First North American Cruise Line Vaccine Mandate

[Ocean Boy]

17 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I interpreted his comments to mean the prevalence of vaccines will make the need for all the other onerous restrictions of the return to sail order less necessary, not that everyone will require a vaccine.

Requiring the vaccine for everyone is the only way to get the CDC to agree to mitigating any of the onerous requirements. Do you really think they are going to negotiate a percentage of souls on board that can sail unvaccinated? Is 5% ok? What about 30%?

 

What happens if they mistakenly take a reservation that puts a person over the non-vaccinated limit? The non-vaccinated person in front of you in line boards while security escorts you out if the terminal?

[mek]

22 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

Requiring the vaccine for everyone is the only way to get the CDC to agree to mitigating any of the onerous requirements. Do you really think they are going to negotiate a percentage of souls on board that can sail unvaccinated? Is 5% ok? What about 30%?

 

What happens if they mistakenly take a reservation that puts a person over the non-vaccinated limit? The non-vaccinated person in front of you in line boards while security escorts you out if the terminal?

I would imagine that allowing a % of people to board who have not been vaccinated would open the cruise lines up to more lawsuits than simply requiring it for everyone.

[not-enough-cruising]

9 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

As long as everyone understands that vaccinations does not equal preventing COVID. All a vaccine does is when you catch COVID, allows your body to keep you from getting very sick. In the case of the new J&J vaccine, it prevents you from getting moderately and severely sick (i.e., in the hospital),,,, leaving asymptomatic and lesser illness on the table. And if there is a asymptomatic or lesser illness detected on a cruise, it ends it for all. 

There is no basis for this statement. On a fully 100% vaccinated ship, a positive test could be EASILY handled and quarantined, allowing the journey to continue for the others, and even allow for a routine return, on schedule, to the originally planned point of debarkation. 
 

This is due to the extremely low viral load of the vaccinated carrier, and the high resistance of the vaccinated negative individual. 

 

This is why a 100% vaccinated ship (in the beginning) makes so much sense for the cruise lines, passengers, crew, and CDC. 

[Ourusualbeach]

26 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

There is no basis for this statement. On a fully 100% vaccinated ship, a positive test could be EASILY handled and quarantined, allowing the journey to continue for the others, and even allow for a routine return, on schedule, to the originally planned point of debarkation. 
 

This is due to the extremely low viral load of the vaccinated carrier, and the high resistance of the vaccinated negative individual. 

 

This is why a 100% vaccinated ship (in the beginning) makes so much sense for the cruise lines, passengers, crew, and CDC. 

Exactly.  People seem to forget that the vaccine is not meant to completely eliminate Covid.  It is meant to reduce the infection numbers and severity to the point that it is no different than the annual flu and you don’t see ships returning early and voyages halted because someone has the flu.

[lizzius]

Just now, Ourusualbeach said:

Exactly.  People seem to forget that the vaccine is not meant to completely eliminate Covid.  It is meant to reduce the infection numbers and severity to the point that it is no different than the annual flu and you don’t see ships returning early and voyages halted because someone has the flu.

But that doesn't require a fully vaccinated ship... Just that the medically vulnerable are vaccinated. 

 

I personally think it depends on what the ports decide... If they're trying to control COVID within their borders and have an immunologically naive population, no amount of vaccination for the onboard passengers will guarantee one of the thousands of people coming on shore won't seed an outbreak.

[not-enough-cruising]

4 minutes ago, lizzius said:

But that doesn't require a fully vaccinated ship... Just that the medically vulnerable are vaccinated. 

 

I personally think it depends on what the ports decide... If they're trying to control COVID within their borders and have an immunologically naive population, no amount of vaccination for the onboard passengers will guarantee one of the thousands of people coming on shore won't seed an outbreak.

At this point, it DOES require a fully vaccinated ship. There are thousands of people that do not meet your definition of “medically vulnerable” that develop serious, even deadly cases of Covid-19. This type of infection can not be allowed to occur on board a ship, that would be the end of everything. 
 

The ports will certainly have a say in who does and does not stop at their island, but that has no bearing on our discussion, which is getting ships sailing safely. 

[not-enough-cruising]

17 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

Exactly.  People seem to forget that the vaccine is not meant to completely eliminate Covid.  It is meant to reduce the infection numbers and severity to the point that it is no different than the annual flu and you don’t see ships returning early and voyages halted because someone has the flu.

