Suspected Covid-19 case on Quantum

[LogicallyLazy]

With the news that the man tested negative after debarkation on 2 separate tests, I think attention now has to turn to the accuracy of the test they have on board and how they deal with false positives in the future. While false positives are inevitable in any test, considering it halts the entire cruise, I think a retest should have been done on the ship itself to see if the results repeated. Hopefully it isnt due to contamination of covid in their test devices, because the test on land showed the original sample from the patient also tested negative.

That being said, the protocols work. They aren't there to completely stop the virus on the ship, but to prevent the spread if there was a case on board. In which case, they demonstrated that they had a plan in the event of a case. Now they just need to add protocols in regards to the handling of positive results on board and the possibility of false positives.

[sk8erguy1978]

3 hours ago, monctonguy said:

I wouldn't book anything before that sails before the fall at this point!

Our sailing is in September and I was just telling a friend, we may be among the first. I do however have my fingers crossed for May / June. These companies can only bleed for so long. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by sk8erguy1978
typo

[WAAAYTOOO]

While it's great news that the potential "victim" had a false positive, I agree with @LogicallyLazythat there needs to be some mechanism in place to overturn the false positives.  Think how this disrupted the entire cruise for him and the rest of the pax...and I believe that they have cancelled the following cruise. It's really good to know that the protocols are working.  That's the victory here.  The lessons learned need to focus on how to preclude the Charlie Foxtrot that was created by the false positive.

[princevaliantus]

30 minutes ago, LogicallyLazy said:

With the news that the man tested negative after debarkation on 2 separate tests, I think attention now has to turn to the accuracy of the test they have on board and how they deal with false positives in the future. While false positives are inevitable in any test, considering it halts the entire cruise, I think a retest should have been done on the ship itself to see if the results repeated. Hopefully it isnt due to contamination of covid in their test devices, because the test on land showed the original sample from the patient also tested negative.

That being said, the protocols work. They aren't there to completely stop the virus on the ship, but to prevent the spread if there was a case on board. In which case, they demonstrated that they had a plan in the event of a case. Now they just need to add protocols in regards to the handling of positive results on board and the possibility of false positives.

Apparently, it didn't work since and neither does the protocols since the 83 year-old male Singaporean has had two follow-up tests in Singapore and both tests have come back negative.  As a follow-up, NPHL will conduct another test tomorrow to confirm the 83 year-old male Singaporean's COVID-19 status.   Rapid tests are notorious for false positives and thus the results are not 100% conclusive which leaves a lot to be desired. As such, anyone who goes on a cruise cannot be guaranteed, beyond a show of a doubt, that they will/will not be contaminated. It's a game of Russian Roulette.

[twangster]

I would think the Singaporean government would view this as a success and allow cruising to continue.  The ship followed their response plan when a case was (mistakenly) detected.  Had it been an actual case the potential for spread was reduced.  

They continue to report no new cases of domestic infections, only recording "imported" new cases from arriving international air passengers.  Most of these appear to be contract workers who can't take cruises.  Only citizens and residents are allowed to cruise, contract workers are specifically denied the opportunity to take a cruise.  

 

[Lovetocruise2002]

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2020/12/09/two-covid-19-retests-of-royal-caribbean-passenger-come-back-negative

[CruisinForABruisin]

Oh god, I already feel for the customer service reps when an army of angry Karen's come for their heads after their 7nt cruise gets called back to port after 1 day, and it turns out to be a false positive 

[AndrewPunch]

3 hours ago, JLMoran said:

There's a misunderstanding in both of these statements -- the protocols are not intended to keep the ship 100% virus free. That is statistically impossible to achieve, and any one / any government that thinks it is possible is deluding themselves.

The point of the protocols is to achieve the same goals as any nation working to keep the virus tightly under control. Test often and aggressively. Enforce behaviors that minimize (but again, don't eliminate) virus transmission. Take actions that minimize or eliminate crowding and that maximize air flow and other environmental factors that reduce virus spread.

The protocols did work. They achieved detection and caught that one passenger who boarded, took a test, but who happened to be recently infected and whose viral titer was still too low to be detected at that point. They achieved the critical step of contact tracing, and in record time; the tracelets allowed for extremely rapid identification of all the passengers who came in contact with that person for any protracted length of time. They achieved isolation, with the passenger and those who came in contact put into designated quarantine rooms that were isolated both in space and airflow.

The only thing about this that disappointed me is that they immediately turned around and returned to port, but this might also be a current requirement of the protocols that I missed in earlier reading. I had thought that the procedure would be to isolate the detected individuals but otherwise continue the sailing while monitoring continued, unless / until infection was found to have spread beyond the initial detection or above a certain low threshold. But maybe in these very early sailings they're operating on a super-abundance of caution (or at government requirements)

 

I disagree the protocols should allow for a cruise to complete its planned itinerary.  The prevention aspect is the most important aspect of it because the cruise will fail to deliver the promised value if one has to stay in their cabin and not have the "full" experience.  I agree the response part was well executed but thinking of these larger ships that 1 sick person turns the boat around is a risky preposition until the vaccine is widely available.  

