look at regionally and locally is disease burden and there are numerous data points that enable officials to do that. The COVID Tracking Project is a good single source place to get data: Hopkinshttps://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state What conclusions you draw from it that guide policy formulation is another thing altogether. This is where we get into gray areas where it's hard to determine, for example, if one mitigation measure makes sense and one doesn't. The goal should be to limit disease burden. While you can argue that absolute case numbers and disease burden are intimately connected they often aren't. That is because we've learned that disease burden is very different by age grouping. We can also see, right now, with case numbers increasing, CFR (a proxy measure of disease burden) has remained almost constant if not down trending. Moreover the growth trends of other disease burden metrics like ED visits, hospitilizations, etc. are not accelerating at the same levels and, in fact in more regions than not, they are decelerating. Of course, there are local exceptions but one should not generalize a local occurrence to the nation and that is done all the time. None of this gets reported by the lay press. NONE. Full stop. This should make us all skeptical of media reports describing dire consequences from increasing case numbers. Let's apply this to the NSO. The STS Plan is a reasonable, very complete mitigation plan given the risk of congregate settings the CDC frets about. It's being successfully practiced in Europe and Asia. Now let's place this up against the torrent of "bad" COVID news and the politically charged atmosphere, the terrible and unfair rap cruise lines got in March, ground staked out and reputations that have to be protected and I think it would be a miracle to see revenue producing cruise operations restart in 2020. It could happen but it's a long shot given the misinformation mitigating against a restart that is out there.

cruisellama's post makes sense. One has to understand how the NSO went down. CDC, as part of the Pandemic Task Force, recommended, the executive concurred and the DHS published and is responsible for enforcing the NSO. The Task Force headed by Pence continues to take inputs from agencies and stake holders, decides on policy and has the appropriate agency execute. In this context it's another politically motivated wild goose chase for Congress to "investigate inappropriate WH influence on the CDC." The WH in the form of VP Pence IS and very appropriately making pandemic policy.

You won't get anger from me. Every new finding or opinion re SARS-CoV-2 and C-19 is worth a look. The link to the "analysts look....." is below. The look was from investigative journalists who acknowledge their's is not a scientific study and urged the Indian government to take one up. They do conclude that old age homes - a new phenomena in India - have had very low COVID mortality rates among residents compared to similar facilities in the west. The homes took several sanitary steps including restricting access, reducing residents by sending some of them home and better food sanitation. Notably, there were no controls in the study rendering it interesting but not conclusive. https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/india-s-old-age-homes-have-been-successful-in-staving-off-covid-19/story-X5NNnjgKIE9pEDdhmR9ZJK.html

All the language we're seeing reported in the SEC filling information is germane. I thought the most disturbing part of it was the RCG's expressed concern over the class action lawsuit filed by investors. The part about being a distraction and diverting time and money to defend against it suggests, not surprisingly, that RCG is worried about cash. To that end, it is clear they are delaying capital investments in shipboard and land based technology upgrades and further land development projects. Those are cash and debt conserving measures that often predate bankruptcy filings. Not suggesting RCG is on the brink but it's moving closer the longer the shuttering of this industry persists. I also thought it noteworthy that crew contracts will be ending, not renewed and then renegotiated when a path forward on restarting operations becomes clear. That is a slam dunk acknowledgement that labor costs are a prime concern and efforts to reduce them, when it is uncertain that cruise operations will restart before the start of the 2nd quarter, 2021, are being undertaken. As I read it, when they do this, it hamstrings RCG's ability for a quick restart once operations are green-lighted. It's not just warm-restarts that take a couple weeks, it's that plus signing crew back-up. A mess. Interpreting the events in the last week in the context of all three majors bailing on November are just telling me that in order to conserve cash, they've dumped crew. That makes a quick restart impractical. I think we heard from Carnival Corp. that they didn't see anyway that they could restart, as planned out of two ports in FL, in November. That is tacit admission that they probably don't have the crew to do it and that the reason behind that problem is that they have let a good portion of them go. Instead of optimistic talk about continuing dialogue with the CDC that we heard after the Pence phone meeting last week, I sense some RCG frustration over the statement that the CDC hasn't responded to their STS plan. That's not a good sign and reflective of a hardening of Redfield's position on the risk of congregate settings. Best case restart at this point is mid-December and I think that is fading fast. Worst case seems to me to be April, 2021. I think industry survival possibly up to and definitely past that date is questionable.

