100% vaccinated sailings

[mcrcruiser]

18 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

I don’t think fake immunizations will be a big deal.  I am sure someone will try it but unless you are medically prevented from getting a shot, why go through conjuring up a fake record.  The vaccine is free and before cruising starts it will be readily available.

imo any one who would fake vaccination  may place their own lives in jeopardy  some where in the worlds ports 

[Laminator]

I was fortunate enough to have both shots already. I can't wait to travel the seas so I can check out my upgraded 5G in the various ports. 
All kidding aside 30% of the US population as of now has no interest in getting the vaccine. If cruise ships make vaccines mandatory I am sure some of these people will try to game the system. The vaccination card I received would be pretty easy to counterfeit. However the electronic record thru your health dept i would think would be alot more difficult.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

Sorry, I misunderstand your initial post.  It makes sense now.

No problem, I figured that. That's why I quoted you and posted the explanation.

[drowelf]

1 hour ago, KirkNC said:

 The vaccine is free and before cruising starts it will be readily available.

Well, its kinda of free. The various companies that manufacture sure are getting paid. So its either your insurance or more likely the US Government that is actually paying for it. So its cost is either coming out of our taxes or someone's pocket via insurance premiums. Its all TANSTAAFL, as Niven would say. 

[drowelf]

All this talk of the cruise line vaccinating is crew brought a thought to my mind. With the amount of vaccine already contract out to the various governments in the world, could a private entity, as a corporation, even get a supply in the near term? It seems most of the supply for at least most of this year is already allocated and purchased. I wonder what the contracts associated with the companies that got all that US Assistance say about their ability to sell the vaccine to 3rd parties?

[Tennessee Titan]

"Pfizer/Moderna may provide 95% protection against serious symptoms. But, that means 1/20 is unprotected. On a 4k passenger ship, that's 200 pax. Let's not repeat the Ruby Princess disaster."

Not whit it means... 95% protection assures that everyone will be 95 % protected, not that 5% wont..

[mamaofami]

What do we do about those people who are medically unable to be vaccinated?

[RocketMan275]

7 hours ago, Himself said:

I have real problems with the Vaccine. I do not think forced vaccinations are even constitutional.  We do not even know the long term consequnces of this vaccine. 

The Supreme Court has already ruled:  "Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state."

[KirkNC]

29 minutes ago, mamaofami said:

What do we do about those people who are medically unable to be vaccinated?

They may not be able to cruise for a while.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Tennessee Titan said:

"Pfizer/Moderna may provide 95% protection against serious symptoms. But, that means 1/20 is unprotected. On a 4k passenger ship, that's 200 pax. Let's not repeat the Ruby Princess disaster."

Not whit it means... 95% protection assures that everyone will be 95 % protected, not that 5% wont..

Not quite.  95% efficacy is a measure of the number of people treated in the clinical trial that developed symptoms compared to the number in the placebo arm.

 

The calculation   100 X (Number Placebo Arm - Number Vaccinated Arm)/Number Placebo Arm

 

The trial had around 150 cases so the calculation was around  100X (143-7)/143 = 95

 

Basically 7 people that were vaccinated developed symptoms compared to 143 that were not vaccinated.  That is all it means.

 

None of the vaccinated developed serious illness, but it was a very small number.  The israeli's have done  a good study on efficacy in the real world that does indicate efficacy in the real world.  It shows that efficacy is comparable to the trial results, though they have had some serious illness and mortality.  Basically mortality is reduced by 98.6% according to the Israeli study. 

 

It does not mean everyone is 95% protected.  

 

Some will still get sick, some will still get serious disease, just a much smaller number than going without vaccination.

 

We still do not know the impact on long haul syndrome.

Edited February 26, 2021 by nocl

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, Tennessee Titan said:

Not whit it means... 95% protection assures that everyone will be 95 % protected, not that 5% wont..

 

40 minutes ago, nocl said:

Not quite.  95% efficacy is a measure of the number of people treated in the clinical trial that developed symptoms compared to the number in the placebo arm.

 

Let me try and help. This is a simplified explanation.

 

It's about the past, present and future.

 

In the past, there was a vaccine trial where a couple of hundred participants were confirmed as positive.

 

In the present, we crunched the numbers. 95/100 of the infected were un-vaccinated. Therefore, it can be said that you have a 95% CHANCE of protection on being vaccinated.

 

In the future, you will be either infected or not, upon exposure to an infected person. Here's the important part. The infection ratio of vaccinated to non-vaccinated is not set in stone.

 

The un-vaccinated can be perfectly safe if they follow all guidelines. The vaccinated can get infected if they are exposed to a high viral load. For example, face time with an infected person for a sustained period of time.

 

What you do matters! Vaccinate or not? Risk behaviour after vaccination?

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by HappyInVan

[iancal]

1 hour ago, mamaofami said:

What do we do about those people who are medically unable to be vaccinated?

I believe that is fairly straightforward.  They will simply be unable to buy any travel product, cruise, air, or other product from a vendor that makes having a the vaccine a condition of purchase/passage.  But...perhaps only in the short term-next two years or so.

Edited February 27, 2021 by iancal

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, mamaofami said:

What do we do about those people who are medically unable to be vaccinated?

We hope enough people do get the vaccinations to provide herd immunity. At least that is what we hope for in the long run. As others have said, in the short run, they may be barred from some activities including travel.

[Hlitner]

3 hours ago, mamaofami said:

What do we do about those people who are medically unable to be vaccinated?

