New Regent Protocols as of 1 June 2020

[mrlevin]

7 minutes ago, rallydave said:

 

Would not be surprised if this is being required by CDC and will be seen on all cruise lines in order to make sure people report.  In any case it is a nice thing for respiratory illnesses.

 

Maybe so but it would then be nice if CDC mandated it for stomach illnesses to cut down on Norovirus.

[Travelcat2]

Marc, not sure what you are reading but Frank Del Rio (and the CEO of Carnival) both state that masks will be worn on the ship if they are required on land.  Further, if Covid-19 is still around, most passengers will voluntarily wear a mask when ashore.  I'm not sure why you are anti-masks given what is going on in your state.  Mask wearing is becoming mandatory in more and more cities/states (our state's new mandatory mask wearing law went into effect today).

 

In terms of complimentary consultations and treatments on ships, one can only hope that people that feel ill will go to the onboard doctor.  In the past, too many passengers were hiding the fact that they had gastrointestinal issues as they did not want to be quarantined.  Taking passenger temperatures on a regular basis will help identify people that are ill (although they likely would be contagious prior to feeling sick).

[Steve Q]

This is a somewhat shocking article that appeared today. Some of the highlights include:

 

• The CDC reports that 106 cruise ships that entered US waters after March 1 were carrying people infected with COVID-19
• Nearly a third of those who were infected were passengers on the vessels; the remainder were crew members 
• Several cruise companies are disputing the CDC figures, saying the agency counted  'clinically compatible cases' that weren't confirmed by COVID-19 tests 
• According to The New York Times, there are still 68 ships at sea with 21,506 crew members on board in the US jurisdiction alone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466425/More-100-cruise-ships-U-S-waters-carrying-COVID-19-patients-CDC-figures-show.html

 

[Travelcat2]

That is a shocking article and I question the validity of it.  At the moment, the EU is about to block people from the U.S. from entering their countries.  An article like this one would feed into case for having the ban.  If this were true, it likely would have been reported here.  

[greykitty]

It was reported in the New York Times.  I know, I know - some will not think that is reputable news at all 🙂

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/travel/coronavirus-cruises-reopening.html?ICID=ref_fark&auth=login-email&login=email&utm_content=link&utm_medium=website&utm_source=fark

 

That the CDC and other regulators have good cause to look closely at the cruise ship industry seems reasonable to me.  And, IMO, any ship or line that says they escaped having COVID on their ship was extremely blessed timing wise - I would think every ship's captain and medical personnel look at it more as 'there but for the grace of God go we'.

[SusieQft]

They could include the use of one of these rings for all the passengers and crew.  They would need a hefty deposit that could be refunded when you return the ring at the end of the cruise.

 

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200626/nba-to-use-high-tech-rings-to-help-detect-covid-19?ecd=wnl_spr_062720&ctr=wnl-spr-062720_nsl-LeadModule_cta&mb=kVBab3XJg4N4w4csNUnBhJAyWFWqf9PL2%2fsoWQZQgB4%3d

[flossie009]

4 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

That is a shocking article and I question the validity of it.

The Daily Mail has never let facts get in the way of sensational reporting. Much of the article just appears to be a re-hash of previous reporting that sought to scapegoat the cruise industry.

 

8 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

At the moment, the EU is about to block people from the U.S. from entering their countries.

EU officials and the member countries are debating how & when to relax the border restrictions which were introduced  to contain the pandemic.

As part of that debate they will determine which nationalities to admit without quarantine & without high risk of re-infection.

Presumably the US will also be considering when & how to lift their restrictions on the entry of Europeans and other nationalities.

 

Operating cruises successfully, including getting passengers & crew to/from the ships, is going to be very difficult until the pandemic is seen to be under control worldwide allowing all countries to relax their border restrictions.

Articles such as those in the New York Times, the Daily Mail and others will not encourage ports to welcome cruise ships even if other travel restrictions are lifted.

[Travelcat2]

flossie - for the record, I was not aware that there was still a travel ban for people in the EU and UK flying into the US.  

 

While I understand the bans against the U.S. and feel that we deserve it for having no direction or way to control the virus, it is frustrating for those of us that are doing everything that we can to avoid getting or spreading Covid-19..  Everyone is doing their own thing and it is not working.  People that I know are incensed about people that are refusing to wear masks or social distance.  We need to work together and this is not happening.  

 

It is inconceivable that we are back at square one.  Hopefully most people in the UK are not doing what we saw in photos  yesterday (crowding beaches).  This is how the rebound began in the U.S.  

[giustot]

6 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

That is a shocking article and I question the validity of it.  At the moment, the EU is about to block people from the U.S. from entering their countries.  An article like this one would feed into case for having the ban.  If this were true, it likely would have been reported here.  

What evidence do you have to question the validity of the information reported by the New York Times?

 

Why do you think that if the information was true it would have been reported first on Cruise Critic as opposed to by the New York Times?