Well, the "choir" still has hold-outs or folks that just aren't convinced. My mission isn't complete. You could be right about the "chip on the shoulder" thing. Reputations to protect and all that. The buffer for that sort of thing is, IMO, Mike Pence and, Donald Trump. Believe me, I am no Trump fan but Pence stepped in and told Redfield, nope, you're not extending the NSO through February 2021. I'll give you a month. My take is that the writing is on the wall for the CDC and there are signals from substantial institutions (like WHO among others) weighing against the CDC's position to keep the cruise industry shuttered. Still, there has been some rational support for the risk of congregate settings of the size presented aboard a cruise ship. Trump has a record of dismissing that even though it is rational ...... and I'm not saying I agree with him on this sort of thing. We may just be in a confluence of circumstance that is going to get cruise ships running again from US ports.

You may be interested to know that not a single employee of Walt Disney World has become infected since they reopened and that, to my knowledge, not a single case of C-19 has been tracked and traced to that venue. That's not saying someone didn't get it there but news like that hasn't made it the media who would jump on it if was true. How do I know this? The NYT published what amounts to a mea-culpa for writing a piece shortly after the decision to re-open the parks in Orlando deriding it and claiming it would turn into a terrible hot-spot of C-109 spread. Well, not surprisingly, that didn't happen and, credit where credit is due, the NYT apologized for spreading fear. You can count on the same sort of thing happening if cruising restarts. The media will probably warn us of catastrophe and dire consequences but will more than likely end up with egg n their faces.

There's a couple things to recognize when looking at new case numbers in isolation as an absolute indicator of virus spread. That data is inherently flawed and so are conclusions being drawn from it. First, there is growing recognition by public health officials and epidemiologists that the virus cannot be suppressed such that there is zero risk of viral spread. Places can get close but it takes lock-downs and shuttering of businesses to do it and these are not sustainable for a number of reasons not the least of which is the economic and social costs of doing that. The WHO is latching on to this trend. You can read about this in the WSJ if you have a subscription. You may be able to get to the articles I'm speaking of w/o a subscription - worth a try. Google today's WSJ. The virus can be contained and it's impact on public health can be decreased - and already is being both contained and decreased regionally with reasonable mitigation measures. The point of the foregoing is that restoring appropriately restricted human activity and mobility is becoming a more acceptable alternative to lock-downs and shuttering of varying severity. It's known that the PH benefits derived therefrom are not sufficient to warrant the social and economic costs of them. That thinking is going to weigh in favor of restarting cruise ship operations.

ErinD, here are some things to consider: You've got more flexibility if you are within driving distance of your embarkation port. Despite COVID risks there appears to be a lot of pent-up demand to cruise ASAP. If the lines are green-lighted to go on 11/01/20, cabins for December sailings are going to get snapped up. If there is booking space in the cabin you want now, there's a good chance it will be gone within minutes of any announcement suggesting that ship is going to sail. Given RCG's current policy on refunds, you have little to lose, more if you have to make air travel and embarkation hotel arrangements - even then airlines are being pretty generous if you cancel. Hotels usually have free cancellation w/24h notice. Ask yourself if you and those you're cruising with are completely comfortable with masking, distancing and the rigmarole that the Safe-To-Sail plan will impose on your cruise experience. Cruising in the early stages of a restart is not going to be anything like cruising pre-COVID. Finally, if you are worrying right now about becoming infected on land or at sea and onboard the cruise you are thinking about booking, even with the layered mitigation measures being implemented, you're probably better off staying home.

