First North American Cruise Line Vaccine Mandate

[cured]

14 hours ago, lizzius said:

I'm not talking specifically about cruising anymore... These vaccine mandates would have the potential to inhibit travel of any type if applied universally.

 

More broadly, in this thread or others like it you have people advocating for vaccine mandates at most public engagements, treating it almost like it's a "golden ticket". Not so "melodramatic" when you consider that if such an action were taken teenagers or children could essentially be banned from festivals, concerts, parks, or deprived of another 6 months to a year of in-person socialization via school or otherwise. I'm not saying that's what you're advocating for specifically, but you find yourself among that company. 

 

And we have been doing everything we can to keep the people we love safe, even though we are both a.) lower risk thanks to being in our mid 30's and b.) already on the way to being vaccinated since we signed up to be guinea pigs to as you say... Help get the job done faster. Until grandma and grandpa get vaccinated or the science is settled about transmission, that doesn't matter though.

What sacrifice? 

 

We now have 4 identified variants, each becoming more and more contagious and possibly more deadly. When you allow yourself to catch the virus, even if you do not become ill, you give the virus the opportunity to spread and mutate.  This has been pushed by scientists from the very beginning and I have read it here/posted about it since the beginning, on a major reason why health measures need to be taken. While the majority of the mutations are normal and no different, occasionally the virus is successful in mutating to a more virulent strain.

 

If businesses choose to mandate vaccines, their choice just like it is the individual's choice whether to vaccinate or not, then that is their right. And I celebrate it. If a significant number of "young people" refuse to follow health protocols, allowing the virus to do what viruses do, then businesses have to do what they have to do to make their customers feel more comfortable.

 

I am immunocompromised and have taken extreme measures, per my doc's orders, to isolate. I have only left our house a few times for doc appts the past year.  I am not seeing how "Young People" are sacrificing so much. They are out and about, even if they have to wear masks. It is the older and more vulnerable population that is sacrificing right now.

 

I am looking forward to being able to do the things the "Young People" are doing masked like vacations, football games in stadiums, movie theaters, and even grocery shopping, confident that all the fellow customers are also vaccinated. Despite being labeled as a group that would be willing to sacrifice their lives for the 'Young People."

 

Children are resilient. They can withstand another 6 months without going on an expensive cruise. I look at children in the recent past and the difficulties they have suffered. Sports and cruises were the last things on their minds. Yet they came out the other side stronger due to their struggles.  Many children today are more worried about being able to eat breakfast. Businesses that mandate vaccines will allow them to fully open more quickly, allowing parents to go back to work and put food on the table.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by cured

[cured]

14 hours ago, Hammergirl said:

Wow - talk about narrow minded. I see you in are in Dallas and I am happy if the kids in your state have rejoined society, but kids in MN have definitely not.

 

1. Our kids in my area the public schools systems are in complete disarray. They went from distance learning from March of last year to about November of 2020, then they let kids come back 2 days a week. That lasted about 3 weeks before they sent everyone back home for distance learning until this month. Now they are letting SOME kids come back to school full-time while others have to continue distance learning. Some districts have already shut that down and returned the kids back to distance leaning. Some districts cannot even come back to school at all because the teachers are refusing to come back to school and teach. We have one 11th grader who loves distance learning so he is doing ok. But our 5th grader....we had to shell out $11,000 to a private school just so she could go to school full-time and get a decent education and not fall behind. 

 

2. Our kids were finally allowed to come back to sports BUT they have to wear masks 100% of the time. Both my kids play basketball were so excited to be able to be with their friends again, so we agreed to let them play. Each game so far, at least one kid on one of the teams have thrown up from having to wear that mask that is basically making them hyper-ventilate. 

 

3. Kids are dealing with MAJOR mental health issues from having to be isolated from friends, teachers....human beings. Suicide is a major problem. 

