dswallow

The only way you'll get the results provided via the Navica app (that's Abbott's app to provide test results officially) is if you're doing it from a proctored session. You can always just use the test card and see the results on your own, if all you care about is seeing your own results. But the only folks who can send the results to your app are the ones who are monitoring you while taking the test. So if you can show your results in the app, that's proof it was administered properly.

I actually went through this myself yesterday. Someone posted the new/changed info that I just screenshotted above, but when I went there, I kept seeing the older info that you just posted. This morning finally it updated for me. All I can suggest here is check later tonight and maybe tomorrow; perhaps then whatever is going on behind the scenes with how this information is distributed on Royal's web site finally gets updated for everyone. Till you finally get the update yourself, the FDA link I posted is what Royal links to on that page.

The religious and medical disability concepts of discrimination are a basis of discrimination based on religious beliefs or based on a medical condition or disability (there are some general definitions involved here; it's not just an arbitrary statement of "I have a medical condition" that can suffice). Fear of a vaccine is not a medical condition. And while I have significant issues with religious exemptions personally, as a society we seem to have settled on permitting people to believe their way via organized religion out of various duties to others. At least the religious exemptions generally don't permit arbitrarily making up new religions particularly easily. You may own shares in a public company, but that still doesn't afford you the right to walk into their offices anytime you want. Florida is making serious threats to businesses and individuals; I'm not sure why you think those threats aren't effectively stopping a business from doing what the threats say they want to do. If a business or individual ignores them and behaves as if they do not exist, it becomes a game of chicken, and that's not really a great way to run a business. Though sometimes there's a strategy in doing exactly that, too. But if you want to start up a multi-billion dollar business then you can determine the strategy to use when a government threatens your business operation. In the meantime, NCL's management gets to decide theirs, just like any other business.

Royal Caribbean is starting to get their act together identifying the allowable COVID tests. Finally. Where Do I Take A RT-PCR Test And Submit The Results Before Cruising? | Royal Caribbean Cruises They actually refer to the complete list of FDA approved tests, too: In Vitro Diagnostics EUAs - Molecular Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2 | FDA And an important addition is the use of home tests as long as they are supervised. This basically makes 15-minute tests accessible to anybody, anywhere as long as they can do a video conference online and order the necessary test in advance to have on hand when the test has to be performed. One of the first in this category is Abbott's BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag At-Home Test. Abbott’s BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag At-Home Test Kit 6 Pack (emed.com) Travelers can now buy CDC-approved at-home COVID-19 tests for just $50 (thepointsguy.com)

You have no inherent right anywhere to board a privately owned cruise ship. Typically "discrimination" extends to religious and disability related reasoning. There's also the elements of employment law/equal opportunity law that defines discrimination in those settings involving things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Most of the states trying to make vaccination status some sort of protected class are going to face uphill battles because of the nature of a pandemic and the requirement of vaccination for health and safety reasons. But at best, you could see perhaps valid reasoning here for protection for access to essential services, like being able to go into a grocery store. But again, when there's a health safety concern it wouldn't be that unvaccinated couldn't enter; it would be that different precautions could apply to unvaccinated in order for them to enter. Anyway, then we get back to you not having an inherent right to board a privately owned cruise ship.

The latest protocol requirement changes permit proof of test results electronically in the form of a notification by email or app-based confirmation shown on your smartphone. In the past it has been a requirement that it be some form of printed formal letter.

Well, I think we've found yet another thoughtless, stupid questionnaire design that's going to result in a lot of people wasting a lot of time and effort sorting out the volunteers. The very least they should've had a way to select the test cruises one wanted to be considered for. So now they'll randomly pick people for particular sailings and have to endure lots of rejections and then continue repeating the process till they get the number of volunteers they need for each.

No particular first-come first-served going on here; just a 24-hour window in which to register the up to 12 entries permitted for each person.

It's an unfortunate change and one that could have easily been handled well and seamlessly by Royal Caribbean if they had wanted to be nice about it, after all they devoted some amount of effort to the Cruise Planner redesign. Could it have been so hard to be more up-front about gratuity pricing, showing it both ways, with and without, up front, perhaps? Or being really clear about it, at least? Or even simply making it easier to just request a refund of difference in prices rather than forcing the cancel and re-buy process upon people, which honestly only leads to confusion, at best? These are the kind of annoyances that simply should not exist and should be easily handled to the benefit of the customer if they do occur. People should contact Michael Bayley ([email protected]) or via the Facebook page he maintains, so that they understand this is a customer satisfaction issue and they are failing right now.