Some truth to that Twangster. OTH, I've derided the alternate reality painted by the left wrt the disease burden of C-19. I've provided context when I do that to lend weight to my position that it's mortality and morbidity are over-played. The media's approach, in my view, is highly political and intended to damage the president and every aspect of his handing of the pandemic. Reopening across all economic sectors - the cruise and travel industry included - is made to appear as a much less viable strategy in the face of the incessant harangue of "dire consequences" claimed by the press that reopening will precipitate - be it schools, bars, restaurants, places of business or cruising. If the president or anyone in his administration supports it, its bad. The knives come out to pillory whoever steps forward in the public space in support of reopening. The cruise industry is operating behind the eight ball to start with when advancing any argument for letting their ships sail from US ports. Think back to March when the press absolutely and IMO, unfairly and with few facts, ham-blasted the cruise industry for spreading COVID. The reality is starkly different. Yet that is what is conjured up by the left as a reason those greedy bastards should be kept shuttered .... FOREVER. Cruising? A symbol of a privileged life at the expense of the proletariat? Right out of Karl Marx's and Vladamir Lenin's play book.

........ the political aspects of the argument over whether to continue to shutter or restart cruse ship operations gets a little squishy. The left tends to ignore the costs while hammering home the spread of the virus and number of deaths. The right ignores most of that claiming the left distorts C-19 disease impact emphasizing the costs to the cruise industry and travel and leisure sector of the economy. In the polarized political climate the US is in right now, It is difficult to get accurate, fact based information to inform a rational view point. As is usually the case, a rational position considers both sides and a compromise is fashioned. Not gonna happen with the political players on stage at present at least this is true in the public space. You're on your own there. Hopefully officials that will actually decide the fate of cruising in 2020 in the next few weeks are better informed than we are. Some facts you may be interested in: FL's R(t) - a measure of virus control has been below 1.0 (indicates virus is not spreading) for 2 weeks. https://rt.live/ You can look at FL's COVID Dashboard and see that the counties where cruise ports are located (Broward, Miami Dade, for example) have daily positivity rates below 5% (indicates virus is not spreading locally). https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/ According to news reports, this is what decision makers at the federal level will look at to make a decision to extend or let the NSO expire. The two links above will help you to know the facts as reported by PH agencies instead of the hype, more often than not to be wrong or misleading, coming from social media and the mainstream press.

Ya'll know where I stand on re-opening in general and restarting cruise operations out of US ports. Opponents of restarting, like the CDC's Redfield, can offer reasonable arguments for not lifting the no-sail order. These are based primarily on the increased risk of congregate settings for the spread of the virus. There's no getting around that .... congregate settings increase the risk of viral spread. Supporters of re-opening, like myself, counter that while risks cannot be reduced to zero, they can be mitigated. (see the Safe-To-Sail Plan). With mitigation measures in place, the question of cost to the pertinent economy v. public health benefits comes into play (see the Trump administration's general approach to the pandemic). The foregoing pretty much summarizes where we are with restarting cruising. We're all trying to piece together information we see in the public space that signals which side of the argument is going to prevail. Will we be cruising, albeit on a limited basis, on December first or not? Here are some of the facts that bear on that question that I know of: Carnival Corp. has taken a decidedly more aggressive position on restarting from FL ports than RCG or NCL. It appears their plan, however and as we expected, is limited to a couple of ships and a couple of ports (Port Canaveral and Miami). A restart could be as early as the first or second week in November. Carnival Corp.'s brands, TUI and MSC are either already operating large cruise ships on a limited basis in Europe and Asia or will be operating within weeks. This gives MSC and Carnival Corp. a leg up in restarting from FL ports. To my knowledge and based on current information, only a few Caribbean ports will be open to cruise ships. I'd list the private islands, Cozumel, Cancun for sure, the others remain mostly closed or with disembarkation protocols in place that would prevent them from being viable ports of call. That could rapidly change and I suspect the cruise lines who are in contact with local health authorities know a lot more about Caribbean cruise port prospects for opening than are going to be known to us. There's plenty of chatter on social media that Navigator is recalling crew. This article from cruise critic talking about this has been linked to in this forum: https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5647 Business news is full of stories like the link to the video in this thread above that provide all kinds of hints that the administration, in this case in the face of VP Pence, is going to green-light the resumption of cruise line operations from US ports for economic reasons given mitigation measures inherent in the Safe-To-Sail Plan (STSP). To me, this is a proper approach dependent on the administration's, and mine, of a calculation of risks/costs/benefits. In other words, implementing the STSP off sets the risks that cruise ships pose a risk to the public's health inherent in congregate settings. This allows an important industry and an entire economic sector that the cruise industry is a part of to rebound. My view is that Redfield's argument and the CDC's position is not well founded but remains a viable one. That is the case only when the costs of continued shuttering of the cruise industry are ignored.

