COVID PCR testing

[rjrice1]

Missing cruising a lot.  Do feel more and more will be canceled.

Was wondering if cruise lines are going to "encourage" everyone to get a 

covid test 72 hrs prior to cruising or having them do it to 

all screening prior to boarding.  (even children over 2 yrs old)

If so will they add this to the cost of cruising.  

I would not mind getting one, I do get a test weekly for my job.

[Butterbean1000]

Testing for Covid is an invasive process.  I would never subject myself to this to cruise. I had some minor surgery last week.  I had the choice of anesthesia or sedation.  The doctor advised I go with sedation. If I had opted for anesthesia, I would have to undergo a COVID test.  In his words, he advised against it as they literally tickle your brain in order to get a sample. He said only those showing symptoms or have come in extremely close contact with an actively sick person should get tested. 

[TNcruising02]

I wouldn't mind testing for Covid at all before cruising.  Same as a requirement for proof of vaccination.  Not a problem for me.

[Don Kehote]

I will just show my pratique flag and be admitted.

[Radiioman46]

Actually there are tests that is about as simple as testing your blood, and results are under 30 minutes.

 

If getting the virus is so easy from our breathing, then why do they have to stick the swab all the way to the back of the brain to find a virus or not?

 

Some mysteries. 

[coevan]

1 hour ago, Butterbean1000 said:

Testing for Covid is an invasive process.

 

 

Appears they are veering away from the nasals swab and are now going with the faster saliva test, not invasive at all

[Butterbean1000]

13 minutes ago, coevan said:

 

 

Appears they are veering away from the nasals swab and are now going with the faster saliva test, not invasive at all

I always wondered why they say masks were so effective when they have to invade your sinuses so deeply to get a reading.   They should be able to just test your face mask.

[TNcruising02]

31 minutes ago, Radiioman46 said:

Actually there are tests that is about as simple as testing your blood, and results are under 30 minutes.

 

If getting the virus is so easy from our breathing, then why do they have to stick the swab all the way to the back of the brain to find a virus or not?

 

Some mysteries. 

Yeah, really.  If a person with no symptoms can spread the virus by their mere breathing, it seems like a breathalyzer test should work.

Edited August 18, 2020 by TNcruising02

[kitten816]

This is why we're not scientist or doctors...

[ober134]

2 hours ago, coevan said:

 

 

Appears they are veering away from the nasals swab and are now going with the faster saliva test, not invasive at all

Also not nearly as accurate

[crzndeb]

I wouldn’t rely on any tests...to many cases of false positives. I guess it might be worth it to those that don’t have to fly to a port and get a hotel the night before, and the cruise line will reimburse 100% if you test positive. For me, nope, cruising isn’t that important to me.

[beachbum53]

5 hours ago, rjrice1 said:

Missing cruising a lot.  Do feel more and more will be canceled.

Was wondering if cruise lines are going to "encourage" everyone to get a 

covid test 72 hrs prior to cruising or having them do it to 

all screening prior to boarding.  (even children over 2 yrs old)

If so will they add this to the cost of cruising.  

I would not mind getting one, I do get a test weekly for my job.

 

Screening passengers before boarding on Embarkation Day would not be very practical. If the average cruise has approximately 3,000 guests, and everyone gets tested prior to boarding, that could easily delay departure for a few hours. There isn't enough seating in the cruise terminals for everyone or enough space to allow for social distancing inside. It would be better (if it's required) for everyone to be tested a few days before their cruise.  

[Tapi]

1 minute ago, beachbum53 said:

Screening passengers before boarding on Embarkation Day would not be very practical.  

MSC just started sailing this week in the Mediterranean using their largest ship, MSC Grandiosa. They purchased 15 machines, each capable of processing 70 COVID tests per hour, so they were able to process the 1,500 passengers that boarded in a Genoa in less than 2 hours. I don’t think it’s far fetched to think that, between now and the time when cruising actually begins in the USA, the technology to quickly process thousands of passengers will also be available on this side of the Atlantic. 
 

If MSC’s procedures and protocols prove successful, and no infections occur, hopefully that will pave the way for other cruise lines to restart as well in a not too distant future. 

[coevan]

52 minutes ago, ober134 said:

Also not nearly as accurate

 

 

Yes, it is, at first they were not sure, now they are saying the saliva test is just as effective 

[SelectSys]

5 hours ago, Butterbean1000 said:

Testing for Covid is an invasive process...

 

Maybe right now, but it looks like Yale has created something much easier and simpler to administer.  We'll see if production scales up.

 

https://news.yale.edu/2020/08/15/yales-rapid-covid-19-saliva-test-receives-fda-emergency-use-authorization

 

Development of SalivaDirect as a means of rapidly expanding SARS-CoV-2 testing was spearheaded this spring by Nathan Grubaugh and Anne Wyllie, assistant professor and associate research scientist, respectively, at Yale School of Public Health. After finding saliva to be a promising sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection, they wanted to improve the method further. 

 

“With saliva being quick and easy to collect, we realized it could be a game-changer in COVID-19 diagnostics,” said Wyllie. With testing urgently needed, the Yale team was determined to decrease both testing times and costs, to make testing widely accessible.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, beachbum53 said:

 

... It would be better (if it's required) for everyone to be tested a few days before their cruise.  

And that would only mean that they were not infected as of a few days before the cruise — ignoring what contacts they may have had during those few days - including while traveling to the port.

[beachbum53]

2 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

And that would only mean that they were not infected as of a few days before the cruise — ignoring what contacts they may have had during those few days - including while traveling to the port.

