Royal Caribbean drops testing for 10 days or shorter

[Uncwmark]

Question for those who have experience having their kids tested at the port... do they administer the test (aka. do they swab you) or do you self-administer the test on your kids? Sailing on Dream out of Port Miami and was just wondering so I could prepare my daughter (she hates being swabbed, but will tolerate if my wife or I do it versus someone she doesnt know). THanks!

 

[braysmommy]

Question for those who have experience having their kids tested at the port... do they administer the test (aka. do they swab you) or do you self-administer the test on your kids? Sailing on Dream out of Port Miami and was just wondering so I could prepare my daughter (she hates being swabbed, but will tolerate if my wife or I do it versus someone she doesnt know). THanks!

Self administered.

 

[Jsoenning]

10% of families that reported back on our July Liberty of the Seas Facebook group (out of 440+ families) reported back one or more guests testing positive for COVID after returning home from the cruise. That was with pre-testing required. They had just made the change where the government no longer covers the cost unless you have symptoms so for the 4 of us it cost us $128 / person to do the test (Walgreens rapid test). Felt like it was money flushed down the toilet.

 

[Where’s the beef]

Part of the issue is they switched to antigen tests 2 days before the cruise vs PCR right before boarding. With the current variants, people aren't always showing a positive early in their illness, plus people could pick it up in the 2 days after testing, and you have those 90 day recovery letters where someone could have caught Covid again and didn't need to test. Testing is no longer keeping Covid off the ships--just look at how many people report that they tested positive after getting off the ships or came down with it on their cruise.

Sure, it’s certainly not foolproof. But the more cases that can be caught before boarding, the better. I don’t see what it hurts (other then feelings, apparently).

 

[DCLMP]

Sorry I don't buy it, DCL is not that unique. This is how they have been about everything covid restriction easing.

I wonder what they think is unique about DCL.

 

[BamaGuy44]

Sure, it’s certainly not foolproof. But the more cases that can be caught before boarding, the better. I don’t see what it hurts (other then feelings, apparently).

Lots of things could theoretically reduce cases. Masks, eliminating the theater shows, making people test every day while on board, personal hazmat suits with air filtration, etc.

Obviously exaggerating to make a point. Which is you could always be doing something more to make it some amount safer, but you reach a point where the cost and inconvenience outweigh the benefits. Just the fact that it would reduce cases by some amount doesn’t automatically justify it, IMO. The cruising market overall has decided we’ve reached that point.

If our cars were built with roll cages and 4 point harnesses, and we all wore helmets and fire suits like a race car driver, traffic deaths would be all but eliminated. But we decide to accept the risk of not doing those things, because of cost and inconvenience. We make dozens of these risk assessments every day without even realizing it.

 

[Kwami]

If our cars were built with roll cages and 4 point harnesses, and we all wore helmets and fire suits like a race car driver, traffic deaths would be all but eliminated. But we decide to accept the risk of not doing those things, because of cost and inconvenience. We make dozens of these risk assessments every day without even realizing it.

Well, but we actually do wear 3-point harnesses, many cars do have roll cages or other frame enhancements, and we've been mandating all kinds of other new safety features for cars that increase the cost, but also reduce injury and death. Backup cameras and automatic braking come to mind. So, there's a large space between "do nothing" and "full hazmat suits for everyone", right?

 

[Jsoenning]

It hurts in costs. Insurances don't cover the cost either unless you lie and say you have symptoms. And as I stated everyone was required to be tested for our recent July cruise and 10% got COVID anyway (of 440+ families, at least as doubt everyone responded to the post cruise poll). So if it doesn't prevent COVID why go through the extra loops and personal cost?

 

[DCLForLife]

Well, but we actually do wear 3-point harnesses, many cars do have roll cages or other frame enhancements, and we've been mandating all kinds of other new safety features for cars that increase the cost, but also reduce injury and death. Backup cameras and automatic braking come to mind. So, there's a large space between "do nothing" and "full hazmat suits for everyone", right?

Exactly. Since we don't have hard data about how many people are denied boarding based on the tests (or data about cases onboard), the arguments are necessarily a little subjective.

That being said, testing seems like one mitigation where benefits clearly outweigh costs. The only people who are negatively affected in a tangible way are people who are trying to board a ship with an active case of COVID. That's the bottom line, but you rarely see anti-testing people trying to candidly defend getting on a ship with COVID.

You can do a proctored home test in 15 minutes for ~$20, which is not significant for anyone who can afford a Disney cruise. There's some minor stress/anxiety for some people wondering how the test will go, but that seems like a minor intangible cost compared to reducing COVID on the ship.

 

[DCLForLife]

It hurts in costs. Insurances don't cover the cost either unless you lie and say you have symptoms. And as I stated everyone was required to be tested for our recent July cruise and 10% got COVID anyway (of 440+ families, at least as doubt everyone responded to the post cruise poll). So if it doesn't prevent COVID why go through the extra loops and personal cost?

Given how contagious omicron is and the close quarters of a cruise ship, why do you conclude that testing didn't prevent the positivity from reaching 20-30%, or more? 10% is below the average positivity rate for testing in the US right now. Personally I'd look at that data and conclude that the pre-cruise testing was helping, even though it didn't prevent 100% of cases. Seatbelts don't prevent 100% of injuries in every car accident, but that doesn't mean they are pointless.

 

[Disneychick13]

Exactly. Since we don't have hard data about how many people are denied boarding based on the tests (or data about cases onboard), the arguments are necessarily a little subjective.

That being said, testing seems like one mitigation where benefits clearly outweigh costs. The only people who are negatively affected in a tangible way are people who are trying to board a ship with an active case of COVID. That's the bottom line, but you rarely see anti-testing people trying to candidly defend getting on a ship with COVID.