For those of you with your heads spinning over COVID testing as it relates to cruising, you're not alone. This is very complex stuff and I haven't gone into probably 75% of it. Just be confident that the Safe-To-Sail panel of experts who went though of all this to come up with testing plans absolutely know how everything should work or if they don't they know who to contact for help. I know how to find resources on line. I know how to interpret scientific studies and what their limitations are but I'm an amateur. Take what I say for what it's worth.

JL ..... Abbot Labs does have a cassette based product just recently FDA approval under EUA called BINAX-NOW. While I'm just guessing about the testing devices, and even though I might not need to know, I want to be convinced that a sequence of tests RCG might use during the boarding process is appropriate. After all, I'm defending what RCG is doing to mitigate COVID risks. I'm facing the same situation in travel planning right now where the kind of test and the time frame I would get it is important. It is illustrative of how important it is to know what COVID tests is most appropriate and where you can find a lab or pharmacy that will administer the one that you need. I'll be traveling to MI to see my son and his family of five. He's a Dentist and is in a high risk of COVID exposure job. We are at COVID risk by age and are traveling by air to MI at a relatively increased congregate setting risk - an airplane. Who should get tested? All of us, the highest risk individuals? When should we get tested. In that you will be most infectious 3-5d after being exposed, what good does it do to test us air travelers right after we arrive in MI? All of this is hard.

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.

