Vaccine Requirement News

[Boo's Mom]

3 hours ago, jerseygirl3 said:

That is actually not true. Any privately owned company can require that their employees be vaccinated. Just like the cruise lines can do the same. As a matter of fact, here in NJ, Rutgers University just announced today that all incoming Fall students must show proof of vaccination. 

Regarding Rutgers:  Students planning to attend the fall 2021 semester may request an exemption from the vaccination requirement for medical or religious reasons. 

 

Regarding employees:  "Dr. Cohn reminded everyone that under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated."  Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2020-08-508.pdf

[ChuckRambo]

My understanding is that Moderna and Pfizer were granted immunity from liability lawsuits for these experimental “vaccines.” That, in and of itself, is a major cause of concern for me.

 

 

[not-enough-cruising]

6 hours ago, ChuckRambo said:

My understanding is that Moderna and Pfizer were granted immunity from liability lawsuits for these experimental “vaccines.” That, in and of itself, is a major cause of concern for me.

 

 

In reality vaccine manufacturers in general are pretty well protected from liability by federal statute, this i snot unique to Covid vaccines. Following is the verbiage from the statute:

 

One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer. . . . [The rule applies although] the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product.

 

Since 1920 there have only been 5 successfully proven cases of vaccine manufacturers liable for adverse  outcome in the USA. 

[not-enough-cruising]

9 hours ago, Boo's Mom said:

Regarding Rutgers:  Students planning to attend the fall 2021 semester may request an exemption from the vaccination requirement for medical or religious reasons. 

 

Regarding employees:  "Dr. Cohn reminded everyone that under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated."  Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2020-08-508.pdf

The students may request an exemption, but more likely they will be accommodated by online learning.

 

Of the 2 lawsuit pending in the country now around mandated vaccines, neither are expected to see the light of day, because "the state" can easily provide proof of the overall good of the vaccine to public health. Several legal minds, experpts in the federal legal system, have weighed in stating Rutgers is on firm legal ground, and one can expect more of these mandates to come about.

[ArthurUSCG]

9 hours ago, Boo's Mom said:

Regarding Rutgers:  Students planning to attend the fall 2021 semester may request an exemption from the vaccination requirement for medical or religious reasons. 

 

Regarding employees:  "Dr. Cohn reminded everyone that under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated."  Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2020-08-508.pdf

That is referring to the government (federal, state, local) making the vaccine mandatory, not for business. Do you remember the supreme court decided that businesses could have additional requirements to being a customer? If a baker can require clients to be straight, then they can require clients to be vaccinated. It is not a mandate, since you are free to choose to go to another business.

[mek]

7 hours ago, ChuckRambo said:

My understanding is that Moderna and Pfizer were granted immunity from liability lawsuits for these experimental “vaccines.” That, in and of itself, is a major cause of concern for me.

 

 

Not for me.  There are enough cases of drugs that have received FDA approval turning out to be problematic that proves drugs with years and years of tests can turn out bad. I'm not worried.

All I know is I've had both Pfizer shots and it's been like getting a "Get Out Of Jail" card.  I've been able to do many of the things I wasn't able to do this past year and quite frankly, I'm willing to take the "risk" with the vaccines.  Nothing is sure in life.

Edited March 26, 2021 by mek

[smokeybandit]

7 hours ago, ChuckRambo said:

My understanding is that Moderna and Pfizer were granted immunity from liability lawsuits for these experimental “vaccines.” That, in and of itself, is a major cause of concern for me.

 

 

This is a very common thing. 

[Sky616]

18 hours ago, jerseygirl3 said:

That is actually not true. Any privately owned company can require that their employees be vaccinated. Just like the cruise lines can do the same. As a matter of fact, here in NJ, Rutgers University just announced today that all incoming Fall students must show proof of vaccination. 

Against the law.  

[not-enough-cruising]

4 minutes ago, Sky616 said:

Against the law.  

Not against the law at all, there is plenty of state and federal court precedence covering it. 

[not-enough-cruising]

1 minute ago, jerseygirl3 said:

Nope. Not against the law. But I can pretty much guarantee there are suddenly going to a a whole lot of religious zealots claiming religious exemption. It’s going to be a lot harder to get a medical exemption. Most doctors will not risk their license to write a bogus exemption and there are very few who cannot take the vaccine. Even those who’ve had an allergic reaction are advised to take the vaccine. Of course there may be exceptions, but not many that are legit. 

