Liveaboard Covid quarantine- Debate

[dianna912]

Assuming that they are not in a locality that requires it, should liveaboards require guests who test positive to quarantine?

We just got back from a highly infectious liveaboard that DID have this requirement. With at least 70% of the guests infected, welp, it's safe to say it didn't work.

My thought process is this: unless you require an extremely harsh, any symptoms=quarantine type of policy, which is untenable on a dive boat. (Congestion/ear issues/fatigue/achiness are all symptoms of a long dive day) you will never stop it before it has already spread. I understand that boats want to protect their crew, but quarantining guests is just a feel-good measure to allow everyone to carry on as usual, except of the souls locked in a tiny room. This is what happened on our boat. No changes to anything were made until we started dropping like flies. The first couple that had it just got stuck in their room, while the crew did not mask around the other guests, everyone still ate in the same closed galley (except the quarantined couple) and it was all for absolutely nothing.

When we boarded the Juliet last March and they said: if one of us has it, all of us will, I thought they were being irresponsible. Now, I'm thinking they are correct.

My opinion: either take the "let er rip" strategy of the Juliet or have a policy that completely changes protocols, for everyone, the moment someone tests positive. No congregating in closed spaces, masks on all staff and guests when not eating, etc, etc.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I agree, but my death may or may not affect your trip.

Nobody is asking for "a sure thing" or a guarantee something "won't" interrupt our trip. But we might like to lower the odds of it as much as possible, even if it's only a little. I have already said that I'm not taking a liveaboard anytime soon because there is too much risk of trip interruption, so for me, this is all hypothetical.

I will grant you that a person who contracts covid on a liveaboard might get progressively sicker and not die until weeks after the liveaboard, but they still might get sick enough within a few days to cause the liveaboard to have to return to port.

 

[BRT]

Nobody is asking for "a sure thing" or a guarantee something "won't" interrupt our trip. But we might like to lower the odds of it as much as possible, even if it's only a little. I have already said that I'm not taking a liveaboard anytime soon because there is too much risk of trip interruption, so for me, this is all hypothetical.

I will grant you that a person who contracts covid on a liveaboard might get progressively sicker and not die until weeks after the liveaboard, but they still might get sick enough within a few days to cause the liveaboard to have to return to port.

And my point is that the odds are not clear, "as much as possible, even if it is only a little" is the same as "if it only saves one life". "As much as possible" would create a national speed limit of 20 mph with 4 point harnesses and helmets.

 

[Lorenzoid]

And my point is that the odds are not clear, "as much as possible, even if it is only a little" is the same as "if it only saves one life". "As much as possible" would create a national speed limit of 20 mph with 4 point harnesses and helmets.

That's right. The burden cannot outweigh the benefit in the minds of the consuming public. Some of us here might prefer if speed limits and other road safety laws were abolished, and it was left up to each of us to drive as we saw fit. Others here might actually like a lower speed limit, or at least if speed limits and other traffic laws were more strictly enforced. (In some places in Europe, for example, the speed limit is similar to the US, but the posted limit is strictly enforced. And the licensing tests are TOUGH. But I digress.) Actually, the road safety analogy hits home for me, as I often find myself stuck while the wreckage caused by unsafe drivers is cleared. I see some crazy driving around here, and the highways are littered with accidents.

I believe someone mentioned above that there needs to be a balance among all of the competing goals. Too strict, and you drive some potential liveaboard customers away. Too liberal and you drive others away, perhaps because they see too many liveaboards with liberal Covid precautions are having their trips interrupted. Who knows. This whole pandemic has been a big experiment. From the fact that we have people on both sides in this discussion, it seems far from clear where to draw the optimal line.

 

[waterone]

Any more risky than other daily life?

Not for me.

I am more worried about spending time in a local restaurant or grocery store....

I don't worry about it at all when I go to a store. When I see the odd one out with a mask, I sometimes wonder how uncomfortable they might feel in such crowds though.

Unvaccinated people are MUCH more likely to die.