Great question/points, JLMoran ........ I'd have to go back to the 77 page Safe-To-Sail plan and find it but I think this situation was specifically addressed. After I post this I'll go back and look. There's also been some other sources out there talking about how MSC and TUI are doing this sort of thing. If I'm reading your post correctly, your question involves the hypothetical of a passenger with negative pre-embarkation COVID test within the last 3-5d, entering the terminal, testing positive on a RAPID POC test in the terminal and pending the results of the second confirmatory test, right? You want to know what they are going to do with that guest. First, quarantine would apply to a PAX entering the terminal and getting screened who tested positive on a RAPID POC test even if they had received a negative result on a pre-boarding test 3-5d earlier. Those PAX, as I read the Safe-To-Sail plan, would receive both a second test and additional medical screening by medical staff. That wasn't described in anything I've read. A boarding denial decision would be made during that process. I would imagine the threshold for denying boarding is going to be low. For example, if any COVID like symptoms are present and there's a positive on the first RAPID test, that PAX isn't going to board. At this point I'm speculating because this kind of detail wasn't provided in the Safe-To-Sail plan. High risk PAX who test positive on a RAPID test pending results of a confirmatory test and are also asymptomatic are probably going to be told they can't board. I suppose asymptomatic low risk PAX could be given the option to board and remain in their cabin until pending 2nd test results are received. That is going to be a medical staff decision with an MD involved in it. I think it would be rare - better safe than sorry but why have a second test if you didn't intend to allow a low risk guest with a positive RAPID test awaiting a confirmatory 2nd test board? I suspect that contingency has been considered - hence the 2nd test. If such low risk PAX granted boarding and remaining in their cabin receive a confirmatory positive on their second test before the ship sails, perform an expeditious disembarkation. This could be to another cruise ship in the fleet designated for that purpose still on the pier. If another cruise ship, this operation would have been pre-planned, practiced and would be executed trained under cruise line supervision and personnel. If to a local hospital, continue the quarantine, notify local authorities by pre-planned arrangements. disembark under local public health personnel supervision and follow local COVID protocols. Such protocols that I'm speculating about have already been tested in Europe with crew members. To my knowledge there have been no actual guest evacuations or immediate disembarkations for COVID infections during European cruise operations. If a guest remaining in a cabin awaiting results receives a confirmatory positive on their second test while underway, again, as I understood the Safe-To-Sail plan, an expeditious evacuation similar to any other medical evacuation would be undertaken. The difference here is that protocols for receiving the COVID infected person at a local medical facility would have been pre-arranged and approved rather than ad-hoc. As for PAX that tested negative on embarkation but subsequently tested positive while underway, immediate cabin isolation and contact tracing would begin. Depending on symptom presentation while underway, care would be provided up to the medical management capability of the on board medical facility. If exceeded, a medical evacuation would be undertaken and this would have already been pre-planned for, reviewed and approved by the receiving port facility and/or local hospital. If the illness is mild, guest would be treated symptomatically and upon disembarkation a pre-planned protocol for handling such cases would have already been approved by local public health officials and would be executed according to that plan. How many COVID positive people might this involve? Hard to say but I bet the lines have a good idea and they believe it is a manageable number. The 3d pre-embarkation testing requirement helps to limit the numbers of guests that are going to actually enter the terminal, be processed, re tested and subsequently come up confirmed (by two tests) as COVID positive. There are organizations, including cruise lines operating in Europe, that are implementing and continuously QC improving this approach so, it's not completely new. I hope I've addressed questions you and others may be asking. Some of it is informed speculation. None of this is perfect. None of it reduces risk of infection on board to zero. But I am absolutely convinced that the Safe-To-Sail panel talked about every one of these things and probably more that I haven't even thought of, developed approaches, some of which were not made public, and have this in hand. I also believe, and this is in the Safe-To-Sail plan, that the cruise lines will release very detailed documents regarding the risk passengers are taking if they decide to cruise and in very clear terms how they are mitigating them as well as planning to handle things if a guest or guests become infected.

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?

Its hard to keep up with all of this. I'm tracking/following multiple sources as I'm sure Matt is. I posted this in another thread where I've been posting on relevant subjects involving the No-Sail-Order. Over and over again I'm hearing about "logistics" as a long lead time operation before revenue cruises can begin. So, expiration of the No-Sail-Order on October 31st may take the cruise lines anywhere from 30-60d to return to revenue generating sailings. My take is that this provides a reasonable basis upon which NCL and RCG have cancelled cruises through November. It's going to take BOTH October and November to get even a few ships ready to go while moving other ships up in the line in the rest of the fleet. Truly wondering about Carnival's approach. It has been distant from that of the other big lines.

This was posted in another thread (link below) but I find it interesting and it falls into my good news/optimistic bin. So, I'll comment on it. RCG's apparent preparation of Navigator to restart sailing on a trial basis out of Miami in October was reported in the link. This was a couple of hours before RCG cancelled scheduled November sailings. The toxic politics surrounding the general election have very likely affected the planned meeting between VP Pence's Pandemic Response Team and interested parties in the Cruise industry. However, we have heard Fain report that "dialogue continues." On what level is uncertain but that's a positive in a sea of yesterday's bad news. It may be logistically hard to get ships operational, staffed and trained, as well as make test runs starting November 1st and then have ships ready to sail with revenue generating passengers that same month. Cancelling November sailings then might allow all the prep work to get done with a 1 December resumption of revenue sailings. My optimism tank just got a refill.