If Royal Requires A Covid-19 Vaccine Before Cruising Will You Get It???

[SNJCruisers]

1 hour ago, CaroleSS said:

 I cannot tell you how many people who are here on vacation who DEMAND that they get the vaccine (even though they are not Florida residents). 

You mean to say that the Snowbirds who can afford to live in FLA for 4-6 months out of the year don't deserve to be at the front of the line?  They are the original card carrying members of the me generation and they should automatically go to the head of the line ahead of any Floridian who possesses a comorbidity. 😉

[ChuckRambo]

3 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Welcome to Cruise Critic. Despite your denials you sound the same as the other antivaxxers who recently "joined"  out of nowhere. They mentioned flu shots, children being vaccinated etc.. 

So what? Doesn’t change nor invalidate my opinion. 

[CaroleSS]

47 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

If someone knows they are allergic to the ingredients of a particular vaccine they should not take it and depend on an Epi-pen. That is common  sense. They should wait for the other vaccines that are on the way. Or not cruise if vaccination is a requirement. 

"Some" on this thread suggested that she should get the shot, at the hospital if necessary, just so things can "return to normal" and they can go on a cruise.

 

editing to reiterate that she is not an avid cruiser, so any requirement to be vaccinated for cruising is a moot point for her.

Edited February 20, 2021 by CaroleSS

[CaroleSS]

29 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

You mean to say that the Snowbirds who can afford to live in FLA for 4-6 months out of the year don't deserve to be at the front of the line?  They are the original card carrying members of the me generation and they should automatically go to the head of the line ahead of any Floridian who possesses a comorbidity. 😉

Um......absolutely!!! How dare I think otherwise!

Edited February 20, 2021 by CaroleSS

[Charles4515]

2 minutes ago, CaroleSS said:

"Some" on this thread suggested that she should get the shot, at the hospital if necessary, just so things can "return to normal" and they can go on a cruise.

Sad if that is their motivation. 

[OZ.]

3 hours ago, James4me said:

I heard from a lot of people that they’ll refuse the shot.  It’s based on what they heard of the ingredients used to make this concoction and the one they have an issue with is that they use aborted babies stem cells.  Now don’t shoot this messenger but word is that’s what you’ll be injected with.  

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You really shouldn’t spread such false info. I’m amazed at what people think. 🙄

[Incognito1]

5 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Welcome to Cruise Critic. Despite your denials you sound the same as the other antivaxxers who recently "joined"  out of nowhere. They mentioned flu shots, children being vaccinated etc.. 

Because someone does not want an unproven, experimental vaccine does not make them an "antivaxxer."  This is a pejorative term intended to paint someone with an opposite view of yours as extreme.  Shame on you.

 

It's a matter of where you draw the line.  I've never met a person in real life who gets every single vaccination on the time schedule that's recommended.  I'm for personal choice.  You may draw the line at a different place than I do, but you still draw a line.  Let's talk about the vaccinations without trying to make personal attacks.  It's unbecoming.

[Incognito1]

2 hours ago, Coralc said:

 

What you posted is garbage and should not be perpetuated. And here in CA in the SF Bay Area, about 90% of the people polled are eager to get vaccinated. Californians have had a bad time of it during this pandemic (as have other states). But most people here can't wait to be eligible. 

Source please.  Mercury News and SFGate are reporting numbers considerably lower.  Here's one article (of many) regarding refusals.  This one is reporting half of sheriff's deputies refusing.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/05/about-half-of-the-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-employees-have-declined-vaccine/

It's recent.  I'm curious in which area it's 90%.  I know that there are large portions of San Jose that are historically anti-vax.  There was a huge campaign a couple years back to push the MMR.  If that group won't even get an MMR, I doubt they'll get an experimental vax.  Which area has such high compliance?  And what do they attribute their compliance to?

[Incognito1]

4 hours ago, James4me said:

I heard from a lot of people that they’ll refuse the shot.  It’s based on what they heard of the ingredients used to make this concoction and the one they have an issue with is that they use aborted babies stem cells.  Now don’t shoot this messenger but word is that’s what you’ll be injected with.  

According to ScienceMag.org, the Oxford/AstraZeneca, Beijing Institute of Technology, and University of Pittsburg vaxes use cells derived from a kidney cell from an electively aborted fetus from 1972.  Johnson&Johnson (through Jannsen) uses cells replicated from PER-C6, derived from retinal cells of a similarly obtained 18-week old fetus from 1985.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells

 

This is not something new.  According to the above, "Cells derived from elective abortions have been used since the 1960s to manufacture vaccines, including current vaccines against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and shingles. "

[Incognito1]

On 2/17/2021 at 6:48 PM, UnorigionalName said:

First, the actual disabilities that medically prevent mask usage are really narrow.  Mostly basically psychiatric issues.  All the specialty physicians groups recommend masks for people with respiratory issues, as they are particularly at risk of COVID, and their disease is not a contraindication to mask usage.

 

Second, It's a health issue.  It puts others customers' health and safety at risk, so pretty sure businesses are allowed to deny entry based on masks, even if disability prevents their use based on safety reasons.  