Well stated

[lizzius]

48 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

At this point, it DOES require a fully vaccinated ship. There are thousands of people that do not meet your definition of “medically vulnerable” that develop serious, even deadly cases of Covid-19. This type of infection can not be allowed to occur on board a ship, that would be the end of everything. 
 

The ports will certainly have a say in who does and does not stop at their island, but that has no bearing on our discussion, which is getting ships sailing safely. 

If your risk of dying from covid is 10x higher than the flu, then you fall in my consideration for medically vulnerable. In my view, everyone 25+ should be required to get the vaccine. Everyone under, who may not qualify for a vaccine, should not be of concern... Also, the discussion of ports is relevant as "getting ships sailing" necessitates those ships going somewhere (if they're sailing from the US).

 

You'll find in these forums there are also people advocating for "only certain" vaccines being allowed based on apples to oranges comparisons between efficacy read-outs. Highly unworkable, but also begins to reek of the brand of vaccine nationalism the WHO has been worried about. SAGA is a pretty good example of this... They're mandating that all passengers receive a vaccine approved by the British government, but not implementing the same requirement among their crew (who may be eligible to vaccinate with Sputnik or one of the Chinese vaccinations, or ineligible in European countries based on their age and lack of medical necessity).

[DCGuy64]

According to this article, https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/iceland-becomes-first-schengen-country-to-grant-covid-19-vaccination-certificates/, it looks like vaccination certificates could be the proverbial Golden Ticket to travel. I wonder if the US would consider something similar.

[not-enough-cruising]

16 minutes ago, lizzius said:

If your risk of dying from covid is 10x higher than the flu, then you fall in my consideration for medically vulnerable. In my view, everyone 25+ should be required to get the vaccine. Everyone under, who may not qualify for a vaccine, should not be of concern... Also, the discussion of ports is relevant as "getting ships sailing" necessitates those ships going somewhere (if they're sailing from the US).

 

You'll find in these forums there are also people advocating for "only certain" vaccines being allowed based on apples to oranges comparisons between efficacy read-outs. Highly unworkable, but also begins to reek of the brand of vaccine nationalism the WHO has been worried about. SAGA is a pretty good example of this... They're mandating that all passengers receive a vaccine approved by the British government, but not implementing the same requirement among their crew (who may be eligible to vaccinate with Sputnik or one of the Chinese vaccinations, or ineligible in European countries based on their age and lack of medical necessity).

I’m sorry, but I find a disconnect between your first post of “medically vulnerable” and your second post of “anyone over 25”. In my mind these 2 classifications do not mesh. 
 

In the hypothetical situation we are discussing, anyone over the age of 16 would require a vaccination, a 25 year old cut off makes no sense. 
 

Regarding the ports, as I said earlier, yes they would have a say in entry requirements to their island, but again this is not applicable to our hypothetical discussion of the viability of a fully vaccinated ship operating safely. 
 

The discussion of ranking the acceptability of different vaccines is a deep black hole that I have no interest in diving into. 

[lizzius]

2 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

I’m sorry, but I find a disconnect between your first post of “medically vulnerable” and your second post of “anyone over 25”. In my mind these 2 classifications do not mesh. 
 

In the hypothetical situation we are discussing, anyone over the age of 16 would require a vaccination, a 25 year old cut off makes no sense. 
 

Regarding the ports, as I said earlier, yes they would have a say in entry requirements to their island, but again this is not applicable to our hypothetical discussion of the viability of a fully vaccinated ship operating safely. 
 

The discussion of ranking the acceptability of different vaccines is a deep black hole that I have no interest in diving into. 

Using the death per capita for different demographics provided by the CDC suggests a big jump after 15 and a bigger jump after 25. Let's just make a new term, COVID vulnerable or something similar. 

 

I understand about the different vaccine discussion being a big black hole, but it is a non-trivial consideration to make.

[smokeybandit]

Here's the thing about proof of vaccine, at least in the USA.

 

It's a cheap piece of card stock.  Very easy to fabricate.  Good luck knowing who truly has the vaccine and who doesn't (not specifically cruises, but anything requiring proof of vaccine)

[Ocean Boy]

2 hours ago, lizzius said:

If your risk of dying from covid is 10x higher than the flu, then you fall in my consideration for medically vulnerable. In my view, everyone 25+ should be required to get the vaccine. Everyone under, who may not qualify for a vaccine, should not be of concern... Also, the discussion of ports is relevant as "getting ships sailing" necessitates those ships going somewhere (if they're sailing from the US).