A religious exemption does not have to be offered, in Texas there are no vaccine exemptions for the public school system for example.  Fully vaccinated, or find a private school, or home school. Pretty cut and dry.

[smokeybandit]

On 3/26/2021 at 11:48 AM, not-enough-cruising said:

Not against the law at all, there is plenty of state and federal court precedence covering it. 

It is against the law to require employees to get a vaccine that's only authorized under emergency use agreements. 

[not-enough-cruising]

21 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

It is against the law to require employees to get a vaccine that's only authorized under emergency use agreements. 

Not exactly accurate. This has never been ruled on, the statute is vague at best. 

The EUA provision was added to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) in 2004 to give the government increased flexibility to respond to a chemical, biologic, nuclear, or radiation threat. When the pathway was created, special language was included for informational disclosures for individuals offered a medical product under an EUA. Specifically, under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), each individual must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Although no court has interpreted this provision, the first segment of the subclause suggests that mandates are categorically prohibited, since each person must have “the option to accept or refuse.” But another plausible interpretation is to view segment two as a qualifier to segment one. According to this interpretation, the provision as a whole could be interpreted to dictate that, although a person has the option to refuse an EUA product, refusal can come with “consequences.” Under this interpretation, the legality of a mandate is likely to hinge on how the term “consequences” is defined. Since the term is not defined in the statute, statutory interpretation principles dictate that the word should be defined in ordinary terms within the context of the statute

 

 

[smokeybandit]

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

[not-enough-cruising]

45 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

This article however cites the same statute containing the same ambiguity of the term “consequences”. It is not the place

of the CDC director, but the appropriate court, to rule on this. 
As the statute is written no one can say a mandate is , or is not, legal. 

[Spurschick]

On 3/4/2021 at 3:25 PM, badvector said:

 

I will be surprised if RCI handles sailings any differently than the other cruise lines unless they see a benefit to it.  They have to start making money somehow and if the consensus is to require a vaccine in order to start, that's how they will proceed.  As long as the sailing makes money in the short term, they will always be able to adjust requirements in the long term in order to increase passenger load.  You have to make it through the short term before you can get to the long term and I don't know how much longer they can go without sailing in the short term.

 

There is no website that says the vaccine is 100% effective and none of the makers have ever claimed so.  The studies indicate it is effective enough to reduce the number of deaths and severe cases while getting us to herd immunity (If there will ever truly be immunity.  I'm not remotely intelligent or well versed enough in that field to know).  There are already break through cases being reported from vaccinated individuals and that was expected. 

 

By requiring the vaccine to sail, RCI is effectively setting up a safety net should a breakout occur.  They can fall back on the fact that they followed all guidelines and required all passengers to be vaccinated.   I'm sure it also gives credibility to their commitment to address the pandemic in the eyes of the CDC when it comes to sailing out of US ports as well.  

 

 

Agreed. I think they also are going with the rational that vaccinations are designed to prevent death or severe illness. Vaccines do not prevent you from necessarily catching it.

 

in the case that a passenger does get diagnosed onboard it would less likely result in an emergency evac for the person infected reducing disruption to the cruise.

 

As a side note it will be interesting to see any travel insurance requirements to board. I know P&O require all guests to be vaccinated and a minimum of £2million coverage for Covid. Failure to produce proof of coverage at port will result in denial of boarding at your own expense.

[ONECRUISER]

On 3/25/2021 at 4:39 PM, jerseygirl3 said:

That is actually not true. Any privately owned company can require that their employees be vaccinated. Just like the cruise lines can do the same. As a matter of fact, here in NJ, Rutgers University just announced today that all incoming Fall students must show proof of vaccination. 

The university announced the requirement in a news release, which said students "may request an exemption from vaccination for medical or religious reasons." It said students who are enrolled in online courses will not be required to be vaccinated.

The release does not specify a requirement for faculty and staff but said they are "strongly urged to get the vaccine as vaccine supplies are made available to the wider population."   ...Falls months away, this policy subject to change, and think will one way or another. "Faculty urged" but this so far is for on campus Classes only, though I see many requests for exceptions.

