I easily searched the title in the link to the article reproduced quite a bit.
It's more of a discussion about what RC's preliminary protocols look like, and, in instances where they don't address specificity, it leads to the 'group protocols' framework; both of which have yet to be promulgated as regulations by the CDC and other appropriate regulatory bodies.
It's progress. If they didn't do anything, they're untrustworthy. If they do something, they're untrustworthy. Today you can't win, never mind them all.
It's fair to note that, re: Covid 19, things really have changed.
1. What it is and how to treat it since the inception unknown period of March to June has been significantly improved. The "cases" rates and the "hospitalization" and more important "death" rates tell the story. Unfortunate media reporting will focus on "total deaths" and focus on "cases" now and ignore July 1 to current "cases" and "deaths." Country by country, and in the USA state by state, there is a completely visible difference when bifurcating the data into the inception unknown period to thereafter. So, in addition to the cruise lines plans for keeping a Covid 19 outbreak off the ship, it would be a positive if the ships are going to have the current therapeutics on the ship, or, are establishing contractual relationships with land based hospitals for such if required. After consideration of limiting risk from the population of potential passengers in #2 below, the require medical facilities and treatment capabilities would not, IMO, need to quantifiably comparable to a local, urban hospital which attend to all of the risk category patients in #2 below. Further, the success of test, test and test followed by trace, trace and trace has evolved from the early opening countries in the East to mainstream Europe and the Americas. It must be exhaustively protocoled by the cruise lines.
2. Who's at the most risk and what to do is also significantly improved in understanding the elderly (and with underlying conditions and especially in long-term care facilities (mostly publicly governed)) are at the highest risk and aren't looking to cruise at all. Moving from this huge, dominant percentage of deaths' category, are those primarily 65 or older with underlying conditions and those of various ages with underlying conditions that are severe (diabetes, coronary/hypertension and obesity). So, IMO, people in such secondary categories, simply should not be allowed to cruise at this time. I would be in one of those categories due to family genetics, regardless of decades of healthy diet, exercise and physical achievement.
3. What is left in the potential cruise passenger categories is statistically < minute percentages for infection resulting in hospitalization for one and even lesser for death. IMO, passenger screening for the above risk factors should not be left to the desired cruising passenger 'word, rather signed affidavits with consequences and medical personal pre-boarding.
4. Given the above, is one qualifies to cruise may choose to or choose not to at this time.
5. The development of a vaccine(s) with high efficacy(ies), proven performant, and, continued treatment therapeutics, including antibodies, may change the dynamics of the above on a phased in, time and performance results basis. Personally, we're hoping that we will be able to make our MSC Seashore B2B in early December 2021; for others not in the risk categories, hopefully a lot sooner.
6. As the W.H.O. has recently stated, the economic consequences of the lockdowns within and beyond the boarders of the thriving countries imposing such has and will continue to spiral worldwide ravages on the lesser developed, including travel dependent economies. The important generalized paraphrase scopes "ravages" ("It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition” ).