 

4. We just got the ability go back and eat in restaurants again, but there are rules that come with that too. Weddings, funerals and gatherings and even church have not been able to happen for almost a year, although I think you can have a certain about of people now as of lately. 

 

So I am not exactly sure where you are getting that our kids have rejoined society. These kids have been put through more than enough and I think they deserve a little bit of respect for what they are going through. The distaste for children on this site is so sad to me. We (my husband and I) teach our kids to respect their elders but the way people on here talk about them, it makes me wonder why they should respect you when you clearly have zero respect for them. 

That sure is painting with a broad brush. Just because one supports mandated vaccines does not mean one hates kids. Sheesh.

 

I have no distaste for kids. In fact, when we book a cruise, we specifically book more family oriented cruises as that is what we prefer. We also either book through or at least on the same ships as Autism of the Seas to make sure the ship has a significant number of children with special needs for our youngest child.

 

And I still support mandated vaccines by every business if that is what THEY choose.  In the near future, I will only be patronizing businesses that mandate vaccines because that is what is best for our family. Not because I dislike kids.

 

And as for your diatribe about the miseries of kids wearing masks during sports and lack of oxygen, that has been patently disproved.  Our special needs kids in our schools are better at wearing their masks than their adult counterparts. Funny how none of the medically fragile kids in adaptable sports have passed out.  

 

Parent attitudes play a large part in kid's perceptions of what is going on and their attitudes about being in quarantine.

Edited February 4, 2021 by cured

[not-enough-cruising]

41 minutes ago, cured said:

That sure is painting with a broad brush. Just because one supports mandated vaccines does not mean one hates kids. Sheesh.

 

I have no distaste for kids. In fact, when we book a cruise, we specifically book more family oriented cruises as that is what we prefer. We also either book through or at least on the same ships as Autism of the Seas to make sure the ship has a significant number of children with special needs for our youngest child.

 

And I still support mandated vaccines by every business if that is what THEY choose.  In the near future, I will only be patronizing businesses that mandate vaccines because that is what is best for our family. Not because I dislike kids.

 

And as for your diatribe about the miseries of kids wearing masks during sports and lack of oxygen, that has been patently disproved.  Our special needs kids in our schools are better at wearing their masks than their adult counterparts. Funny how none of the medically fragile kids in adaptable sports have passed out.  

 

Parent attitudes play a large part in kid's perceptions of what is going on and their attitudes about being in quarantine.

Thank you. 

I certainly am not “anti kid” and very much “pro safe cruise” 

[cured]

7 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Thank you. 

I certainly am not “anti kid” and very much “pro safe cruise” 

👍 No one group can claim they have made more sacrifices than others so deserve any special considerations.

 

Vaccines will ultimately benefit everyone, including children.

[lizzius]

12 minutes ago, cured said:

👍 No one group can claim they have made more sacrifices than others so deserve any special considerations.

 

Vaccines will ultimately benefit everyone, including children.

If you will read carefully, that is absolutely not what anyone here is saying. The tone around "no vaccine, no kids" misses the point that it will potentially be years (if ever) before vaccines are ready for the youngest among us, and that the data is beginning to point to the fact that kids don't need them anyway as complete eradication of this disease is nigh impossible at this point. You are essentially saying it's fine to move on without them, even though there is no real benefit to leaving them behind. I have a problem with that. Choose to keep missing the point if you must.

[broadwaybaby123]

In the long run, I can see vaccines being required to cruise.  The cruise lines need to think about the safety of the passengers onboard and also about what other countries may require for porting requirements.  They can't afford outbreaks like they had in the beginning of 2020.

 

With that being said, I can't see them requiring vaccines in the immediate future.  There seems to be a lot of people who want to get vaccinated (I was able to get mine through work, so I'm good) without any means of even obtaining an appointment.  If that is the case and the industry needs to restart sooner rather than later, they may only require masks and a PCR or Binex test in the short run.