 

You'll find in these forums there are also people advocating for "only certain" vaccines being allowed based on apples to oranges comparisons between efficacy read-outs. Highly unworkable, but also begins to reek of the brand of vaccine nationalism the WHO has been worried about. SAGA is a pretty good example of this... They're mandating that all passengers receive a vaccine approved by the British government, but not implementing the same requirement among their crew (who may be eligible to vaccinate with Sputnik or one of the Chinese vaccinations, or ineligible in European countries based on their age and lack of medical necessity).

How did you pick the number 25+ out of the air as a requirement for vaccination? 

[molly361]

3 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

How did you pick the number 25+ out of the air as a requirement for vaccination? 

Because she's 23/24?😇

Edited February 3, 2021 by molly361

[Ocean Boy]

2 hours ago, lizzius said:

Using the death per capita for different demographics provided by the CDC suggests a big jump after 15 and a bigger jump after 25. Let's just make a new term, COVID vulnerable or something similar. 

 

I understand about the different vaccine discussion being a big black hole, but it is a non-trivial consideration to make.

However, when pediatric cases go bad they go bad big time. And I would not depend on either a ship's medical facility or a Caribbean hospital to be able to handle it as well as a U.S. hospital. Pedi and adult medicine are two different worlds.

[smokeybandit]

2 hours ago, lizzius said:

Using the death per capita for different demographics provided by the CDC suggests a big jump after 15 and a bigger jump after 25. Let's just make a new term, COVID vulnerable or something similar. 

 

I understand about the different vaccine discussion being a big black hole, but it is a non-trivial consideration to make.

 

A big jump mathematically, but a completely insignificant jump statistically.

Only once you get to 65+ does age determine vulnerability.

[smokeybandit]

Just now, Ocean Boy said:

However, when pediatric cases go bad they go bad big time. And I would not depend on either a ship's medical facility or a Caribbean hospital to be able to handle it as well as a U.S. hospital. Pedi and adult medicine are two different worlds.

 

There are better odds of a kid falling overboard than there are of a kid needing urgent medical care due to covid on a ship.

[Ocean Boy]

3 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

There are better odds of a kid falling overboard than there are of a kid needing urgent medical care due to covid on a ship.

So what? What were the chances of some kid getting dropped out a pool deck window onto a pier? Your comment is utterly ridiculous.

[molly361]

You can certainly tell the posters that have children on some of these threads😇

[d9704011]

3 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

There are better odds of a kid falling overboard than there are of a kid needing urgent medical care due to covid on a ship.

There are better odds of the earth being burned up in a supernova than you providing any useful insight on a discussion topic.

[smokeybandit]

2 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

There are better odds of the earth being burned up in a supernova than you providing any useful insight on a discussion topic.

So prove that I'm wrong.

 

Less than 150 kids under age 15 have died due to covid, with the huge majority having severe underlying conditions.

 

Going from a negative test to needing urgent medical care in the span of a few days is extremely rare for even the most vulnerable, none the less a child.

Just because you don't like the real data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

[Ocean Boy]

2 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

So prove that I'm wrong.

 

Less than 150 kids under age 15 have died due to covid, with the huge majority having severe underlying conditions.

 

Going from a negative test to needing urgent medical care in the span of a few days is extremely rare for even the most vulnerable, none the less a child.

Just because you don't like the real data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

Data means nothing when you spend all night in an ICU trying to keep one of your "statistics" alive. I don't have to prove anything to you.

[smokeybandit]

1 minute ago, Ocean Boy said:

Data means nothing when you spend all night in an ICU trying to keep one of your "statistics" alive. I don't have to prove anything to you.

And that has nothing to do with covid, as there are examples for every ailment, illness and malady affecting someone it doesn't typically affect.

 

That doesn't mean across the board decisions should be made based on a tragic, yet extremely rare situation.

[d9704011]

3 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

So prove that I'm wrong.

 

Less than 150 kids under age 15 have died due to covid, with the huge majority having severe underlying conditions.

 

Going from a negative test to needing urgent medical care in the span of a few days is extremely rare for even the most vulnerable, none the less a child.

Just because you don't like the real data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

No, no no... let’s start with you providing some context to your statement.  How many kids under the age of 15 have fallen off a ship over the last full sailing season and, how many kids were available to do that (the kid sailing ‘population’)?

[Ocean Boy]

34 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

And that has nothing to do with covid, as there are examples for every ailment, illness and malady affecting someone it doesn't typically affect.

 

That doesn't mean across the board decisions should be made based on a tragic, yet extremely rare situation.

It has everything to do with covid. While this pandemic is going on, and if cruises resume, there should be a 100% vaccination policy.