Saga UK , normal cruising, but everyone has to be vaccinated, will Cunard follow

[Victoria2]

I’m intrigued to know how the wearing  of masks on individual balconies, can be policed.

 

Could bring a whole new area of concern for the Dress Code  Police. 😁

[Windsurfboy]

You must wear a black silk mask on formal nights

[picsa]

Saga are likely gambling that their customer group will have received the vaccine before they start sailing, although with the extension to 12 weeks for the second jab this might cause issues.

 

That extension will most likely impact those closer to 50 as they are the last of the vulnerable groups in the UK to be vaccinated, so a refusal to allow someone (say) in the 50 to 55 group to travel because they have only had the first jab will be as a result of their age. It would be interesting to see the legal advice Saga has received to see how they are going to defend age discrimination claims.
 

As Saga allows those over 40 if accompanying someone over 50, then the 40 to 50s will almost certainly not have had both jabs before Saga starts sailing. Therefore a definite age discrimination claim if Saga refuse to allow them to travel.

 

Then you have those for whom the vaccination is not recommended; those who are allergic to the ingredients or those who are pregnant.
 

The first group is extremely small, but nevertheless does exist and refusing to allow them to travel is likely breaching disability discrimination.

 

The second group is unlikely for Saga, but not impossible since as before, they allow those over 40 if accompanying someone over 50, and refusing to allow a 40ish pregnant woman to travel would certainly breach sex discrimination laws.

 

Then you have those who can demonstrate a phobia for injections (not just an ‘anti-vax’ view) which is a recognised medical condition, and again refusing travel is likely to breach disability discrimination laws.

 

It will be interesting what Saga will do when faced with such discrimination claims - pay them because it might be cheaper than the impact if they allowed a non-vaccinated person to travel, or quietly make an exception. My money would be on the second option.

 

And finally you have the issue of proving you have been vaccinated. The vaccination record isn’t a document with security features which prevents someone producing a fake, it just a simple document providing information to health professionals. Therefore it would be trivially easy for someone who hasn’t had both jabs and wants to travel to pretend they have by producing a false document. Saga doesn’t have access to your medical records (and I can’t imagine they would be stupid enough to think about asking for them as that would generate far more legal claims) so they either trust the non-secure piece of paper or they don’t. People talk about “vaccination passports” but unless it has the security (and cost) of a real passport then it is worse than useless by giving a false sense of security.

 

Thus at the end of the day, you might think you are sailing on a ship where everyone has been fully vaccinated, but are you.

[Windsurfboy]

You have three issues.

 

Firstly age discrimination,  Saga of could rightly say they are not discriminating by age , they have just said you have to be vaccinated.  They can argue that it is the government that is discriminating by age in the order they are vaccinating people. Obviously the government will say the are protecting the most vunerable first. So this arguement will not hold water.

 

Secondly the people who have a justifiable reason not to be vaccinated, Saga can argue that for health and safety reasons they cannot risk these people's health. Pregnant women are not allowed to bungy jump, no one challenges this

 

Thirdly  proof of vaccination.  This is the trickiest. As you say the cards we get are not secure. I think this is where Saga will have in the early stages to rely on trust that people will not forge these. Given their customer base and the high take up of vaccination in this age group, it's a safe bet. Also who would risk loosing many thousands of pounds turning up with a dodgy forgery. Anyway if 95% of customers are vaccinated and everyone has a negative test before boarding its a safe cruise. Especially for those who have been vaccinated. 

 

 

[ace2542]

3 hours ago, picsa said:

It would be interesting to see the legal advice Saga has received to see how they are going to defend age discrimination claims.
 

As Saga allows those over 40 if accompanying someone over 50, then the 40 to 50s will almost certainly not have had both jabs before Saga starts sailing. Therefore a definite age discrimination claim if Saga refuse to allow them to trave

But surely Saga has nothing to defend? After all they have implemented a no under 50s policy exception for carers and that has never been challenged by any under 40 year olds. Surely if it could be challenged, someone would have done it?

[picsa]

21 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

You have three issues.

 

Firstly age discrimination,  Saga of could rightly say they are not discriminating by age , they have just said you have to be vaccinated.  They can argue that it is the government that is discriminating by age in the order they are vaccinating people. Obviously the government will say the are protecting the most vunerable first. So this arguement will not hold water.

 

Secondly the people who have a justifiable reason not to be vaccinated, Saga can argue that for health and safety reasons they cannot risk these people's health. Pregnant women are not allowed to bungy jump, no one challenges this

 

Thirdly  proof of vaccination.  This is the trickiest. As you say the cards we get are not secure. I think this is where Saga will have in the early stages to rely on trust that people will not forge these. Given their customer base and the high take up of vaccination in this age group, it's a safe bet. Also who would risk loosing many thousands of pounds turning up with a dodgy forgery. Anyway if 95% of customers are vaccinated and everyone has a negative test before boarding its a safe cruise. Especially for those who have been vaccinated. 

 

 

Age discrimination - Saga might be saying that only vaccinated people can travel, but as younger people cannot choose to be vaccinated Sags have applied a restriction which is related to age. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/age-discrimination
 

Pregnant women - men cannot get pregnant, so that is discrimination due to sex. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/sex-discrimination

 

In addition, since the staff and entertainers are not vaccinated then the ‘you must be vaccinated’ is not a safety requirement but just a marketing stunt to persuade people back to cruising by giving the illusion of a safe environment, so defending the discrimination will be much harder.
 

The negative test before boarding is part of that marketing stunt as it is a rapid test, and those detect less than half of positive cases, giving a false sense of security - https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4848

[Colin_Cameron]

16 minutes ago, picsa said:

 ... Sags have applied a restriction which is related to age. 

That describes Saga's entire business model.

[tacticalbanjo]

In the UK, discrimination is allowed as long as it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Holiday companies are also permitted to offer trips to a particular age group - i.e. Club 18-30 holidays or in this case Saga for the over 50s. 

 

Saga could easily argue that discriminating against unvaccinated people reasonable means of keeping its ships as covid free as possible, keep outbreaks to a minimum and to ensure their medical facilities aren't overwhelmed since the vaccines seem to keep infected people from needing to be hospitalised.

[picsa]

43 minutes ago, tacticalbanjo said:

Saga could easily argue that discriminating against unvaccinated people reasonable means of keeping its ships as covid free as possible, keep outbreaks to a minimum and to ensure their medical facilities aren't overwhelmed since the vaccines seem to keep infected people from needing to be hospitalised.

 

The crew and entertainers are not required to be vaccinated, only the customers, so the protection offered by this requirement is negligible.

 

It is simply a marketing stunt and that will hamper any defence against an age, sex, or disability discrimination claim.

[ace2542]

38 minutes ago, picsa said:

The crew and entertainers are not required to be vaccinated

Not yet but they will be at some point in the future.

[picsa]

2 hours ago, ace2542 said:

Not yet but they will be at some point in the future.

I am not sure how vaccinating the crew and entertainers at some point in the future would stop the crew and entertainers spreading and catching COVID now (the vaccinated passengers are still capable of catching and spreading COVID).

[Host Hattie]

7 hours ago, Colin_Cameron said:

That describes Saga's entire business model.

Well quite.

These same points are being discussed on the Saga board. Please continue your discussion there

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/topic/2769889-vaccinations-required/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-60766228