 

Now how they obtain proof of vaccination is another issue!  I've heard that they may require proof of vaccination on your license or passport, which may make it easier on the travel industry.  Either that, or people may be required to provide their vaccination card at the terminal and any other place that requires proof of vaccination (regardless of the industry).

[ATG]

I don’t hate children, in fact I have 2 grown ones.  While they were young we cruised as often as we could afford and schedule.  I believe the missing point is that everything is probably temporary.  Required vaccines are a temporary fix until infection rates drop.  I think many ports will require 100% vaccinated at first.  Masks are temporary, at least I hope.  Let’s let the cruise lines start small with all the requirements in place.  Then begin to expand, both numbers and eliminating rules.  Even if I had small children, I would be in favor of whatever helped ships begin sailing.

[not-enough-cruising]

36 minutes ago, lizzius said:

If you will read carefully, that is absolutely not what anyone here is saying. The tone around "no vaccine, no kids" misses the point that it will potentially be years (if ever) before vaccines are ready for the youngest among us, and that the data is beginning to point to the fact that kids don't need them anyway as complete eradication of this disease is nigh impossible at this point. You are essentially saying it's fine to move on without them, even though there is no real benefit to leaving them behind. I have a problem with that. Choose to keep missing the point if you must.

It won't be years.  All data being gathered now point to the Pfizer vaccine being approved for 12 and up by early summer, trial for the next younger cohort will be rapidly following these.

 

I would be interested in your data that states there is no benefit to having children immunized in this cruise scenario; because everything I have been exposed to states that children have the same virus carrying capability as adults.  This is the reason, in my opinion, that there is benefit in leaving behind the un vaccinated in the early days of the return to operations. This MUST be a zero tolerance policy, at least in the beginning.

Edited February 4, 2021 by not-enough-cruising

[cured]

37 minutes ago, lizzius said:

If you will read carefully, that is absolutely not what anyone here is saying. The tone around "no vaccine, no kids" misses the point that it will potentially be years (if ever) before vaccines are ready for the youngest among us, and that the data is beginning to point to the fact that kids don't need them anyway as complete eradication of this disease is nigh impossible at this point. You are essentially saying it's fine to move on without them, even though there is no real benefit to leaving them behind. I have a problem with that. Choose to keep missing the point if you must.

Ummm yes, you specifically said that "Young People" were sacrificing for the more vulnerable population and that they should be allowed to move on without vaccination. The very gist of your posts is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do because they have sacrificed for so long.

 

Not sure where you are getting your information.  But the vaccine manufacturers are already running trials with kids. Pfizer believes they will have a vaccine for children ready for approval sometime this fall.

 

You are not following the science.  Children can and do spread the virus even if they are not affected. For instance, in Portugal, they had all schools open. However, they recently closed all schools in the country due to increased spread and illness which traced back to school spread.

 

Choose to keep ignoring science if you must.

Edited February 4, 2021 by cured

[not-enough-cruising]

2 minutes ago, cured said:

Not sure where you are getting your information.  But the vaccine manufacturers are already running trials with kids. Pfizer believes they will have a vaccine for children ready for approval sometime this fall.

 

You are not following the science.  Children can and do spread the virus even if they are not affected. For instance, in Portugal, they had all schools open. However, they recently closed all schools in the country due to increased spread and illness which traced back to school spread.

 

Choose to keep ignoring science if you must.

but the children have sacrificed so much already..................(sorry couldn't resist)

 

just kidding

[NateUpNorth]

 

25 minutes ago, cured said:

Ummm yes, you specifically said that "Young People" were sacrificing for the more vulnerable population and that they should be allowed to move on without vaccination. The very gist of your posts is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do because they have sacrificed for so long.

 

Not sure where you are getting your information.  But the vaccine manufacturers are already running trials with kids. Pfizer believes they will have a vaccine for children ready for approval sometime this fall.

 

You are not following the science.  Children can and do spread the virus even if they are not affected. For instance, in Portugal, they had all schools open. However, they recently closed all schools in the country due to increased spread and illness which traced back to school spread.