 

from CDC:

 

I feel there is a REALLY REALLY EASY low hanging fruit of a joke in there just waiting to get made, but probably crosses the line on forum rules.

re: "First" - The thing about the ADA is that a person who is covered under it need only say, "I have a disability."  It's actually against the law to inquire further.  Also, it is incorrect that every specialty physician group holds the view that wearing a mask is better for persons with a respiratory issue.

 

re: "Second" - The EEOC has determined that employers may require employees to wear masks (except in narrow situations) under the "direct threat" clause.  In the case of a business with public accommodation, the business has the option to provide a "reasonable accommodation" - a previous poster mentioned Costco allowing people to order online.  That would constitute a reasonable accommodation.  Simply denying access to someone with an ADA disability is against the law.

Read the whole law here: https://www.ada.gov/

 

You'll notice up front that there is a $2.5 million Amtrak fund (taxpayers taking that one on the chin) which, as I understand it, derives from a large group with motorized scooters wanting to travel together.  Amtrak was unable to accommodate the whole group at once, and the group demanded that the consist of the train be changed in order to let them all on.  The conductor refused, putting them on the next train.  The group sued.  Look at the wording: "The Amtrak Agreement sets aside $2,250,000 for a Compensation Fund for individuals with mobility disabilities who traveled to or from, or would have traveled to or from, one of 78 unique Amtrak stations with significant physical access barriers."  Anyone who claims they "would have traveled" can claim compensation.  As I said before, the law consistently favors those covered under the ADA.

 

*None of the above is intended to be legal advice.  You should always confer with your attorney if you suspect you may need assistance.

[Coralc]

1 hour ago, Incognito1 said:

Source please.  Mercury News and SFGate are reporting numbers considerably lower.  Here's one article (of many) regarding refusals.  This one is reporting half of sheriff's deputies refusing.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/05/about-half-of-the-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-employees-have-declined-vaccine/

It's recent.  I'm curious in which area it's 90%.  I know that there are large portions of San Jose that are historically anti-vax.  There was a huge campaign a couple years back to push the MMR.  If that group won't even get an MMR, I doubt they'll get an experimental vax.  Which area has such high compliance?  And what do they attribute their compliance to?

 

My apologies... 80%.  Why are you being so snarky about a casual comment about general interest in getting vaccinated?  

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/80-percent-Bay-Area-get-COVID-vaccine-strains-15908403.php

 

It is not like I am postulating what the previous poster had suggested about the composition of the vaccines. 

 

"Even so, the number of Californians likely to take the vaccine could even be higher. An estimate conducted by Carnegie Mellon's Delphi Group found that more than 91% of San Franciscans — and more than 85% in many Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara — were likely to take the shot."

Edited February 20, 2021 by Coralc

[Incognito1]

Not intended to be snarky.  It simply did not match what I'd read.  I would like to see the study questions and methods, however.  Thank you for the link.

 

Study Link: https://www.chcf.org/publication/2021-california-health-policy-survey/

It's interesting.  It's done by NORC (Chicago) - always consider the source; they ought to know better.  I don't know whether or not the data is accurate, but the methodology is flawed.  It was largely an opt-in on AmeriSpeak Panel (a website where you get paid for taking surveys).  It's a response bias.  Similarly, if I polled CruiseCritic members and then decided that they represented cruisers at large because they ran the gamut of demographics, it would be flawed -- only those who responded would be counted.

 

Still, interesting to see.  

 

>>And why do you think anyone wants to read your lengthy posts on a cruise message board? <<

People respond enough that there must be quite a few.  You did, right?

Edited February 20, 2021 by Incognito1

[Coralc]

It is just a message board, about cruising...and I don't really care or wish to be drawn into a debate.  Edited to add: YOU WIN. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Coralc

[Incognito1]

Carnegie-Mellon is pretty neat.  Again, though, it's response bias: "In collaboration with Facebook Data for Good ..."  So it's advertised through FB, meaning people access it who have FB accounts and who want to report their data and who have an incentive to answer one way or another.  Everything is archived; would you respond in a way that might later cause you problems?

 

Had to chuckle when I saw that my county supposedly has 99% of people wearing masks.  I must have run into all of the 1% today!

 

Still, interesting map.  I like the infection2020.com map.  It's nice to see that the new cases and deaths are dropping sharply.  Whether that's due to weather, immunity, vaccinations, or just the weakest already hit, I don't know.  Will be interesting to see if the trend continues.

[Milwaukee Eight]

7 hours ago, Incognito1 said:

Because someone does not want an unproven, experimental vaccine does not make them an "antivaxxer."  This is a pejorative term intended to paint someone with an opposite view of yours as extreme.  Shame on you.

Doesn’t matter. If Cruise ships require vaccine, their rules. Getting a vaccine is your choice. If required, don’t get the vaccine, don’t cruise. No shame. 

[life is to be happy]

8 hours ago, Incognito1 said:

Because someone does not want an unproven, experimental vaccine does not make them an "antivaxxer."  This is a pejorative term intended to paint someone with an opposite view of yours as extreme.  Shame on you.

