Carnival CEO Says No Vaccination Requirement

[nocl]

7 hours ago, Mary229 said:

There are not definitive studies saying that and if that were to be the case individuals and societies would have to make some decisions.  I don't think we can shut down the world for years on end.  Leaders should only operate from proven data not suppositions.

 I think that there is plenty of data out there concerning mutation of COVID19 and the appearnace of new strains with new characteristics.  There is also data showing increased infection levels in those vaccinated by B.1.351 variant compared to the original strain (Israel).  

 

 

[Mary229]

3 minutes ago, nocl said:

 I think that there is plenty of data out there concerning mutation of COVID19 and the appearnace of new strains with new characteristics.  There is also data showing increased infection levels in those vaccinated by B.1.351 variant compared to the original strain (Israel).  

 

 

https://www.jns.org/pfizer-vaccine-found-effective-against-covid-19-variants/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-pfizer-vaccine-effective-against-mutations-in-new-covid-19-variants/ar-BB1db74Q

 

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfizer-covid-vaccine-effective-against-2-variants/a-56501008

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/moderna-vaccines-promising-vs-variants-182153004.html

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/coronavirus-and-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210414/Updated-Moderna-vaccines-neutralize-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant-in-mice.aspx

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-varian-idUSKBN2C50AN

 

Should I go on, I can do this all day.  These are in the last 7 days and note many quote peer reviewed studies 

[nocl]

3 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

https://www.jns.org/pfizer-vaccine-found-effective-against-covid-19-variants/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-pfizer-vaccine-effective-against-mutations-in-new-covid-19-variants/ar-BB1db74Q

 

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfizer-covid-vaccine-effective-against-2-variants/a-56501008

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/moderna-vaccines-promising-vs-variants-182153004.html

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/coronavirus-and-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210414/Updated-Moderna-vaccines-neutralize-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant-in-mice.aspx

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-varian-idUSKBN2C50AN

 

Should I go on, I can do this all day.  These are in the last 7 days and note many quote peer reviewed studies 

While they might be last 7 days, they are all referring to the in vitro testing that took place considerably longer ago. Even then they do show less response against B.1.351.

 

 Lets take a look at them one by one.  

 

https://www.jns.org/pfizer-vaccine-found-effective-against-covid-19-variants/

 

The vaccine was found to be moderately less effective against the B.1.351 (South African) variant and the combined British-South African variants of the coronavirus.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-pfizer-vaccine-effective-against-mutations-in-new-covid-19-variants/ar-BB1db74Q

 

The study said the vaccine was slightly less effective on mutations for the variant first found in South Africa compared to other mutations.

 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfizer-covid-vaccine-effective-against-2-variants/a-56501008

 

Nevertheless, the continuous transformation of the deadly virus makes clinical data and constant observation imperative. Experts say that it is not a foregone conclusion that vaccines currently in use will remain effective against possible new variants of the virus in the future.

In the same like you also get this little blurb about the AZ vaccine

 

South Africa justified the decision by pointing to the vaccine's low effectiveness against mild and moderate infection stemming from the B.1351 variant, which is currently dominant in the country. Spahn emphasized that the three EU-approved vaccines exhibited high efficacy against serious infection.

 

Moderna is so sure of there protection against B.1.351 that they are making and testing a booster specifically to protect against that variant. I am sure that they are doing this because they are comfortable with their initial vaccines protection against variants

 

https://news.yahoo.com/moderna-vaccines-promising-vs-variants-182153004.html

 

Moderna Inc vaccines designed to protect against the worrisome coronavirus variants identified in South Africa and Brazil have yielded promising results when tested in mice, according to new data. The company tested two new approaches against the variants - a single-dose "booster" for mice vaccinated months earlier with both doses of the original Moderna vaccine, and a separate new two-shot version combining the original vaccine with the booster in mice that had never been vaccinated. 

 

 

While this one does show the results from some interaction with the Pfizer vaccine and the B.1.351.  it does not say that the numbers were to small to be statistically significant, though it does give an indication of some efficacy. This is counterbalanced with the results from an Israeli study that generated the opposite result.

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/coronavirus-and-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

 

 In the lab, the vaccine was less effective at protecting against virus-containing mutations found in the B.1.351 variant. Real-world results have been more promising. All nine COVID-19 cases observed among 800 study participants in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant is common, occurred in the placebo group. This translates to 100% vaccine effectiveness. These results were announced in a Pfizer/BioNTech press release.