[mattymay]

Good news on the negative result. It was kind of strange that a country with zero community transmission for quite some time would just now happen to get one on a ship. Need more accurate tests by the looks of it.

[princevaliantus]

22 minutes ago, mattymay said:

Good news on the negative result. It was kind of strange that a country with zero community transmission for quite some time would just now happen to get one on a ship. Need more accurate tests by the looks of it.

Good point!!!

[JLMoran]

6 hours ago, AndrewPunch said:

I disagree the protocols should allow for a cruise to complete its planned itinerary.  The prevention aspect is the most important aspect of it because the cruise will fail to deliver the promised value if one has to stay in their cabin and not have the "full" experience.  I agree the response part was well executed but thinking of these larger ships that 1 sick person turns the boat around is a risky preposition until the vaccine is widely available.  

See, the reason I believe the protocols should allow continuation of the cruise up to a threshold is the exact situation that happened with this case. Testing is going to have its share of false positives and false negatives. If the cruise has continued while this person and those in contact were all in isolation, the one who tested positive could have been cleared after the negative test, or at most two negative tests over consecutive days (which was generally the threshold for discharge from hospitals in the beginning of all this). Those who were in contact, as long as they continued to test negative, would also have been released from quarantine since everyone was demonstrably negative.

Overall impact to the cruise itinerary was zero. Impact to those affected by the positive test was not great but bearable; they could receive OBC or FCC or cash refund for the time confined to quarters. Impact to everyone else was zero, just continue following the protocols as before. It would drive home the benefit of every. single. person. taking these same steps every day.

And I would hope they'd see that it would benefit them not just while on board, but in regular day-to-day life when they got back home.

And wouldn't that be a great message for the cruise industry to give to the press, and the world at large?

[Mike.s]

16 hours ago, Vancity Cruiser said:

I am not surprised by this but you won’t hear this part of the story reported in the news.

 

As you stated none of the UK press who gleefully reported the case have followed up with the update of the negative retests, guess the headline sorry was a false alarm doesn't sell papers, but as per usual all the anti cruise brigade have jumped on the story 

[princevaliantus]

4 hours ago, Mike.s said:

As you stated none of the UK press who gleefully reported the case have followed up with the update of the negative retests, guess the headline sorry was a false alarm doesn't sell papers, but as per usual all the anti cruise brigade have jumped on the story 

Not fair for the cruise line who did the RIGHT thing. I would rather err on the side of caution.

[kc1968]

8 minutes ago, princevaliantus said:

Not fair for the cruise line who did the RIGHT thing. I would rather err on the side of caution.

You're Right, kudos to RCIfor doing the right thing and following safety protocols. My guess is someone bungled that test on board. 

[RWDW1204]

 

He was retested, found not positive.Covid-19 tests for passenger on a Royal Caribbean cruise in Singapore

[Matt]

Confirmed it's a false positive https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2020/12/10/it-turns-out-there-was-no-covid-royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-nowhere

[princevaliantus]

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

Confirmed it's a false positive https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2020/12/10/it-turns-out-there-was-no-covid-royal-caribbean-cruise-ship-nowhere

That's great news!! But one concern needs to be addressed and that is if this becomes the norm with many "false positives" how does RCG intend on handling this? Many cruisers will be upset and pissed and will demand refunds to some extent. RCG needs to find another testing method or else it's going to hit them where it hurts.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, princevaliantus said:

But one concern needs to be addressed and that is if this becomes the norm with many "false positives" how does RCG intend on handling this? Many cruisers will be upset and pissed and will demand refunds to some exte

I think (hope) in Singapore this will be less of a normal occurrence. However, I hard heard (although not confirmed) the mandatory end of cruise over 1 positive case is a rule Singapore has.

I said this in my YouTube video today but I do agree 1 case cannot be automatic end of cruise. There needs to be some level of triage.

But of course, if the cruise doesn't end, the narrative the media will spin is "Cruise ship continues to sail even though covid onboard"

[twangster]

25 minutes ago, Matt said:

I think (hope) in Singapore this will be less of a normal occurrence. However, I hard heard (although not confirmed) the mandatory end of cruise over 1 positive case is a rule Singapore has.

I said this in my YouTube video today but I do agree 1 case cannot be automatic end of cruise. There needs to be some level of triage.

But of course, if the cruise doesn't end, the narrative the media will spin is "Cruise ship continues to sail even though covid onboard"

For a community with zero community spread the notion of a new community case has got to be something they want to avoid.  The rule to quickly and decisively deal with a positive (false or otherwise) is understandable but hopefully they'll review this to see if they can update policy.