 

Choose to keep ignoring science if you must.

 

It is my understanding that the "vaccine" many are receiving may not preclude them from contracting or spreading Covid 19, therefore may I conclude that you would fully support 100% shut down of everything, regardless of age or industry, to see this thing end?

 

 

"is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do"

 

Because if the first statement is true, it should also be reversed, there should be nothing vaccinated people can do that unvaccinated can't.

 

Just an honest question on your thinking and where you stand, not looking to start an argument.

Edited February 4, 2021 by NateUpNorth

[not-enough-cruising]

4 minutes ago, NateUpNorth said:

 

 

It is my understanding that the "vaccine" many are receiving doesn't preclude them from contracting or spreading Covid 19, therefore may I conclude that you would fully support 100% shut down of everything, regardless of age or industry, to see this thing end?

 

 

"is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do"

 

Because if this ^^^^ statement is true, it should also be reversed, there should be nothing vaccinated people can do that unvaccinated can't.

 

Just an honest question on your thinking and where you stand, not looking to start an argument.

The statements you have posed above are not an even representation of what this discussion is about.

 

This discussion is about a single isolated bubble.  A cruise ship.  You can not extrapolate what would work here, to what would work in any other uncontrolled environment.

 

Your first statement shows you have no understanding of how the effects of a vaccine come into play in a public health setting, perhaps you should do a little more research on that.

[Ocean Boy]

7 minutes ago, NateUpNorth said:

 

 

It is my understanding that the "vaccine" many are receiving doesn't preclude them from contracting or spreading Covid 19, therefore may I conclude that you would fully support 100% shut down of everything, regardless of age or industry, to see this thing end?

 

 

"is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do"

 

Because if this ^^^^ statement is true, it should also be reversed, there should be nothing vaccinated people can do that unvaccinated can't.

 

Just an honest question on your thinking and where you stand, not looking to start an argument.

The issue is that the answer to that is unknown. However, it could well be that vaccinated people don't carry a high enough viral load to be contagious.

[lizzius]

1 minute ago, not-enough-cruising said:

but the children have sacrificed so much already..................(sorry couldn't resist)

 

just kidding

 

Cute. And you honestly have no idea, but please keep laughing.

 

Pfizer is saying for the first juvenile cohort maybe this fall. For the same cohort, Moderna is saying maybe Q1 2022. For the rest, trials haven't even begun and for the mRNA deescalation trials it will be at least 6 months *after* they achieve enrollment milestones before it's approved for children. For under 5yo's, multiply that by 2. It isn't unrealistic to think we're 18-24 months out for early elementary age and potentially longer for preschool age. It also isn't a foregone conclusion an EUA would be approved for children, because the risk picture for severe disease is so much different for them.

 

As for what the experts say:

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/03/kids-dont-need-covid-19-vaccines-to-return-to-school/

In addition, you can look at the carve outs other countries are beginning to make in their policies toward children.

[lizzius]

4 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

The statements you have posed above are not an even representation of what this discussion is about.

 

This discussion is about a single isolated bubble.  A cruise ship.  You can not extrapolate what would work here, to what would work in any other uncontrolled environment.

 

Your first statement shows you have no understanding of how the effects of a vaccine come into play in a public health setting, perhaps you should do a little more research on that.

I had no idea we were in the presence of an expert. His point is salient: we aren't willing to make the sacrifices for complete elimination, so instead this drags out while the people who are arguably the least likely to suffer the consequences of contracting the disease continue to pay the price. 

 

Another fun thought exercise for you: once you're vaccinated, your chances of death or hospitalization drop extraordinarily low... Possibly less than the flu. That means that the threat of you being severely harmed from contracting COVID from a child are considerably lower than the risk of a child contracting the flu from you, regardless of their own vaccination status. Would you support mandatory flu vaccines to keep all of the medically vulnerable we run in to every day (particularly kids) incrementally safer?