 

 

This one is also about the new version being developed, not the original vaccine that everyone has been given.  Do you actually read the articles you reference?

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210414/Updated-Moderna-vaccines-neutralize-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant-in-mice.aspx

 

Researchers in the United States have conducted a pre-clinical study demonstrating the efficacy of two updated versions of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine against variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 – the agent that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

 

This one is also about a new vaccine being developed not the one given to everyone so far

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-varian-idUSKBN2C50AN

 

A modified version of AstraZeneca's (AZN.L) COVID-19 vaccine tailored to combat a coronavirus variant first documented in South Africa could be ready by the end of 2021, an AstraZeneca official in Austria said in an interview published on Sunday.

[Mary229]

@nocl. I guess we are philosophically different and there will be no meeting of the minds

[bennybear]

3 hours ago, kazu said:

 

I’m sorry but that is just not true any longer.  Now that the variants are out there, many young people have been hospitalized and died.  This is no longer the virus of the elderly.  Everyone is susceptible and needs to be vaccinated for their protection as well as their community’s.

Thanks for correcting this, sadly it is very true, we’ve had younger and younger people in ICU and yesterday a toddler died.  So sad, yet people are still uninformed about this virus.  

[nocl]

25 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

https://www.jns.org/pfizer-vaccine-found-effective-against-covid-19-variants/

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-pfizer-vaccine-effective-against-mutations-in-new-covid-19-variants/ar-BB1db74Q

 

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfizer-covid-vaccine-effective-against-2-variants/a-56501008

 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/moderna-vaccines-promising-vs-variants-182153004.html

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/coronavirus-and-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210414/Updated-Moderna-vaccines-neutralize-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant-in-mice.aspx

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-varian-idUSKBN2C50AN

 

Should I go on, I can do this all day.  These are in the last 7 days and note many quote peer reviewed studies 

So out of all of the articles you posted they either indicated lower performance of some degree in in vitro testing in a lab setting for the Pfizer vaccine.  Or they talked about AA and Moderna working on new versions of the vaccine to be effective against B.1.351 (sure they really would spend money on that if they were comfortable with their current versions that have been used so far todate)..

 

Do you even read the articles?

 

The only one that did show that it might be as effective is the one showing 9 cases in the Pfizer vaccine being in the placebo arm.  A very small not statistically powered.

 

On the other hand let me show you  some other data

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/south-african-variant-may-break-through-pfizer-vaccine-protection-vaccine-highly-2021-04-18/

 

The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can break through the protection provided by Pfizer Inc and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found. However, the variant's prevalence in Israel is very low and the vaccine remains highly effective.

 

 

The South African variant, B.1.351, was found to make up about 1% of all the COVID-19 cases across all the people studied, according to the study by Tel Aviv University and Israel's largest healthcare provider. But among patients who had received two doses of the vaccine, the variant's prevalence rate was eight times higher than those unvaccinated - 5.4% versus 0.7%.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777785

Trials of the Novavax, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca vaccines in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant of concern represents virtually all of the circulating SARS-CoV-2, seemed to justify those concerns. The South Africa trials found lower vaccine efficacy compared with trials in other countries where B.1.351 wasn’t dominant.

 

scientists described testing serum samples from individuals immunized with 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against recombinant viruses containing some or all of the spike protein mutations found in the B.1.351 variant. Neutralization of B.1.351 was approximately two-thirds lower than that of USA-WA1/2020, an early SARS-CoV-2 isolate

 

 

 

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

@nocl. I guess we are philosophically different and there will be no meeting of the minds

You keep saying that there is no data showing issues with the Variants.  There clearly is even in the articles you referenced.

[Mary229]

Just now, nocl said:

So out of all of the articles you posted they either indicated lower performance of some degree in in vitro testing in a lab setting for the Pfizer vaccine.  Or they talked about AA and Moderna working on new versions of the vaccine to be effective against B.1.351 (sure they really would spend money on that if they were comfortable with their current versions that have been used so far todate)..

 

Do you even read the articles?

 

The only one that did show that it might be as effective is the one showing 9 cases in the Pfizer vaccine being in the placebo arm.  A very small not statistically powered.