The requirement is a test from a sample taken no earlier than 3 days prior to the day of sailing. Not 72 hours. 3 Days. That's an intentional choice of wording. Where Do I Take A RT-PCR Test And Submit The Results Before Cruising? | Royal Caribbean Cruises

This one is a dead horse and has been discussed and confirmed to death. ? Count backwards. Think of it like this... Saturday - the day you need the results, typically the sailing day, Day 0 Friday - 1 day before the day you need the results, Day 1 Thursday - 2 days before the day you need the results, Day 2 Wednesday, 3 days before the day you need the results, Day 3 Tuesday, 4 days before the day you need the results, Day 4 Monday, 5 days before the day you need the results, Day 5 Even Royal Caribbean covers it in the FAQ. Where Do I Take A RT-PCR Test And Submit The Results Before Cruising? | Royal Caribbean Cruises

If I were Royal Caribbean, I'd be looking at adding a St. Thomas visit on every sailing from a Florida port. ?

Divide by 5, and I'd still think it was an over-estimate. You know they have some deal involving that aircraft service. And a LearJet can be had one-off for about $3500 to $4000/flying hour.

It'd be kinda nice if we kept some sort of summary someplace of the situation for each sailings we've become aware of -- positive tests, any details about the passengers themselves, like vaccination status, age, symptoms if any, whether they were getting off the ship in the next day or two, or if they were B2B, etc. Because so far it's been rather minimal it seems. If any, just a couple. Mostly always asymptomatic. I think the information would be useful to be showing just how much of a mostly non-issue it usually is and to see if over time it stays roughly the same or if there's patterns matching land experiences with COVID cases, etc. Right now we seem to end up with overzealous thread deletions in some forums (not sure here, but it's really high up on my nerves on Cruise Critic right now, to the point I'm minimizing things I contribute there overall right now) and we just lose the information completely.

NCLH also has filed their reply to the motion to transfer the case to the Middle District. https://www.2150.com/files/cc/1-21-cv-22492-KMW-CMM/36_051123645646_ResponseInOpposition.pdf (Everything: Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd et al v. Rivkees, M.D. (1:21-cv-22492) (2150.com))

In another forum someone posed this question to the executive offices and received a replay stating that as long as the doses are of the same vaccine the time between them does not matter.

There's no reason to imply dishonesty. We don't test everybody every day; there's just no possible way to know what you think you want to know without doing something like that, which simply would be logistically impossible. Numbers are published regarding breakthrough infections that require hospitalization. And by guidelines, too, vaccinated people exposed to possible close contact with someone who tests positive only need to do anything different if they themselves show symptoms. Otherwise, no quarantining, no testing needed.

The State of Florida filed their response to NCLH's motion for preliminary injunction.Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd et al v. Rivkees, M.D. (1:21-cv-22492) (2150.com)

Once a COVID vaccine is approved for use for 5 to 11 year-olds, the 95% vaccination rate of passengers onboard should be attainable in every sailing.

Don't worry about the CSO not being enforceable; the CDC still can flex its mask muscle. CDC says mask rules will apply to Florida cruise ships not following sail order | Reuters "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said late Friday that it will enforce its transit mask requirements on cruise ships in Florida that opt not to abide by its conditional sail order following a court ruling." "The CDC said it will not waive mask requirements in indoor spaces on cruise ships for those lines that are not voluntarily complying with its conditional sail order."

I certainly hope they eventually explain themselves.

So... change the thread title, maybe? ? I feel like I'm watching a daytime legal soap opera these days. All the filings... US Court of Appeals, 11th District, Case 12243, Florida v. HHS, CDC (2150.com)

Remember, no argument over the original complaint has yet been heard, and no decision has yet been handed down. Every single item so far that is progressing through the court of appeals and now the Supreme Court is entirely about the motion for preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction that Florida sought only affected sailing from/to/within Florida ports. The original complaint potentially could hit the CSO completely -- the preliminary injunction sought is what limited it to Florida for the injunction itself while the full complaint was heard.