[NateUpNorth]

6 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

The statements you have posed above are not an even representation of what this discussion is about.

 

This discussion is about a single isolated bubble.  A cruise ship.  You can not extrapolate what would work here, to what would work in any other uncontrolled environment.

 

Your first statement shows you have no understanding of how the effects of a vaccine come into play in a public health setting, perhaps you should do a little more research on that.

 

The statements you have posed above are not an even representation of what this discussion is about.

Other than quoting directly the comment I was asking about.... but ok

This discussion is about a single isolated bubble.  A cruise ship.  You can not extrapolate what would work here, to what would work in any other uncontrolled environment.
Agreed, and my question could be asking should vaccinated people be allowed on that cruise ship knowing they could still be A) a non carrier and then obtain it on said cruise ship and B) when they leave that ship pass it on?
Once you've answered that then proceed to relate it to the greater world in general. Not exactly mental gymnastics beyond comprehension needed to do that.

 

Your first statement shows you have no understanding of how the effects of a vaccine come into play in a public health setting, perhaps you should do a little more research on that.

Your comment shows you have no understanding of how the effects of this vaccine come into play in a public health setting, perhaps you should show your research to the many, many medical bodies and scientific studies going on to determine if the premise I have outlined is a possible scenario,

 

[NateUpNorth]

18 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

The issue is that the answer to that is unknown. However, it could well be that vaccinated people don't carry a high enough viral load to be contagious.

 

Yes, it is unknown, therefore is mandatory vaccination the key to everything? In this case the resumption of cruising? Which is the basis for my point about virus transmission made in my previous point.

.......should vaccinated people be allowed on that cruise ship knowing they could still be A) a non carrier and then obtain it on said cruise ship and B) when they leave that ship pass it on?

 

An honest question broad question that had to be defined down to "cruise only" territory that "not-enough-cruising" seemed to jump all over.

Edited February 4, 2021 by NateUpNorth

[not-enough-cruising]

22 minutes ago, NateUpNorth said:

 

 

It is my understanding that the "vaccine" many are receiving may not preclude them from contracting or spreading Covid 19, therefore may I conclude that you would fully support 100% shut down of everything, regardless of age or industry, to see this thing end?

 

 

"is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do"

 

Because if the first statement is true, it should also be reversed, there should be nothing vaccinated people can do that unvaccinated can't.

 

Just an honest question on your thinking and where you stand, not looking to start an argument.

Let me try this again, because i obviously did not convey myself properly last time..

 

It is my understanding that the "vaccine" many are receiving may not preclude them from contracting or spreading Covid 19, therefore may I conclude that you would fully support 100% shut down of everything, regardless of age or industry, to see this thing end?

 

No, I would not support 100% shut down of everything, I believe three are safe ways to conduct our daily business and gain control of this public health crisis.

 

"is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do"

 

I do not support unvaccinated people being able to do everything vaccinated people can with regards to being on a cruise ship, at this time. 

 

 

[cured]

20 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

The issue is that the answer to that is unknown. However, it could well be that vaccinated people don't carry a high enough viral load to be contagious.

👍 AstraZeneca was the first to announce (yesterday) that their  trials are showing that the vaccine not only stops infection but also stops transmission.

 

[cured]

33 minutes ago, NateUpNorth said:

 

 

It is my understanding that the "vaccine" many are receiving may not preclude them from contracting or spreading Covid 19, therefore may I conclude that you would fully support 100% shut down of everything, regardless of age or industry, to see this thing end?

 

 

"is that you support unvaccinated people, including children, being able to do everything vaccinated people can do"

 

Because if the first statement is true, it should also be reversed, there should be nothing vaccinated people can do that unvaccinated can't.

 

Just an honest question on your thinking and where you stand, not looking to start an argument.

Not even close.  

[not-enough-cruising]

16 minutes ago, lizzius said:

I had no idea we were in the presence of an expert. His point is salient: we aren't willing to make the sacrifices for complete elimination, so instead this drags out while the people who are arguably the least likely to suffer the consequences of contracting the disease continue to pay the price. 