They undeniably are, but of a low percentage to begin with and as discussed earlier mainly due to underlying health factors and/or age. On the same coin, vaccinated are probably much more likely to not realize that they are sick and spread it. It's here for life and vaxxed or not will continue to spread it.

The bottom line is I think there are some liveaboards that try to provide an array of safety buffers against a customer getting DCS, which could potentially interrupt the trip for everyone.

There probably are a few and while they think that they are taking all the possible precautions, as I said they probably still serve alcohol and a few probably have hot tubs and hot showers on deck. I personally would choose a liveaboard that isn't going to hold my hand.

 

[Lorenzoid]

There probably are a few and while they think that they are taking all the possible precautions, as I said they probably still serve alcohol and a few probably have hot tubs and hot showers on deck. I personally would choose a liveaboard that isn't going to hold my hand.

I didn't say they are are "taking all the possible precautions." I said something along the lines of they are providing an array of precautions, presumably because not everyone is going to avail themselves of every precaution.

 

[drrich2]

Right now, for me, the big fear traveling isn't being seriously injured by COVID-19 (though there's that small chance); it's being quarantined and subjected to the expenses and hassles of an unplanned extended stay like a prisoner in a foreign country, perhaps missing out on a big portion of what I went there to do.

Saw an article today, CDC expected to relax COVID guidelines as kids head back to school, that speaks to how a government agency is tackling the somewhat similar issue of how to manage kids who've been exposed to COVID-19 and might pose a risk of bringing it in, weighed against the harms of keeping the kids out of class. From the article (based on a non-finalized draft):

"CBS News obtained a copy of the CDC draft document outlining the rationale for the change. While not yet final, the changes could include deemphasizing the "test to stay" strategy, in which students exposed to COVID-19 take regular tests to stay in the classroom. Schools would also be free to unwind strict social distancing measures, which the CDC's guidance has already effectively phased out."

""This virus is going to be here with us in the days ahead, and we have got to learn to live with it," infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm told CBS News."

"Among other proposed changes in the draft document is that those exposed to COVID-19 who are not fully vaccinated would no longer need to quarantine, instead masking for 10 days and testing five days after exposure. In the draft, the CDC notes the large percentage of the population with COVID-19 antibodies, as well as a desire to limit social and economic impacts, as its reasoning behind removing the quarantine recommendations."

Wonder how they recommend dealing with such cases for kids who are fully vaccinated?

 

[waterone]

I didn't say they are are "taking all the possible precautions." I said something along the lines of they are providing an array of precautions, presumably because not everyone is going to avail themselves of every precaution.

I realize that you didnt, more mispoken on my part as I typed a fast reply. Though I believe what I typed still makes sense

 

[Centrals]

Prevention is better than cure.
I am taking the 4th shot in few days time and will accept the 5th in 6 months time if available.
I won't join any LoB if self monitoring is required by regulation in any form(law or boat operator).

 

[waterone]

Right now, for me, the big fear traveling isn't being seriously injured by COVID-19 (though there's that small chance); it's being quarantined and subjected to the expenses and hassles of an unplanned extended stay like a prisoner in a foreign country, perhaps missing out on a big portion of what I went there to do.

I am not even concerned about being stuck somewhere. I travel with insurance that will cover getting sick and it would be an extra week that i wont have to work.

Wonder how they recommend dealing with such cases for kids who are fully vaccinated?

Id guess probably not require masks or test after exposure. If they treat them the same, there is no carrot.

Prevention is better than cure.
I am taking the 4th shot in few days time and will accept the 5th in 6 months time if available.

But it doesn't prevent as you can still catch it. Lessen, sure. Current vaccines potentionally help you so that you don't get as sick as you might have.

 

[Centrals]

But it doesn't prevent as you can still catch it. Lessen, sure. Current vaccines potentionally help you so that you don't get as sick as you might have.

The answer is plain simple but you still don't get it. What is the alternative? NONE.
NOTHING is PERFECT. I made my decision. Period.
So you would rather get serious ill or even death than vaccination! Your choice NOT mine.