 

[ONECRUISER]

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

Agree, and reason hasn't been required. Even 1/3 US Military(declined it) and currently only 52% Medical personal have received Vaccine. Some as Wait and see with little over 1/3 saying don't plan on getting it. Now if stops being EUA these might change. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by ONECRUISER

[ArthurUSCG]

7 hours ago, ONECRUISER said:

The university announced the requirement in a news release, which said students "may request an exemption from vaccination for medical or religious reasons." It said students who are enrolled in online courses will not be required to be vaccinated.

The release does not specify a requirement for faculty and staff but said they are "strongly urged to get the vaccine as vaccine supplies are made available to the wider population."   ...Falls months away, this policy subject to change, and think will one way or another. "Faculty urged" but this so far is for on campus Classes only, though I see many requests for exceptions.

 

What is happening frequently in large businesses and I'm hearing murmurs that a certain large University near me for the fall return is, the only way for staff to interact face to face with other staff or students is if they are vaccinated, otherwise the courses will be online and other reasonable accommodations will be provided.

Sure, they can't mandate the vaccine, but if you want to get back to life before covid, then they are requiring that you are vaccinated.

[jerseygirl3]

10 hours ago, ONECRUISER said:

The university announced the requirement in a news release, which said students "may request an exemption from vaccination for medical or religious reasons." It said students who are enrolled in online courses will not be required to be vaccinated.

The release does not specify a requirement for faculty and staff but said they are "strongly urged to get the vaccine as vaccine supplies are made available to the wider population."   ...Falls months away, this policy subject to change, and think will one way or another. "Faculty urged" but this so far is for on campus Classes only, though I see many requests for exceptions.

 

And as I said in a previous post, you will suddenly see a lot of religious zealots come out of the woodwork. Medical exemption will be harder to fake since no doctor will risk their medical license to fabricate a medical condition for a bogus exemption. 
 

When my kids started college, they were not allowed to move onto campus until they provided proof of meningitis vaccination. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by jerseygirl3
Added

[4774Papa]

13 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

It is against the law to require employees to get a vaccine that's only authorized under emergency use agreements. 

I generally agree that employers can mandate a vaccine, however that may not be the case for all employees.  If an employee is working from home permanently and never has an opportunity to expose others to the virus, it might not fly.

[4774Papa]

I am not an anti-vaxer.  Both wife and self have had Pfizer vaccine.

 

Still, I was concerned to read this article.

https://fos-sa.org/2021/03/12/open-letter-to-the-who-immediately-halt-all-covid-19-mass-vaccinations-geert-vanden-bossche-dmv-phd/

 

[Milwaukee Eight]

41 minutes ago, jerseygirl3 said:

suddenly see a lot of religious zealots come out of the woodwork.

You like using that term. I suppose you’re not religious. I think some might take offense to this terminology.  

M8

Edited March 29, 2021 by Milwaukee Eight

[4774Papa]

I posted that link with the article by Bossche and someone posted an article that clearly debunked Bossche.

[smokeybandit]

2 hours ago, 4774Papa said:

I am not an anti-vaxer.  Both wife and self have had Pfizer vaccine.

 

Still, I was concerned to read this article.

https://fos-sa.org/2021/03/12/open-letter-to-the-who-immediately-halt-all-covid-19-mass-vaccinations-geert-vanden-bossche-dmv-phd/

 

I can't trust anyone whose background is the Bill Gates foundation

[Cousin Eddie]

3 hours ago, 4774Papa said:

I am not an anti-vaxer.  Both wife and self have had Pfizer vaccine.

 

Still, I was concerned to read this article.

https://fos-sa.org/2021/03/12/open-letter-to-the-who-immediately-halt-all-covid-19-mass-vaccinations-geert-vanden-bossche-dmv-phd/

 

I wouldn't put must stock in that non sense. This self described expert is board certified in Veterinary Virology, Microbiology and Animal Hygiene and hasn’t published a research paper since 1995 but claims to have accomplished great things while spouting baseless garbage in this letter.

Here is a quite detailed and most importantly, referenced debunking of the veterinarian' s claims.

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vanden-bossches-claims

Edited March 29, 2021 by Cousin Eddie