 

Another fun thought exercise for you: once you're vaccinated, your chances of death or hospitalization drop extraordinarily low... Possibly less than the flu. That means that the threat of you being severely harmed from contracting COVID from a child are considerably lower than the risk of a child contracting the flu from you, regardless of their own vaccination status. Would you support mandatory flu vaccines to keep all of the medically vulnerable we run in to every day (particularly kids) incrementally safer?

If you would come spend a day in the Emergency Room with me on any given weekend during flu season you would see the ravages of influenza; however I would not be in favor of mandatory flu vaccine to cruise, unless the WHO declares Influenza a global pandemic, and millions die.

[NateUpNorth]

2 minutes ago, cured said:

👍 AstraZeneca was the first to announce (yesterday) that their  trials are showing that the vaccine not only stops infection but also stops transmission.

 

 

"The first"

Ocean Boy is correct when he says it is still unknown. There are many other vaccines out there that have been administered that haven't said that.

 

So if you are vaccinated but a child is not, do you still maintain that child shouldn't be allowed to cruise until vaccinated?

[lizzius]

1 minute ago, NateUpNorth said:

 

Yes, it is unknown, therefore is mandatory vaccination the key to everything? In this case the resumption of cruising? Which is the basis for my point about virus transmission made in my previous point.

.......should vaccinated people be allowed on that cruise ship knowing they could still be A) a non carrier and then obtain it on said cruise ship and B) when they leave that ship pass it on?

I personally don't think ships will sail until we all accept (on the level of world governments) at a minimum the risk you've outlined above. 

 

I think you can use public restrictions and disease metrics as a basis to judge that: no cruise ship should sail, no bar should be packed full, and no sports stadiums should be open while the government recommends schools operate at reduced capacity or otherwise restrict in-person learning. I'm not remarking on the wisdom of either decision, just pointing out that the incongruency is the problem. Beyond that, the proof is in the pudding as far as what the disease is costing us: once hospitalizations and deaths decrease and schools are fully open, we can go back to something close to business as usual. I think the tendency on this board is to believe we can shortcut that somehow with vaccines that haven't been shown to be sterilizing, (though they are likely to be at least slightly that based on preliminary data) and have only been distributed to a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Beside the point you outlined, even if they were perfect, imagine how the grocery checker who is in group 2 and has no hope of getting a vaccine before the summer is going to feel watching you check-out with your hawaiian shirt and tan (all while possibly still spreading the disease to her) knowing that her kid still can't go to school 5 days a week?

[cured]

17 minutes ago, lizzius said:

I had no idea we were in the presence of an expert. His point is salient: we aren't willing to make the sacrifices for complete elimination, so instead this drags out while the people who are arguably the least likely to suffer the consequences of contracting the disease continue to pay the price. 

 

Another fun thought exercise for you: once you're vaccinated, your chances of death or hospitalization drop extraordinarily low... Possibly less than the flu. That means that the threat of you being severely harmed from contracting COVID from a child are considerably lower than the risk of a child contracting the flu from you, regardless of their own vaccination status. Would you support mandatory flu vaccines to keep all of the medically vulnerable we run in to every day (particularly kids) incrementally safer?

I support a business' choice whether they feel they would be more profitable mandating a vaccine or not mandating a vaccine.

 

I also support anyone's choice whether they choose to patronize a business mandating a vaccine or whether they choose to go elsewhere.

 

If RCI decides that they will attract more customers mandating a vaccine, I will support (very happily) that choice. I will be one of the customers who are more likely to book if I know they are mandating vaccines.

[lizzius]

5 minutes ago, cured said:

👍 AstraZeneca was the first to announce (yesterday) that their  trials are showing that the vaccine not only stops infection but also stops transmission.

 

No, it is possible that it *reduced* transmission by around 50% at 90 days.