You can do a proctored home test in 15 minutes for ~$20, which is not significant for anyone who can afford a Disney cruise. There's some minor stress/anxiety for some people wondering how the test will go, but that seems like a minor intangible cost compared to reducing COVID on the ship.

There is a huge group of people that are negatively affected. Those people that aren’t vaccinated(as of next month 12 years and older) who might be perfectly happy to sail even if they had to take a pcr test at port. And if they had to do that, they would be the least likely on board the ship to actually have Covid. That’s a big part of the frustration with Disney right now.

 

[BamaGuy44]

Well, but we actually do wear 3-point harnesses, many cars do have roll cages or other frame enhancements, and we've been mandating all kinds of other new safety features for cars that increase the cost, but also reduce injury and death. Backup cameras and automatic braking come to mind. So, there's a large space between "do nothing" and "full hazmat suits for everyone", right?

Of course, there's always a middle ground. I'm just saying each safety measure needs to be evaluated rather than blindly saying "If it will reduce cases, we should do it. The fewer cases the better." If someone feels the benefits of testing right now for cruises outweigh the costs, I certainly can't dispute that with any facts, we all have our own risk tolerance level and opinions on how effective different measures could be.

 

[Where’s the beef]

There is a huge group of people that are negatively affected. Those people that aren’t vaccinated(as of next month 12 years and older) who might be perfectly happy to sail even if they had to take a pcr test at port. And if they had to do that, they would be the least likely on board the ship to actually have Covid. That’s a big part of the frustration with Disney right now.

Not following your logic. We’re talking about testing, not vaccines. And being unvaccinated means you’re least likely to have COVID? Not following that logic either.

 

[Disneychick13]

Not following your logic. We’re talking about testing, not vaccines. And being unvaccinated means you’re least likely to have COVID? Not following that logic either.

We are talking about policy as well. RCL and all the other major cruise lines are allowing unvaccinated people to board with testing. If you are unvaccinated and require PCR testing at the port you will be statistically less likely to have Covid than any person who is untested or is tested 2 or 3 days prior with an antigen test.

 

[DCLForLife]

There is a huge group of people that are negatively affected. Those people that aren’t vaccinated(as of next month 12 years and older) who might be perfectly happy to sail even if they had to take a pcr test at port. And if they had to do that, they would be the least likely on board the ship to actually have Covid. That’s a big part of the frustration with Disney right now.

I'd be fine with resuming on the dock testing for everyone. I don't think we need or want to change the subject to vaccine requirements in a testing thread; the bottom line remains that for testing, the only people who are negatively affected in a tangible way are people who want to be able to get on a cruise with an active case of COVID.

 

[Where’s the beef]

Of course, there's always a middle ground. I'm just saying each safety measure needs to be evaluated rather than blindly saying "If it will reduce cases, we should do it. The fewer cases the better." If someone feels the benefits of testing right now for cruises outweigh the costs, I certainly can't dispute that with any facts, we all have our own risk tolerance level and opinions on how effective different measures could be.

That’s part of the problem. Effectiveness isn’t an opinion, it will play out in numbers. Assuming people who feel sick after a cruise actually test and report positives…which is happening less and less everywhere else so why assume it will happen here?

Even the cdc, who is desperate to move on, says:

Testing within 1 day of embarkation is highly recommended.

 

[BamaGuy44]

That’s part of the problem. Effectiveness isn’t an opinion, it will play out in numbers. Assuming people who feel sick after a cruise actually test and report positives…which is happening less and less everywhere else so why assume it will happen here?

Even the cdc, who is desperate to move on, says:

Testing within 1 day of embarkation is highly recommended.

Did cases go up significantly when mask requirements went away? I honestly don't know, and I don't even know if there is accurate data to tell us. Could be, I haven't really looked. As you said, post cruise testing and reporting have been basically on the honor system. The CDC realize the ship has sailed (pun intended) on "follow the science" when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of any of these cruise protocols. Because without good data, there is no science.

BTW I'm not really arguing for testing or against. I'm fine if they keep it, fine if they don't.

 

[KashasMom]

So confused by the anti-test sentiment. Why is it so upsetting? Truly don’t get it. I guess we’re one of the rare families who sees this as the final nail in the coffin for cruising any time soon.

Because we have to have 2 tests in 3 days for our upcoming cruise. Ridiculous!

 

[DCLMP]

I'd be fine with resuming on the dock testing for everyone. I don't think we need or want to change the subject to vaccine requirements in a testing thread; the bottom line remains that for testing, the only people who are negatively affected in a tangible way are people who want to be able to get on a cruise with an active case of COVID.

It took us over 3 hours to board the ship in San Diego. No one wants to go back to a 2 hour plus boarding process. Showing up at the port at 1130 and not getting on the ship until 3 pm negatively affected my first day onboard and people still contracted Covid during the sailing.

 

[KashasMom]

I'm not confused, I'm disappointed. Disappointed that they are willing to put others at risk because they do not want to take a test. We had an RCCL cruise we had to postpone from last May until May 2023 due to issues with a family estate. With RCCL eliminating the testing I do not feel comfortable cruising with them. We have a B2B coming up on the Wish. Should DCL eliminate testing it will be my last cruise. In addition to the personal risk involved, it makes me realize I do not want to travel with these people.

Have you read the comments above yours? What value do the tests really have if they can be cheatable and if people have a "back-up" plan if someone tests positive? Most countries no longer have a testing requirement and even the U.S. no longer requires a test to return. DCL will be last to jump onboard the no testing, but eventually they'll drop the requirement as well. And how is it that people didn't have to be tested coming off a ship but they did coming off a plane? None of it makes any sense.