 

The article said some of the information was obtained by filing a Freedom of Information request with the CDC. It's obvious the newspaper put a lot of time and effort into the story.

 

I don't see any connection between this story and the EU ban on US tourists.

 

Tom.

[lprp]

5 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

flossie - for the record, I was not aware that there was still a travel ban for people in the EU and UK flying into the US.  

The UK Government currently advises non essential international travel. One of the repercussions of which is voiding travel insurance unless you have agreed otherwise with the insurance company, another is the requirement to self-quarantine for 14 days on returning to the UK.

This is likely to change in the next week or so, but, IF media  reports are true, may only be to a select few countries, where the virus spread is less prevalent. There is a (Media) reported traffic light system, where Green means good to go & not quarantine, Amber means ok to go BUT advice may change if conditions worsen, Red means 14 day quarantine on returning required and, presumably, insurance restrictions still apply. At this time USA is (Media) reported to be in the Red zone. 

[flossie009]

5 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

flossie - for the record, I was not aware that there was still a travel ban for people in the EU and UK flying into the US.

 

I believe the following US entry restrictions remain in place:

Presidential Proclamations 9984, 9992, 9993 and 9996 temporarily suspend the entry into the United States of most individuals, other than U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, who were physically present in mainland China, Iran, Ireland, the United Kingdom, or the Schengen Area in the 14 days preceding their attempted entry. Any traveler with a valid ESTA who is subject to the Proclamations and who attempts to travel the United States in violation of the Proclamations will have their ESTA canceled. 
 

So no cruises for Europeans that start or finish in US waters until those restrictions are removed.

[Guerncruising]

There is another aspect to this, why should I travel to a country and catch it and then come home without showing symptoms? Is that considered a selfish act?

 

We, in Guernsey, will be allowed to travel to the Isle of Man and there will be no restrictions. This is because they too have had no new cases now for 30+ days whilst we are at almost 60 days. I cannot travel to Jersey because they continue to have 3 - 6 cases, and all over the last few weeks have been asymptomatic. 

 

Ah well, just have to wait a while until it’s safe to cruise. 

[pappy1022]

7 hours ago, giustot said:

What evidence do you have to question the validity of the information reported by the New York Times?

Why do you think that if the information was true it would have been reported first on Cruise Critic as opposed to by the New York Times?

For some, if it doesn't agree with their opinion, it can't be true. Personally, I am not a big fan of the NY Times. I'm not saying that this article is true or false but as far as COVID-19 is concerned, we have seen a lot of bad information coming from the news media and quite frankly some of the world agencies that a trying to guide us through this pandemic. 

[Travelcat2]

7 hours ago, lprp said:

The UK Government currently advises non essential international travel. One of the repercussions of which is voiding travel insurance unless you have agreed otherwise with the insurance company, another is the requirement to self-quarantine for 14 days on returning to the UK.

This is likely to change in the next week or so, but, IF media  reports are true, may only be to a select few countries, where the virus spread is less prevalent. There is a (Media) reported traffic light system, where Green means good to go & not quarantine, Amber means ok to go BUT advice may change if conditions worsen, Red means 14 day quarantine on returning required and, presumably, insurance restrictions still apply. At this time USA is (Media) reported to be in the Red zone. 

 

I started a thread about this topic and was reminded that it only pertained to ships that were repatriating crew members.  Still, to see green for Regent is a good thing.  Having a similar system for cruise ships sailing in the future may also be a good thing.

 

In terms of the media, as I have mentioned in the past, I do not believe most of what I read (whether I agree with it or not).  Even when articles that come out that appear to be “fact” (thinking about you should not wear masks - stated in March and now everyone needs to wear masks), later we find out that it wasn’t true after all.  

 

As I also mentioned previously, I more or less treat the news the same way I take reviews on TripAdvisor.  If I read the same thing from several sources, I tend to believe it.  On the other hand, TripAdvisor tends to be more accurate than most news sources lately.  

[greykitty]

As of June 17, per this report, Regent has three provisionally green ships in connection with repatriation.  Only one ship in US waters is 'green', so Regent is in good company.

 

Again, this has no direct relevance to passenger sailings and submission/review/approval of plans for those sailings to the CDC.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/cdc-posts-color-coded-status-allowing-cruise-ship-crew-transit-us

 

Of the 39 other cruise ships in US waters, 36 were 'provisionally green,' meaning they've met the health surveillance criteria but one or more of these steps aren't completed: review and revision of the response plan, line's signed acknowledgment of a complete and accurate plan or submission of a signed attestation for crew to travel commercially.

[Steve Q]

Not sure if there is a paywall for this article. RCL and NCL have enlisted an outside team to assist with enhancing their protocols. The team includes former HHS director Michael Leavitt and Dr Scott Gottlieb. One interesting quote from the article is:

 

“However, Gottlieb believes that even without a vaccine, the cruise operators can resume business with the proper protocols in place.

