Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About npcl

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Keep in mind that even with PCR there is a high false negative rate with COVID. According to one study the best rate with PCR is 20% false negative depending upon day of infection. It will miss almost all infections on day 1, miss 67% on day 4 that drops to 20% on day 8 then starts to worsen again. ON average on the first day of symptoms you will still get a 38% false negative rate. So while testing is a good step, it is not certain to catch every infection. Thus the approach being taken to quarantine the passengers for 7 days then retest is a good approach. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1495 Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure Over the 4 days of infection before the typical time of symptom onset (day 5), the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreases from 100% (95% CI, 100% to 100%) on day 1 to 67% (CI, 27% to 94%) on day 4. On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18% to 65%). This decreased to 20% (CI, 12% to 30%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset) then began to increase again, from 21% (CI, 13% to 31%) on day 9 to 66% (CI, 54% to 77%) on day 21.
  2. Not unlike the large cruise lines who used the term "flu like symptoms" to cover up the outbreaks on board, neglected to test unless forced by land base authorities prior to the cruising shutdown. So you can add the lines owned by RCL, CCL to the list as well
  3. I must admit that I am happy that my March/ April cruises were with Princess and not with NCL. On Feb 5 I canceled two cruises in the penalty period with Princess. I knew that I would lose the deposit on 1 and face a 50% penalty on the other. I was ok with that. Then after Princess canceled cruises in March they retroactively eliminated penalties on any cruises canceled on or after Feb 4. As a result I received all of my money back from Princess even though I canceled before they did. Not as lucky with another CCL line HAL (lost my deposit). With NCL the cruises were far enough out not to be in any penalty situation and got the deposit back.
  4. Most of the time the cruise lines have spent the money as fast as it comes it the door. For example prior to COVID NCLH had over 2 billion in customer deposits liability, but less than 500 million in cash. The only difference is now it is FCC's and the customers can not get it back as a refund whereas before they had that option. But in either case the money was spent before the customer ever boarded the ship. The real question is how fast they start getting cash bookings once cruising restarts. The new booking cash flow will be critical.
  5. Maybe not. If they follow the airline model in a BK the shareholders get wiped out, the bond holder get their debt converted to new shares, and the customers remain intact. When you think about the last group that the cruise lines would want to impact is their customers who, just like the airlines, they will need if they want to have any chance of successfully restarting. In that case FCC's and deposits would remain intact.
  6. Hawaii is having some increases they are putting quarantines back in place on inter Island flights. Do not expect it to open any time soon without quarantine.
  7. MSC is a European line, not US, looking at starting up in EU, US has no impact. The commonality between the US and Europe is both guidance to or request from industry require that industry develop plans, which are then approved by the appropriate national health authorities. Those plans would need to address both the protection of passengers during port stops, as well as protection of local residents from cruise ship passengers. As a result this area would need to be addressed in the cruise line plans that submit for approval prior to cruising again. The cruise lines are the ones that write the plans and would be responsible for execution of it. Considering the number of locals infected in NZ from the Ruby stop on her last cruise, I expect that NZ would also require something similar before allowing ships to sail there.
  8. I would say that even if fully implemented it would not change my opinion about cruising at this stage of the outbreak. It basically presents how they will disinfect surfaces of the ship, but it really does not address the major problem, person to person transmission in closed spaces in side of the ship as they are in close proximity. Studies indicate that person to person transmission to be more of an issue with COVID that surface contact transmission. Temperature checks are fairly useless with 40-50% of the cases be asymptomatic. Monitoring needs to involve active random testing, not just monitoring and temperature checks. You could say the steps are necessary, but not sufficient.
  9. Potentially yes. Any activity that is currently shutdown, that potentially would want to start up prior to virus counts dropping to an appropriate level for them to open safely. If the other option is to stay closed.
  10. I am hearing one thing about potential vaccine tests that I do not care for. Most vaccine trials are large, placebo control trials. They collect both efficacy and safety data from a fairly large group. A group that is instructed to go about their lives, but follow good practices to avoid getting infected (both those with the drug and the placebo group). So anyone that gets infected does so with steps taken to make sure they are informed about ways to avoid eposure. The individual running the Oxford vaccine project wants to test their vaccine using a challenge trial. A challenge is where you take a relatively small group (as few as 40) give them the vaccine, then intentionally expose them to the virus. While this might get efficacy data quickly, it does not give the safety information that comes from a large placebo trial. To me it violates the normal ethics rules that go along with clinical trials. You do not intentionally infect patients with a potentially fatal illness. If they do go a head with a challenge trial and do not wait for a full scale placebo trial this is a vaccine I would avoid.
  11. I doubt that NCLH will be willing to convert the FCC's to cash refund anytime soon. From their last quarterly results they still have 1.1 Billion is customer deposits at the end of June (probably most in the form of FCC's now) down from 1.9 Billion last quarter (end of March). That amount to about half of the value of what they have in cash and cash equivalents, 2.26 billion at the end of June. With a 160 million per month burn rate they will hold on to whatever cash they can.
  12. For the korea study concerning virus shedding from asymptomatic patients. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235 In this cohort study of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, ROK, the Ct values in asymptomatic patients were similar to those in symptomatic patients. Viral molecular shedding was prolonged. Because transmission by asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 may be a key factor in community spread, population-based surveillance and isolation of asymptomatic patients may be required.
  13. As far as testing errors. Note that the best days had a false negative rate of of 20%, with 100% on day 1 dropping to 67% on day 4. Optimum time to test was day 8 at 20% but get worse after than time. https://www.biotechniques.com/covid-19/false-negatives-how-accurate-are-pcr-tests-for-covid-19/ Publishing their results in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers stress the need for caution in interpreting any negative results of RT-PCR diagnostic tests, as many other factors, such as the timing of the test, appear to play a role in the accuracy of the results. The probability of a false negative COVID-19 test decreased from 100% on Day 1 of the infection to 67% on Day 4. This further decreased to 20% on Day 8, 3 days after a patient would first start to experience COVID-19 symptoms. Day 8 appeared to be the optimal time for testing, as after this the probability of a false negative once again began to increase. A 21% probability on Day 9 increased to 66% if testing occurred on Day 21 of infection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897 In days 1 through 7 after onset of illness, 11% of sputum, 27% of nasal, and 40% of throat samples were deemed falsely negative. https://www.itnonline.com/content/covid-19-genetic-pcr-tests-give-false-negative-results-if-used-too-early When the average patient began displaying symptoms of the virus, the false-negative rate was 38 percent.
  14. What do you want a citation for the percentage or the definition of a false negative because by definition a false negative is when an infected person takes a test and gets a negative result. What do you think a false negative is? from NIH False Negative A test result that incorrectly indicates that the condition being tested for is not present when, in fact, the condition is actually present. For example, a false-negative HIV test indicates that a person does not have HIV when the person actually does have HIV.
  15. I doubt that there would be any on your own excursions.
  • Create New...