Carnival’s CEO states that they will not require vaccinations

[SNJCruisers]

3 hours ago, mondello said:

Not a one of us has a crystal ball and can say with certainty what the situation will be on 5/31 or 7/4.

Very simple.  Cruising still will have not yet resumed from US embarkation ports.

[BlerkOne]

Both river and Alaska cruises will be taking place before July.

[SNJCruisers]

2 hours ago, harkinmr said:

It's pretty obvious that vaccines are going to be incorporated into the framework for conditional sailing restart.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with NCL's decision to mandate vaccines for 100% of the ships cruisers and crew, eliminating kids versus the adults only vaccines and negative testing for kids on RCI and Celebrity. 

And of course how the policy that the idiot Arnold Donald will possibly implement fits in. (or doesn't)

[hurricane0226]

2 hours ago, cruiseracer said:

This! 👍

I second that

[SNJCruisers]

2 hours ago, Prismism said:

No judgement for those who want to get vaccinated, but seriously hope that Carnival does not require them. If they do, they will be losing a lot of customers from Texas and Florida.

Here in Dallas, masks are only recommended when going out to restaurants and bars, they're rarely required. Life is essentially back to normal, and it's lovely.

The only option for you and your ilk from Texas and Florida would possibly to cruise on MSC.  And if by some chance Carnival does sail without requiring vaccines, masks will be required. 

You are totally delusional if you think you will be sailing in the fall of 2021 like it was in the fall of 2019.

[SNJCruisers]

1 hour ago, cruiseracer said:

Then don't cruise w/Carnival. See how easy that is?

That will leave you with MSC, since all of the other lines have mandated vaccines for adults.

[mredandchis]

2 hours ago, cruiseracer said:

Always trust in God. Agenda may not be the correct word here, not sure. Will give it more thought. All the best to wifey... Same here - unrelated health issues to covid should not effect a desire or decision to cruise. It doesn't matter to me if others wear masks or astronaut suits, get vaccinated or impregnated - it is their complete decision.  

Amen, it is each persons decision.  I don't like seeing people being forced or coerced into anything. I am definitely against forcing anyone to take the jab.  But my wife gets number 2 tomorrow -  I am a person that supports getting it.  We need a bunch to hit herd but we don't need everyone. 

 

Agenda isn't the right word.  It is a total unbendable mind set.  "There is one way, and it is my way".   And the worse part is. the only way it will be, is what the directors and CDC agree to. They wont be asking any of us for our opinion.

 

  And while many talk about mandates, we have fellow cruisers from many nations that want to cruise also.  This is not about the USA, it is about cruising, its about the world.  

 

Now let me put this soap box away. 

[embarkation75]

3 hours ago, Prismism said:

 

My wife and I are young (late 30s) and also very healthy. We agreed that we have no interest in getting vaccinated. It's not a political thing for us, nor are we "antivaxers". We are loyal to Carnival, and have two booked cruises coming up. No judgement for those who want to get vaccinated, but seriously hope that Carnival does not require them. If they do, they will be losing a lot of customers from Texas and Florida.

Here in Dallas, masks are only recommended when going out to restaurants and bars, they're rarely required. Life is essentially back to normal, and it's lovely.

First, no judgement on your decision to not vaccinate but stop lobbing these unfounded threats about losing people from Texas and Florida as that also works the other direction in case you missed the rest of this thread.

 

Time will tell as ultimately the CDC may mandate vaccinations but it appears Carnival is currently trying to straddle the line to avoid pissing off people on either side that will request a refund. If the CDC somehow leaves the vaccination requirement up to the cruiselines, then a policy very similar to American Cruiselines seems like the bare minimum for Carnival which in one fashion doesn't mandate vaccinations but also requires enough testing of unvaccinated that they won't be casually strolling onto the ship yet vaccinated folks essentially will be casually strolling onto the ship. Listen if you or other unvaccinated can pass through the gauntlet of covid tests, then I have no problem cruising with you.

