Fine Print on Waiving of Negative Test

[garyc20]

Got this for our upcoming La Havre to New York cruise from Oceania... I guess getting a negative test within 72 Hours is good insurance.

 

While testing is no longer required, as a general rule, Oceania Cruises strongly recommends you obtain a PCR test not more than 72 hours prior to embarkation. If a PCR test is not readily available, then we encourage guests to at a minimum take a laboratory administered COVID-19 antigen test not more than 72 hours prior to embarkation.

 

Guests that fail to test prior to departure or cannot provide proof of a negative laboratory supplied test result and subsequently test positive for COVID- 19 upon embarkation will not be reimbursed for quarantine or return embarkation arrangements.

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

17 minutes ago, garyc20 said:

Got this for our upcoming La Havre to New York cruise from Oceania... I guess getting a negative test within 72 Hours is good insurance.

 

While testing is no longer required, as a general rule, Oceania Cruises strongly recommends you obtain a PCR test not more than 72 hours prior to embarkation. If a PCR test is not readily available, then we encourage guests to at a minimum take a laboratory administered COVID-19 antigen test not more than 72 hours prior to embarkation.

 

Guests that fail to test prior to departure or cannot provide proof of a negative laboratory supplied test result and subsequently test positive for COVID- 19 upon embarkation will not be reimbursed for quarantine or return embarkation arrangements.

 

This has long been the case in the SailSafe FAQs. The “recommended” pre-test prior to any required embarkation test is actually required if you want to protect your investment. Testing negative pre-cruise gets your Covid related costs covered if you test positive at embarkation. Testing positive pre-cruise qualifies you for a full refund at a time when cancelling would’ve carried a 100% fare penalty.

[LHT28]

Hasn't been that way  for  a long time??

[1985rz1]

58 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Hasn't been that way  for  a long time??

yes

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 hour ago, LHT28 said:

Hasn't been that way  for  a long time??

The full FAQs statement about the effect of passengers not doing the pre test recommendation appeared in conjunction with the required pier testing at O’s expense (back at the beginning of the O cruising restart in autumn 2021). 

It said that if you didn’t have that negative test proof and you then tested positive at the pier, you would be SOL for cost of quarantine in the embark city and for air cost to get home (beyond what your own insurance would pay)

That was still the deal when we started back in January 2022 - pier test required. Pre-test recommended but, in essence, it was really your choosing whether or not you wanted that possible O coverage for positive pier results..

BTW: there was a ton of threads discussing this here around that time because of changing Covid restrictions. 

[readytogo54321]

2 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

The full FAQs statement about the effect of passengers not doing the pre test recommendation appeared in conjunction with the required pier testing at O’s expense (back at the beginning of the O cruising restart in autumn 2021). 

It said that if you didn’t have that negative test proof and you then tested positive at the pier, you would be SOL for cost of quarantine in the embark city and for air cost to get home (beyond what your own insurance would pay)

That was still the deal when we started back in January 2022 - pier test required. Pre-test recommended but, in essence, it was really your choosing whether or not you wanted that possible O coverage for positive pier results..

BTW: there was a ton of threads discussing this here around that time because of changing Covid restrictions. 

The SailSafe Program continues to evolve. Later in 2022 pre-tests was no longer required for many cruises where the country of embarkation does not require testing. Oceania was still recommending pre-testing even though not required. The consequences for not pre-testing were dropped from the SailSafe Program FAQ's. Now the consequences are back and pre-testing is required to be reimbursed for quarantine and "return embarkation arrangements" (whatever that means). And the pre-tests need to be officially documented. 

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 hour ago, readytogo54321 said:

The SailSafe Program continues to evolve. Later in 2022 pre-tests was no longer required for many cruises where the country of embarkation does not require testing. Oceania was still recommending pre-testing even though not required. The consequences for not pre-testing were dropped from the SailSafe Program FAQ's. Now the consequences are back and pre-testing is required to be reimbursed for quarantine and "return embarkation arrangements" (whatever that means). And the pre-tests need to be officially documented. 

The “consequences” never left. If you read the continuing saga of the FAQs, you’ll realize that they’re full of contradictions from one version to another - even to the point of self-contradiction.