 

It's a matter of where you draw the line.  I've never met a person in real life who gets every single vaccination on the time schedule that's recommended.  I'm for personal choice.  You may draw the line at a different place than I do, but you still draw a line.  Let's talk about the vaccinations without trying to make personal attacks.  It's unbecoming.

exactly. well said

[boscobeans]

8 hours ago, Incognito1 said:

Because someone does not want an unproven, experimental vaccine does not make them an "antivaxxer."  This is a pejorative term intended to paint someone with an opposite view of yours as extreme.  Shame on you.

 

I have only a question and am interested in people's opinion as to WHEN a vaccine drug or any new product is no longer considered to be "UNPROVEN" or "EXPERIMENTAL".

 

Should I still be concerned about side effects from when I was in the trial group injected with the then experimental Polio Vaccine almost 70 years ago?

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

Doesn’t matter. If Cruise ships require vaccine, their rules. Getting a vaccine is your choice. If required, don’t get the vaccine, don’t cruise. No shame. 

This is what people are seeming to forget, which seems ironic as this is a forum about cruising. 

[A&L_Ont]

21 minutes ago, boscobeans said:

I have only a question and am interested in people's opinion as to WHEN a vaccine drug or any new product is no longer considered to be "UNPROVEN" or "EXPERIMENTAL".

They had clinical trials and now 3 months of real life trials. It will be interesting to hear responses.  IMO it will rarely be acceptable to individuals later on, if it isn’t today. 

[Mapleleafforever]

8 hours ago, Incognito1 said:

re: "First" - The thing about the ADA is that a person who is covered under it need only say, "I have a disability."  It's actually against the law to inquire further.  Also, it is incorrect that every specialty physician group holds the view that wearing a mask is better for persons with a respiratory issue.

 

re: "Second" - The EEOC has determined that employers may require employees to wear masks (except in narrow situations) under the "direct threat" clause.  In the case of a business with public accommodation, the business has the option to provide a "reasonable accommodation" - a previous poster mentioned Costco allowing people to order online.  That would constitute a reasonable accommodation.  Simply denying access to someone with an ADA disability is against the law.

Read the whole law here: https://www.ada.gov/

 

You'll notice up front that there is a $2.5 million Amtrak fund (taxpayers taking that one on the chin) which, as I understand it, derives from a large group with motorized scooters wanting to travel together.  Amtrak was unable to accommodate the whole group at once, and the group demanded that the consist of the train be changed in order to let them all on.  The conductor refused, putting them on the next train.  The group sued.  Look at the wording: "The Amtrak Agreement sets aside $2,250,000 for a Compensation Fund for individuals with mobility disabilities who traveled to or from, or would have traveled to or from, one of 78 unique Amtrak stations with significant physical access barriers."  Anyone who claims they "would have traveled" can claim compensation.  As I said before, the law consistently favors those covered under the ADA.

 

*None of the above is intended to be legal advice.  You should always confer with your attorney if you suspect you may need assistance.

That settlement is mind boggling to me. Just to be clear, are we talking a large group of individuals on scooters or a group of large individuals on scooters? 

[Ocean Boy]

17 minutes ago, Mapleleafforever said:

That settlement is mind boggling to me. Just to be clear, are we talking a large group of individuals on scooters or a group of large individuals on scooters? 

Welcome to the American legal system. If the physical confines if a train cannot accommodate a request (demand) what is the railroad supposed to do?

[time4u2go]

57 minutes ago, boscobeans said:

I have only a question and am interested in people's opinion as to WHEN a vaccine drug or any new product is no longer considered to be "UNPROVEN" or "EXPERIMENTAL".

 

Should I still be concerned about side effects from when I was in the trial group injected with the then experimental Polio Vaccine almost 70 years ago?

 

31 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

They had clinical trials and now 3 months of real life trials. It will be interesting to hear responses.  IMO it will rarely be acceptable to individuals later on, if it isn’t today. 

I've been wondering the same thing regarding people that still think the vaccine is "unproven"/"experimental".  At what point does that change?

[Ocean Boy]

5 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

 

I've been wondering the same thing regarding people that still think the vaccine is "unproven"/"experimental".  At what point does that change?

I am not sure about everyone else but, as for myself, I would say my thinking started to change about two - three months ago.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, life is to be happy said:

exactly. well said

 

Replying to youself....

[Charles4515]

52 minutes ago, Mapleleafforever said:

That settlement is mind boggling to me. Just to be clear, are we talking a large group of individuals on scooters or a group of large individuals on scooters? 

 

The 2.5 M settlement did not have to do with the scooters. Two seperate stories are being mixed up. The settlement was because stations were supposed to be ADA compliant in a certain time frame which was missed.  Part of the reason for that is that Amtrak does not own many of the stations. The scooter story was that seats have to be removed for a group as there is only one ADA WC space per coach and that has to be arranged in advance. The seats are removed by mechanical employees and has to be done at a rail yard or terminal. The large group travels together every year to a meet. For the group they remove all the seats in a coach. Some bean counter decided to add extra fees to add another car. That fee was legal but charging it and changing from past practice was bad optics. I don't believe there was a financial settlement. I think they just agreed not to charge the extra fees.