 

Finally why do you keep mentioning "very healthy" as justification as for one some of the healthiest folks I know have gotten covid and are still struggling with long-haulers. Many of those folks are now subsequently vaccinated. In contrast, some of the most overweight and poor health people I know refuse to get the vaccine. You are free to not get vaccinated but stop with the "good health" garbage as that's offensive to those I know who are in very good health but have suffered.

Edited April 20, 2021 by embarkation75

[embarkation75]

2 hours ago, OceanZena said:

 

I have no intention of taking the vaccine,---(please don't waste your time trying to guilt or shame me--it won't work)---but I also have absolutely no problem with having to supply a neg Covid test prior to sailing and would gladly provide one if needed and pay out of my own pocket. I think it's a fair middle ground for all of us to start cruising again. 

I also have no problem waiting till 2023 to cruise again if that would be the case as well for unvaccinated travelers. As much as I love cruising, I can wait and do other things until then. 

I have zero problem with what you're saying as that's a very grounded response for an unvaccinated individual. As long as unvaccinated folks don't start complaining about vaccinated cruisers having an easier path to boarding/different lines (flash vaccination card) then this is a very solid approach. This also largely takes care of the morons that think they can casually stroll onto the ship after spending the last year partaking in covid hotspots.

[OceanZena]

28 minutes ago, embarkation75 said:

I have zero problem with what you're saying as that's a very grounded response for an unvaccinated individual. As long as unvaccinated folks don't start complaining about vaccinated cruisers having an easier path to boarding/different lines (flash vaccination card) then this is a very solid approach. This also largely takes care of the morons that think they can casually stroll onto the ship after spending the last year partaking in covid hotspots.

Thank you for understanding as I know this is a very heated subject from both sides. I realize that the absolute first priority of all the ships is the passenger safety---and in order to keep everyone as safe as can be without shunning anyone, mandating proof of negative Covid testing is perfectly acceptable to me and I don't see how anyone who chooses not to get vaccinated could logically argue against it because it's a no brainer imo. 

 

And if that means boarding the ship last and taking extra time for all the paperwork, I have no problem with that either---and this is coming from someone who always gets FTTF to board early. If this is the way it has to be until herd immunity is finally reached and this whole nightmare is behind us, I can certainly live with that. Safety should be the absolute first priority until then. 

[ledges1]

9 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

That's one possibility. In Carnival land, I can see possible mergers between some of the lines and less dependency on Americans.

I agree that another possibility is consolidations through mergers. As cruise lines downsize, mergers are another way to grow in the future.

[ProgRockCruiser]

12 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

They impact both other unvacinated individuals as well as vaccinated individuals. On a cruise ship, they risk premature end to the cruise at the very least and perhaps future cruises as well.

 

12 hours ago, cruiseracer said:

How so?

If a COVID-19 outbreak happens during a cruise, possibly as simple as "more than a couple of cases", we still have no idea how the authorities will react.  If you recall, any ship with the merest hint of COVID-19 was denied the ability to Port in many places when this first hit the fan.

 

Since no-one, AFAIK, has publicly stated the protocols to be implemented by cruise lines, foreign ports, and US home ports for the inevitable case of a COVID cluster, there are a number of people wary of the increased risk associated with significant proportions of unvaccinated pax, especially if social distancing is no longer enforced.

 

One so-called "outbreak" could be enough to cause the ship to be denied entry at foreign ports, the cruise to be cut short, and a giant hassle for everyone when returning to the home port.  And who knows what bad press or over-reaction for subsequent cruises.

 

Maybe that won't happen.  But I don't trust it won't happen.

Edited April 20, 2021 by ProgRockCruiser

[Joebucks]

18 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

 

If you recall, any ship with the merest hint of COVID-19 was denied the ability to Port in many places when this first hit the fan.

 

We also closed down retail stores, restaurants, pretty much every business without even the slightest hint. 

 

It's beyond a health concern at this point. It's about no one wanting to take the liability for this taboo we've created in cruising. 2,000 hotel travelers might bring as much COVID if not more more than 2,000 cruisers, but it requires too much work to prove. 