He says “it’s possible to create a protective bubble around the cruise experience,” adding, “It’s a controlled environment and it becomes a question of what are you capable of doing, what are you willing to do, and is there still a residual experience there that’s attractive to consumers. But it is an environment that we can control.”

He said, however, that “you are never going to have a zero-risk environment.”

 

“What we are trying to solve for is sharply reducing the risk of introducing a case onto the ship and sharply reducing the risk that if there is a case introduced onto the ship,” an outbreak is avoided.”

 

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/royal-caribbean-norwegian-cruise-line-enlist-health-experts-to-shape-safety-protocols-for-cruising-in-the-pandemic-era-51594047836?mod=mw_latestnews

[Got2Cruise]

How can a cruise be considered a “controlled environment” if you get off the ship at ports? Better off stating the risks such as what are the protocols if anyone onboard, pax or crew become ill and let us make an informed decision. 

[SedonaJoel]

I totally agree.  Also what about crew that boards the ship at almost any port in the world?  What about passengers that do their own excursions or visit relatives at various ports?  What about passengers that totally disregard the rules (masks, social distancing, staying off excursions when they are ill)?

[mrlevin]

21 minutes ago, SedonaJoel said:

I totally agree.  Also what about crew that boards the ship at almost any port in the world?  What about passengers that do their own excursions or visit relatives at various ports?  What about passengers that totally disregard the rules (masks, social distancing, staying off excursions when they are ill)?

 

What about getting in an accident while being driven to the pier?  What about being mugged in Barcelona day before boarding?  What about getting hit by lightning while golfing during an excursion?  What about  . . 

 

Life is not a risk free experience.  The one thing that is certain when we are born is that we will die (at some point in the future).

 

Marc

Edited July 6, 2020 by mrlevin

[SedonaJoel]

I'm referring to the precautions outlined for Covid 19 that the ships brag they have covered,  which I feel that they do not.  We've been on 80+ cruises and we've seen how the medical staffs respond to disease on-board and most times it's not great. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by SedonaJoel

[Kwaj girl]

12 minutes ago, SedonaJoel said:

I'm referring to the precautions outlined for Covid 19 that the ships brag they have covered,  which I feel that they do not.  We've been on 80+ cruises and we've seen how the medical staffs respond to disease on-board and most times it's not great. 

 

What did you see that was not up to snuff?

[Travelcat2]

I am also curious to  know what you saw (on Regent in particular) that made you feel that the medical staff did not respond well to diseases onboard?  We have been on Regent a few times when there were gastrointestinal issues amongst some passengers and it was handled quite well.

 

IMO, the sanitation procedures onboard Regent when they resume cruising will be different than anything that has been seen in the past.  I have seen 24/7 cleaning of the ships - constant cleaning of the handrails and elevator buttons, etc.  However, the new protocols will be even more strict and I read somewhere that there would be additional medical personnel onboard (at least until Covid-19 is controlled).  

[UUNetBill]

52 minutes ago, SedonaJoel said:

I'm referring to the precautions outlined for Covid 19 that the ships brag they have covered,  which I feel that they do not.  We've been on 80+ cruises and we've seen how the medical staffs respond to disease on-board and most times it's not great. 

Honestly, I think it's more an issue of the passengers than the medical staff.  The only issue I've seen on my (admittedly limited) cruises was on Cunard when they had the beginnings of a Noro outbreak, they quarantined one family who kept breaking their quarantine - we heard them being paged ship-wide on several occasions.  Apparently they felt that "we paid for this cruise, we're going to enjoy it" - so instead of a 72-hour in-cabin quarantine, they got put ashore in Aruba, I believe, where they were immediately placed in quarantine by the local authorities (7 or 14 day, I'm not sure which) and then they had to make their own way home. 

 

Karma, you make me smile.

[pappy1022]

2 hours ago, mrlevin said:

 

What about getting in an accident while being driven to the pier?  What about being mugged in Barcelona day before boarding?  What about getting hit by lightning while golfing during an excursion?  What about  . . 

 

Life is not a risk free experience.  The one thing that is certain when we are born is that we will die (at some point in the future).

 

Marc

Marc, it's true that we face risks all of the time even in the simplest of tasks. When a person assesses risk there are 3 major components: (1) what is the likelihood of that event occurring; (2) what is the impact of that risk if it happens and (3) what can I do to mitigate that risk. These can be very subjective in nature. As far as COVID and cruising, my assessment is that there is a  high probability of coming in contact with someone who has COVID on either the ship, on the airplane, hotel or in port, at least in the near term. The possible impact is serious medical issues since I am in the vulnerable group and maybe getting stuck in a hospital away from home. Given my personal risk assessment, I choose not to cruise until there is some mitigation to COVID, either with a vaccine, it goes away like SARS or it is proven safe to cruise and to travel to my destinations of choice. I understand and respect that your risk assessment may be different. 

[mrlevin]

Pappy, I wish everyone would treat this as methodically and personally as you; I was a former risk manager and it is amusing what garbage input does to the output.

 

Marc