 

The safe bet has always been to have proof of “negative” before you got to the embarkation port so that there’s never be a question of O’s cost coverage or “positive” to get you a 100% refund despite the full penalty period.

As I’v said many times here: Sadly, stuff that goes out under Carlos Ortega’s name often appears to have been “cut and paste”‘with no proof reading.

[MEFIowa]

Though for those cruises where O is NOT requiring pre-embarkation testing, when are they doing "embarkation" or "post-embarkation testing"? Anyone could get COVID while on the ship or during an excursion. AND if someone comes down with it, they may be asymptomatic or with minor symptoms only, in which case they'd never ask nor want to be tested by O.

 

Where does O say when they will conduct the testing of passengers either at or after embarkation? Or at disembarkation?

 

-----------

"Guests that fail to test prior to departure or cannot provide proof of a negative laboratory supplied test result and subsequently test positive for COVID- 19 upon embarkation will not be reimbursed for quarantine or return embarkation arrangements."

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 minute ago, MEFIowa said:

Though for those cruises where O is NOT requiring pre-embarkation testing, when are they doing "embarkation" or "post-embarkation testing"? Anyone could get COVID while on the ship or during an excursion. AND if someone comes down with it, they may be asymptomatic or with minor symptoms only, in which case they'd never ask nor want to be tested by O.

 

Where does O say when they will conduct the testing of passengers either at or after embarkation? Or at disembarkation?

 

-----------

"Guests that fail to test prior to departure or cannot provide proof of a negative laboratory supplied test result and subsequently test positive for COVID- 19 upon embarkation will not be reimbursed for quarantine or return embarkation arrangements."

I seem to remember that NCLH was going to dump embarkation testing in certain countries/regions starting this month (though still requiring proof of approved/required vaccination).

If true, this is nothing less than STUPID for all of the obvious public health reasons. And it would be a safe bet that, just like at the beginning of 2022, decisions to “lighten up” on ship’s Covid restrictions/testing requirements will eventually be reversed. 

We’ll join Marina in October and will, of course, get, at least, Antigen tests within 72 hrs of embark (also being pre-flight SFO-FRA-BCN).

 

BTW: Isn’t it interesting that, at least, O still requires all crew to be masked but not passengers? The marketing ploy suggests that  it protects the passengers when, in fact, what it does is to protect the crew. IMO, it is so discourteous for passengers not to return the gesture by also wearing masks to improve the protection of all onboard.
 

[jjeffjb]

21 hours ago, garyc20 said:

Got this for our upcoming La Havre to New York cruise from Oceania... I guess getting a negative test within 72 Hours is good insurance.

 

While testing is no longer required, as a general rule, Oceania Cruises strongly recommends you obtain a PCR test not more than 72 hours prior to embarkation. If a PCR test is not readily available, then we encourage guests to at a minimum take a laboratory administered COVID-19 antigen test not more than 72 hours prior to embarkation.

 

Guests that fail to test prior to departure or cannot provide proof of a negative laboratory supplied test result and subsequently test positive for COVID- 19 upon embarkation will not be reimbursed for quarantine or return embarkation arrangements.

 

The confusion here is that passengers will not be tested pier-side because this cruise departs from France and France does not require a test upon embarkation.  So, if you are not being tested pier-side, there is no risk of testing positive.

[Flatbush Flyer]

Just now, jjeffjb said:

  So, if you are not being tested pier-side, there is no risk of testing positive.

Unclear on the concept of protecting public health?

[jjeffjb]

3 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Unclear on the concept of protecting public health?

I am on the cruise that the O.P. is referencing. My preference would be that everyone be required to present a negative test result and be tested upon embarkation.  But, that is not current O policy.

[Flatbush Flyer]

13 minutes ago, jjeffjb said:

I am on the cruise that the O.P. is referencing. My preference would be that everyone be required to present a negative test result and be tested upon embarkation.  But, that is not current O policy.

If there were only many more who did the same as you (and me).

[MEFIowa]

23 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Unclear on the concept of protecting public health?

Though where is the science? So, you test 72 hours in advance and get it on the plane down. But that test says you're negative. And on a cruise with 6 port disembarkations, does O do 6 return tests? But you could get it at any or all of the ports on your excursions.

 

The "science" is DON'T cruise if your doctor tells you that COVID will likely cause you serious health issue. If you're older or have pre-existing conditions or risk factors. COVID is now endemic and a very low health risk for those who don't meet the risk criteria.