[asalligo]

Someone who supports the vaccine, without emotion or politics please tell me why you think that a person should take it. Because I am struggling to see a benefit from the risk. 

 

The vaccine does not prevent infection clearly. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

 

So let's assume it reduces infection. Well I already had Covid and never even knew it since my blood has antibodies, so my body appears to be good at handling the virus already. 

 

Does it reduce mortality from infection? Well 74 of those 5800 people who caught Covid well after their 2nd dose are dead.

 

It does not prevent transmission either although they are studying if it reduces transmission. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

It does not stop me from getting it, it does not stop me from passing it on, it does not prevent mortality from the virus, and even if you think the risk small, taking the vaccine is a risk as people have died even according to the CDC. So please, without political agenda and emotion, why should I take it? 

 

 

 

 

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

3 minutes ago, asalligo said:

Someone who supports the vaccine, without emotion or politics please tell me why you think that a person should take it. Because I am struggling to see a benefit from the risk. 

 

The vaccine does not prevent infection clearly. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

 

So let's assume it reduces infection. Well I already had Covid and never even knew it since my blood has antibodies, so my body appears to be good at handling the virus already. 

 

Does it reduce mortality from infection? Well 74 of those 5800 people who caught Covid well after their 2nd dose are dead.

 

It does not prevent transmission either although they are studying if it reduces transmission. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

It does not stop me from getting it, it does not stop me from passing it on, it does not prevent mortality from the virus, and even if you think the risk small, taking the vaccine is a risk as people have died even according to the CDC. So please, without political agenda and emotion, why should I take it? 

 

 

 

 

 

Because it greatly reduces risk to yourself and others (the "others" part being equally or more important here).

 

Tom

[asalligo]

1 minute ago, Tom-n-Cheryl said:

 

Because it greatly reduces risk to yourself and others (the "others" part being equally or more important here).

 

Tom

What can you back that up with? I have been researching that all morning. They appear to be still researching if that is true in any way. 

[bafinegan]

13 minutes ago, asalligo said:

Someone who supports the vaccine, without emotion or politics please tell me why you think that a person should take it. Because I am struggling to see a benefit from the risk. 

 

The vaccine does not prevent infection clearly. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/breakthrough-infections-covid-vaccines-cdc/index.html

 

So let's assume it reduces infection. Well I already had Covid and never even knew it since my blood has antibodies, so my body appears to be good at handling the virus already. 

 

Does it reduce mortality from infection? Well 74 of those 5800 people who caught Covid well after their 2nd dose are dead.

 

It does not prevent transmission either although they are studying if it reduces transmission. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

It does not stop me from getting it, it does not stop me from passing it on, it does not prevent mortality from the virus, and even if you think the risk small, taking the vaccine is a risk as people have died even according to the CDC. So please, without political agenda and emotion, why should I take it? 

 

 

 

 

Statistics are used to evaluate efficacy of a drug/vaccine.  5800 people did get covid and 74 died.  No one is saying that is a good thing.  What is being said the risk of getting covid if one is vaccinated is substantially decreased.  And the morbidity rate is also substantially decreased, MUCH better outcomes that the un-vaccinated.  NO drug/vaccine/treatment method is 100%.  But if outcomes/morbidities are substantially improved using a vaccine/drug/treatment,  then it should be promoted as such.  That being said, it still is a matter of personal choice.  Just don't restrict me over your choices please.  Just like I wouldn't like YOU restricted over MY choices.

Edited April 20, 2021 by bafinegan
spelling

[TNcruising02]

7 minutes ago, asalligo said:

What can you back that up with? I have been researching that all morning. They appear to be still researching if that is true in any way. 

You actually believe that the vaccines, which create an immune response, do absolutely nothing?  That the vaccines are like placebos? I support a person's choice to not vaccinate, but it does get a bit annoying when some people who make that choice go overboard in their defense.