 

Well then, maybe the best solution is for no one to book a cruise for the next 12 months. With any luck, there will be an effective vaccination by next July or August, and those who wish to do so can get vaccinated prior to going on a cruise, and no testing will be required. 

[mom says]

41 minutes ago, beachbum53 said:

 

Well then, maybe the best solution is for no one to book a cruise for the next 12 months. With any luck, there will be an effective vaccination by next July or August, and those who wish to do so can get vaccinated prior to going on a cruise, and no testing will be required. 

However that will only work if the vaccine is 100% effective- something that is highly unlikely. And then there is the situation with those who, for medical reasons, cannot receive the vaccine. In their case, a negative COVID test would be their only option.

[beachbum53]

13 minutes ago, mom says said:

However that will only work if the vaccine is 100% effective- something that is highly unlikely. And then there is the situation with those who, for medical reasons, cannot receive the vaccine. In their case, a negative COVID test would be their only option.

At some point within the next few months, either with or without a vaccine, each individual will have to decide whether or not to take a chance to go somewhere on a vacation, especially a cruise. Some will say "What if I contract norovirus?" or "What if I contract Covid 19?" Others will say "What if I don't?" We all can't live in a bubble forever. 

[chipmaster]

6 hours ago, Radiioman46 said:

Actually there are tests that is about as simple as testing your blood, and results are under 30 minutes.

 

If getting the virus is so easy from our breathing, then why do they have to stick the swab all the way to the back of the brain to find a virus or not?

 

Some mysteries. 

 

Blood test for antibodies and not for active infection, mystery solved.

 

[chipmaster]

9 hours ago, rjrice1 said:

Missing cruising a lot.  Do feel more and more will be canceled.

Was wondering if cruise lines are going to "encourage" everyone to get a 

covid test 72 hrs prior to cruising or having them do it to 

all screening prior to boarding.  (even children over 2 yrs old)

If so will they add this to the cost of cruising.  

I would not mind getting one, I do get a test weekly for my job.

 

A test within 72 hours doesn't do squat if you are virus free at home, but then travel and while sitting at the airport lounge or in the airplane catch it, then you got 3 day to weeks slow incubation while you can be a spreader sometime during that.  What's the good of pretest?

[chipmaster]

3 hours ago, beachbum53 said:

 

Screening passengers before boarding on Embarkation Day would not be very practical. If the average cruise has approximately 3,000 guests, and everyone gets tested prior to boarding, that could easily delay departure for a few hours. There isn't enough seating in the cruise terminals for everyone or enough space to allow for social distancing inside. It would be better (if it's required) for everyone to be tested a few days before their cruise.  

 

As I noted, how do you prevent the bug that hitched a ride by transferring to one of the 3000 guest, you only need what 1-3

[BlueRiband]

Rapid testing is useful for airline trips because the duration is measured in hours then everyone is off the plane.  Cruises last days or weeks. 

 

Assume the logistics are worked out and everybody in the cruise terminal prior to boarding is negative.  Anybody who picked up the virus on their way to the terminal cannot be detected yet.  Three days and two ports later somebody is positive - where did it come from?  Does everyone on the tour buses get disembarked and sent into some foreign quarantine?  Ditto for their cabin steward? 

 

Somebody in the terminal tests positive and they are denied boarding.  Do they lose 100% or their fare?  How do they get home if they cannot fly back because they are now known as positive?  Where do they go into quarantine?  How much will that cost?

[sanger727]

The OPs question was ‘will they do this’ and the answer is yes. Most likely it will be a rapid test at embarkation. MSC recently restarted cruising and that is exactly what they are doing. Uniworld tried to restart in Alaska and had to turn the ship around because a couple days into the trip they had a passenger who was tested in Alaska cone back positive. They blamed the fact that they had to cancel the cruise on the fact that they didn’t do rapid testing. Not to mention that many countries currently require a negative Covid test to enter so I am sure the islands that the ship will dock at will want the passengers to be tested. 
 

Now, do I think it will be effective and would I do it is an entirely different question. Will it ensure a Covid free cruise? No, you can certainly pick the virus up and test negative, especially if you just caught it. Is it bettter than nothing? Probably. Would I do it? No. I live 12-15 hours from a cruise port. I always fly. If I tested positive at embarkation I assume that I could not board and that I also couldn’t board a flight home. I’m not willing to quarantine for two weeks in a hotel to be stuck in a room eating room service the whole time. If I could drive to the port, I would consider it because then I could quarantine at home.

[bigrednole]

72 hours before hand is an absolute waste of time. First, the current test has enough issues and turn around time that it is pointless. Second, the facilities that examine the tests have a strong financial interest in every positive result. There are rapid test, far faster than the NBA test developed by Yale. These are complete in seconds with handheld devices similar to glucomitors. Results are 80% accurate and provide results in about 11s. They already meet all of the FDA EUA requirements but they are not being approved. That leads to the question of why is the Food and Drug Administration not approving rapid tests that are more accurate than the current labs and provide results in seconds? I am not a great conspiracy theorist, but there are $Ts of dollars riding on being the company that creates the vaccine. Think about it. $1.5B US taxpayer dollars was given to Moderna to develop a vaccine. Moderna has the gall to tell the people that paid for the research that they will turn around and charge use for it? 

 

$60 x 300,000,000 (people in the US alone) x 2 (the number of vaccinations needed per year most likely) = $36B 

All of this from a potential vaccine that you will need to retake like the flu shot from money the taxpayers provided. If you don't think Big Pharma is in the back pockets of politicians here, you need to rethink the whole mess.