 

When I flew from Chicago to Paraguay and back in April and May 2022 the entire system was a JOKE. All the paperwork that few looked at. Forms that were never looked at or looked at people who didn't have anything to do with them. Airports and planes filled with passengers who didn't have to test in the USA to fly. Etc. But once again, those who can travel safely versus those who shouldn't travel because it isn't safe for them. Specific to each individual.

[khuselid]

Ok...don't shoot the messenger here. My O connected TA talked to the person who writes the FCC's for those who get sick while on an O ship. He said that if they are no longer requiring testing the clause that state one's won't be reimbursed, if not tested, no longer applies. It was a cut and paste document and that was a leftover from a prior policy.

 

The bottom line being that if you bring a negative test with you Oceania won't care and it doesn't make any difference. Think about it. If they aren't requiring negative tests from everyone then one could get covid from a fellow passenger who brought it with them....and O is willing to accept that risk. 

 

So, test for your own peace of mind, if you like, but it won't matter one way or another to O. You wouldn't be able to prove where you got it anyway. I got it in June and it was sick 3 days before I tested positive. Weird virus.

[MEFIowa]

14 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

If there were only many more who did the same as you (and me).

And what was sickening about the waste of time and money testing to go down and back in April and May 2022 was that...

 

1. An American flies from USA to Brazil, no testing required.

2. A Paraguayan flies from Brazil to Paraguay, no testing required.

3. An American flies from USA to Paraguay thru Brazil? Has to be tested.

 

Where is the science in that? The entire MERCUSOR block eliminated testing for travel between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But only for their citizens. As if COVID knows to avoid them and only gets foreigners sick? Cost me $118 for the two tests. As I flew on planes filled with people who never tested!

[Flatbush Flyer]

8 hours ago, MEFIowa said:

And what was sickening about the waste of time and money testing to go down and back in April and May 2022 was that...

 

1. An American flies from USA to Brazil, no testing required.

2. A Paraguayan flies from Brazil to Paraguay, no testing required.

3. An American flies from USA to Paraguay thru Brazil? Has to be tested.

 

Where is the science in that? The entire MERCUSOR block eliminated testing for travel between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But only for their citizens. As if COVID knows to avoid them and only gets foreigners sick? Cost me $118 for the two tests. As I flew on planes filled with people who never tested!

All irrelevant to the simple fact that, if cruise line pre-tests or pier tests stop even one infected person from boarding, the possibility of that transmission once onboard has been eliminated.

$118 is chump change when it comes to protecting the public health.

[osandomir]

1 hour ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

All irrelevant to the simple fact that, if cruise line pre-tests or pier tests stop even one infected person from boarding, the possibility of that transmission once onboard has been eliminated.

$118 is chump change when it comes to protecting the public health.

You continue to post your reasons again and again, and you obviously don’t want to admit that most people who book the crises or any other vacations now days want to continue with their plans if they don’t feel sick even when they may be tested positive for COVID or any other virus if that matters. Nobody is looking to find themselves in the foreign country far from home with nowhere to go.

 

It was mentioned before that the ones in the risk group may want to reconsider their travel plans. We traveled a lot on the cruises and the land trips and many times were infected with the viruses by the fellow cruisers on board  before the COVID. It didn’t prevent us from traveling and we were willing to take the risk.

[Flatbush Flyer]

39 minutes ago, osandomir said:

You continue to post your reasons again and again, and you obviously don’t want to admit that most people who book the crises or any other vacations now days want to continue with their plans if they don’t feel sick even when they may be tested positive for COVID or any other virus if that matters. Nobody is looking to find themselves in the foreign country far from home with nowhere to go.

 

It was mentioned before that the ones in the risk group may want to reconsider their travel plans. We traveled a lot on the cruises and the land trips and many times were infected with the viruses by the fellow cruisers on board  before the COVID. It didn’t prevent us from traveling and we were willing to take the risk.

They’re not “my” reasons. They are common sense backed with science. And, you have no idea what the breakdown is for test and mask preference on Oceania.  