 I know many people who won't get the vaccine, some have had covid and some have not.  Their reasons are valid to them, but to basically state the vaccines do nothing is an exagerration to me.

Edited April 20, 2021 by TNcruising02

[asalligo]

9 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

You actually believe that the vaccines, which create an immune response, do absolutely nothing?  That the vaccines are like placebos? 

No, I think it does no more than me having already had the virus and having the antibodies in my blood do. If you read my post, I already had Covid according to my recent blood work and I never even had a cough or a fever that I am aware of. So what benefit would the vaccine be to me or for that matter the people around me? 

Edited April 20, 2021 by asalligo

[OceanZena]

1 minute ago, asalligo said:

No, I think it does no more than me having already had the virus and having the antibodies in my blood do. If you read my post, I already had Covid according to my recent blood work and I never even had a cough or a fever that I am aware of. So what benefit would the virus be to me or for that matter the people around me? 

Also, we don't know what the long term side effects are of these drugs that have been released so quickly. I think this is a very valid concern to those of us who refuse to take it, and especially to those who have already had Covid. 

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

6 minutes ago, asalligo said:

No, I think it does no more than me having already had the virus and having the antibodies in my blood do. If you read my post, I already had Covid according to my recent blood work and I never even had a cough or a fever that I am aware of. So what benefit would the vaccine be to me or for that matter the people around me? 

 

The general consensus (if we can call it that) is that your long term immune response from an actual infection is not as robust as that from a vaccine. Which is why even those with a history of COVID are still being encouraged to get the vaccine.

 

Nothing is "definitive" yet, as we're all in the experiment together. One must use the best info that's out there. Unfortunately, there are those who try to intentionally muddy the waters for a myriad of reasons.

Tom

[jfunk138]

13 minutes ago, asalligo said:

No, I think it does no more than me having already had the virus and having the antibodies in my blood do. If you read my post, I already had Covid according to my recent blood work and I never even had a cough or a fever that I am aware of. So what benefit would the virus be to me or for that matter the people around me? 

My tongue in cheek response:

"'We don't know' if the vaccine reduces transmission, or to what extent. 'We don't know' if it will prevent you from dying. 'We don't know' how long the vaccine will be effective until a booster is required.  'We don't know' if your prior immunity is longer lasting and more robust than vaccine conferred immunity.  All 'we know' is that 'we know' the vaccine works!  Only a science denier would not 'know' these things"

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by jfunk138

[jfunk138]

1 minute ago, Tom-n-Cheryl said:

The general consensus (if we can call it that) is that your long term immune response from an actual infection is not as robust as that from a vaccine.

The "consensus" says the exact opposite.  Actual infection produces a more robust immune response:

"It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines."

 

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

[asalligo]

3 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

My tongue in cheek response:

"'We don't know' if the vaccine reduces transmission, or to what extent. 'We don't know' if it will prevent you from dying. 'We don't know' how long the vaccine will be effective until a booster is required.  'We don't know' if your prior immunity is longer lasting and more robust than vaccine conferred immunity.  All 'we know' is that 'we know' the vaccine works!  Only a science denier would not 'know' these things"

 

That is what it sounds like to me also. Brawndo, it's what plants crave!

[ProgRockCruiser]

21 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

The "consensus" says the exact opposite.  Actual infection produces a more robust immune response:

"It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines."

 

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

That link, which you've provided before, is about diseases in general, and says nothing specific about COVID-19.

 

The data so far, specific to COVID-19, is not certain.  From a recent NY Times article:

 

"Which produces a stronger immune response: a natural infection or a vaccine?

The short answer: We don’t know. "

 

However, it goes on to state:

 

"Vaccines for some pathogens, like pneumococcal bacteria, induce better immunity than the natural infection does. Early evidence suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines may fall into this category. Volunteers who received the Moderna shot had more antibodies — one marker of immune response — in their blood than did people who had been sick with Covid-19."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-natural-immunity.html

 

(If you can't get to it, a free limited-access account seems to let you see it.)