They stay home!  I know that sounds awful, uncaring, not politically correct, etc etc.  But when you start to allow exceptions it becomes a real pandora's box and a fiasco.  Just consider what has happened to "service animal exceptions,"  "exceptions for those who could not wear a mask," etc.  A 100% vaccination policy should be a 100% vaccination policy with zero exceptions.

 

Hank

[HamOp]

48 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

They stay home!  I know that sounds awful, uncaring, not politically correct, etc etc.  But when you start to allow exceptions it becomes a real pandora's box and a fiasco.  Just consider what has happened to "service animal exceptions,"  "exceptions for those who could not wear a mask," etc.  A 100% vaccination policy should be a 100% vaccination policy with zero exceptions.

 

Hank

For sure I don't know the in's and out's of the law, but what might the Americans With Disability Act say about that?  Can someone be restricted from traveling because of a disability?

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, HamOp said:

For sure I don't know the in's and out's of the law, but what might the Americans With Disability Act say about that?  Can someone be restricted from traveling because of a disability?

Absolutely.  Not being able to take a vaccine is not considered a disability under ADA although I guess there is a judge somewhere who would disagree.  But even if it was a disability the ADA only requires "reasonable" accommodation.   I find it interesting (and sad) that a member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature proposed a Bill (yesterday) that would make it illegal for an employer to mandate vaccinations or testing.  I am sure this same representative would insist that he is a strong supporter of measures to support public health.   Go figure.  I assume that in the next few weeks we will hear somebody say that "vaccines" are racist conspiracy of some sort.

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Absolutely.  Not being able to take a vaccine is not considered a disability under ADA although I guess there is a judge somewhere who would disagree.  But even if it was a disability the ADA only requires "reasonable" accommodation.   I find it interesting (and sad) that a member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature proposed a Bill (yesterday) that would make it illegal for an employer to mandate vaccinations or testing.  I am sure this same representative would insist that he is a strong supporter of measures to support public health.   Go figure.  I assume that in the next few weeks we will hear somebody say that "vaccines" are racist conspiracy of some sort.

 

Hank

Racist conspiracy? I thought they were a Bill Gates conspiracy to have microchips implanted in all of us.🤦‍♀️

[HamOp]

32 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Racist conspiracy? I thought they were a Bill Gates conspiracy to have microchips implanted in all of us.🤦‍♀️

Many of us already do. It's called a cell phone😁

[KirkNC]

10 hours ago, HamOp said:

For sure I don't know the in's and out's of the law, but what might the Americans With Disability Act say about that?  Can someone be restricted from traveling because of a disability?

Expedition cruises already utilize health screening to determine who can and can’t go.  ADA is not some catch all that means you can’t screen customers as long as you have a REASONABLE basis for doing so.

[mustgo]

14 hours ago, mamaofami said:

What do we do about those people who are medically unable to be vaccinated?

It would be the same as being medically unable to travel.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, HamOp said:

For sure I don't know the in's and out's of the law, but what might the Americans With Disability Act say about that?  Can someone be restricted from traveling because of a disability?

The Americans With Disabilities Act can cause strange results.

 

I remember going to a school board meeting once, and there was a new directive from the federal government being discussed. It made taking a weapon into school grounds for automatic suspension, but there was a catch. It did not apply to a special ed. student if taking the weapon into school related to his or her disability. If so, you could not suspend because that would have been discrimination.

 

We in the audience were all aghast at the absurdity of this. Someone who brought a weapon due to their disability would be the very last person you would want in a school with a weapon. And eventually even in the government saw the absurdity, and made a change. You could do an emergency suspension.

[Mary229]

If the ADA banned any activity that people with one disability or another could participate in we would have to close every roller coaster, sky diving operation, vehicle licensing - and driving while we are at it. Yep, the blind cannot drive so we need to ban driving.    Let's stick with feasibilities.  

[Indianadaytripper]

I believe the u.s. Supreme Court has weighed in on vaccinations and found in several cases brought before them that requiring them is legal if in the publics best health interest. In the case of cruise ships, I would say it’s in all our best health interests and the people we interact with in other countries while traveling. 

[Mary229]

It doesn't matter if it is in "our best interest", there is no law for that.  However you are right the courts have given entities the right to limit access to their activities/locations by requiring a vaccine.  I do believe you still need a TB test to engage in certain employment.  This is different than mandating a vaccine for the entire population.  

 

I am still in the camp that the lines don't want to make the call, they want some higher authority to do so

Edited February 27, 2021 by Mary229

[igraf]

On 2/19/2021 at 7:25 AM, HappyInVan said:

Cruise companies can demand 100% inoculation. But, will still need to observe masking/distancing.

 

Pfizer/Moderna may provide 95% protection against serious symptoms. But, that means 1/20 is unprotected. On a 4k passenger ship, that's 200 pax. Let's not repeat the Ruby Princess disaster.

 

In addition, there will be fake documents. Already available in Mexico...

 

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/two-air-passengers-fined-10k-201253990.html

 

Those poor fellow travelers on the plane!!!

 

The COVID vaccines require two weeks to build up immunity in the body.  The 5% who got sick after immunization was largely a result of being infected within the two week period after the first shot.  The new mRNA vaccines are close to 100% effective if one allows time for the antibodies to develop.

 

The only real protection is vaccination.  As you pointed out, masks and tests are subject to human flaws.  This is also true for "proof of vaccination" certificates, so just get yourself vaccinated and you will be protected. 

 

People who refuse to vaccinate will eventually get sick, and then they will become immune (or dead).  Problem solved either way.

 

igraf