 

What is clear is that O has already on several occasions lightened Covid requirements only to reintroduce them when the onboard cases increase. Also, let’s not forget that the strictest restrictions still apply for crew who find themselves constantly bombarded by the uncaring folks you mentioned who are science deniers and, worse, without any concern for the health of the crew that serve them.

 

As for who should stay home? It certainly is people who we often find saying “we’re willing to take the risk.” What an uncaring and selfish attitude- it basically translates to “i don’t mind if I get Covid AND I could care less if I infect someone else.”

 

Step back and see the bigger/less selfish picture. If you can’t do the proven things that limit/slow transmission, YOU really should look at recreational opportunities other than cruising.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Flatbush Flyer

[osandomir]

54 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

 

Step back and see the bigger/less selfish picture. If you can’t do the proven things that limit/slow transmission, YOU really should look at recreational opportunities other than cruising.

 

I don’t argue with you what picture is selfish. I should mention from the start that I agree you have all your rights to stand up for your point of view. Just don’t forget that other people may have a different opinion. It’s your choice. I never told that YOU have to stop cruising, and I don’t understand why you believe that you can tell us to look elsewhere

[Flatbush Flyer]

19 minutes ago, osandomir said:

I don’t argue with you what picture is selfish. I should mention from the start that I agree you have all your rights to stand up for your point of view. Just don’t forget that other people may have a different opinion. It’s your choice. I never told that YOU have to stop cruising, and I don’t understand why you believe that you can tell us to look elsewhere

You may want to reread your own posts where you make unsubstantiated statements about “most people” and then clearly say those with Covid concerns may want to “look elsewhere.”

 

What part do you not understand about those people who mask and test being the better protectors (overall) of public health in a cruising environment?

 

The real clincher about the dangerousness of your position is summed up in your statement about your apparent support for those who “want to continue with their plans if they don’t feel sick even when they may be tested positive.” 

I think you’d find that many here (regardless of their pro/con tests/masks) would find that attitude to be beyond selfish.

[MEFIowa]

11 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

All irrelevant to the simple fact that, if cruise line pre-tests or pier tests stop even one infected person from boarding, the possibility of that transmission once onboard has been eliminated.

$118 is chump change when it comes to protecting the public health.

Really a standard of "stopping even one infected person from boarding"? How come that is only now for COVID which is endemic and far from life-threatening for the vast majority of people, esp. those vaccinated/boosted and without risk factors? We are all vaccinated and boosted. We know our health situations. We talk to our doctors. The SCIENCE would say, "Do not cruise if you have significant risk factors."

 

You want more PRETEND, theatrical, feel-good activity. BUT what would the SCIENCE say with your standard?

 

- Why NOT PCR test only (the more reliable one) and no more than 24 hours before boarding? Reduces false positives and negatives. Actually tries to stop last-minute infections pre-boarding.

- Why not mandatory testing POST-excursion for EVERY excursion? If you leave the boat and come back, you have to be tested? If you want pre-embarkation testing at the start, why do YOU stop the testing each time people then disembark and reembark in all the ports?

 

But you wouldn't want to do the things that would actually get more to a "zero" standard, that mythical always one more infected person stopped. As opposed to "let's all look like we're doing something no matter the waste of time or money". COVID is now endemic and the vaccines won't stop the spread. Get over it.

[ToxM]

A small moment of panic from me yesterday reading this as I miscalculated my arrival time with my leaving time for my cruise on Riviera over Xmas. There appears to be a dearth of testing facilities in the downtown miami area for testing - the port has a testing facility - but results take 24 hours!

 

We leave with just one overnight in Miami so can test at the airport in the UK. When I did my Sirena TA in March we could have done a LFT or a PCR … interesting they have gone back to PCR only. 

 

Whilst I hope it all changes by December due to less prevalence of covid, we have been warned to expect a big wave in the autumn/winter here… 

[ORV]

1 hour ago, ToxM said:

interesting they have gone back to PCR only. 

I missed that, where is that info? 

[Flatbush Flyer]

2 hours ago, MEFIowa said:

.... far from life-threatening for the vast majority of people, esp. those vaccinated/boosted and without risk factors? 

Typically sophomoric arguments.

Take some time to learn and understand the building evidence for long term implications of Covid. Now it’s not only life-threatening, it’s also “quality of life” threatening.

As for “get over it”: stop whining about the simple acts of take a test and wear a mask.