 

On the other hand let me show you  some other data

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/south-african-variant-may-break-through-pfizer-vaccine-protection-vaccine-highly-2021-04-18/

 

The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can break through the protection provided by Pfizer Inc and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found. However, the variant's prevalence in Israel is very low and the vaccine remains highly effective.

 

 

The South African variant, B.1.351, was found to make up about 1% of all the COVID-19 cases across all the people studied, according to the study by Tel Aviv University and Israel's largest healthcare provider. But among patients who had received two doses of the vaccine, the variant's prevalence rate was eight times higher than those unvaccinated - 5.4% versus 0.7%.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777785

Trials of the Novavax, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca vaccines in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant of concern represents virtually all of the circulating SARS-CoV-2, seemed to justify those concerns. The South Africa trials found lower vaccine efficacy compared with trials in other countries where B.1.351 wasn’t dominant.

 

scientists described testing serum samples from individuals immunized with 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against recombinant viruses containing some or all of the spike protein mutations found in the B.1.351 variant. Neutralization of B.1.351 was approximately two-thirds lower than that of USA-WA1/2020, an early SARS-CoV-2 isolate

 

 

 

I have read some of the articles , I posted in response to the negative view point and as I said we are not going to meet, the philosophical gap is too wide.  

[bennybear]

13 minutes ago, nocl said:

While they might be last 7 days, they are all referring to the in vitro testing that took place considerably longer ago. Even then they do show less response against B.1.351.

 

 Lets take a look at them one by one.  

 

https://www.jns.org/pfizer-vaccine-found-effective-against-covid-19-variants/

 

The vaccine was found to be moderately less effective against the B.1.351 (South African) variant and the combined British-South African variants of the coronavirus.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-pfizer-vaccine-effective-against-mutations-in-new-covid-19-variants/ar-BB1db74Q

 

The study said the vaccine was slightly less effective on mutations for the variant first found in South Africa compared to other mutations.

 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfizer-covid-vaccine-effective-against-2-variants/a-56501008

 

Nevertheless, the continuous transformation of the deadly virus makes clinical data and constant observation imperative. Experts say that it is not a foregone conclusion that vaccines currently in use will remain effective against possible new variants of the virus in the future.

In the same like you also get this little blurb about the AZ vaccine

 

South Africa justified the decision by pointing to the vaccine's low effectiveness against mild and moderate infection stemming from the B.1351 variant, which is currently dominant in the country. Spahn emphasized that the three EU-approved vaccines exhibited high efficacy against serious infection.

 

Moderna is so sure of there protection against B.1.351 that they are making and testing a booster specifically to protect against that variant. I am sure that they are doing this because they are comfortable with their initial vaccines protection against variants

 

https://news.yahoo.com/moderna-vaccines-promising-vs-variants-182153004.html

 

Moderna Inc vaccines designed to protect against the worrisome coronavirus variants identified in South Africa and Brazil have yielded promising results when tested in mice, according to new data. The company tested two new approaches against the variants - a single-dose "booster" for mice vaccinated months earlier with both doses of the original Moderna vaccine, and a separate new two-shot version combining the original vaccine with the booster in mice that had never been vaccinated. 

 

 

While this one does show the results from some interaction with the Pfizer vaccine and the B.1.351.  it does not say that the numbers were to small to be statistically significant, though it does give an indication of some efficacy. This is counterbalanced with the results from an Israeli study that generated the opposite result.

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/coronavirus-and-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

 

 In the lab, the vaccine was less effective at protecting against virus-containing mutations found in the B.1.351 variant. Real-world results have been more promising. All nine COVID-19 cases observed among 800 study participants in South Africa, where the B.1.351 variant is common, occurred in the placebo group. This translates to 100% vaccine effectiveness. These results were announced in a Pfizer/BioNTech press release.

 

 

This one is also about the new version being developed, not the original vaccine that everyone has been given.  Do you actually read the articles you reference?

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210414/Updated-Moderna-vaccines-neutralize-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant-in-mice.aspx

 

Researchers in the United States have conducted a pre-clinical study demonstrating the efficacy of two updated versions of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine against variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 – the agent that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

 

This one is also about a new vaccine being developed not the one given to everyone so far

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-varian-idUSKBN2C50AN

 

A modified version of AstraZeneca's (AZN.L) COVID-19 vaccine tailored to combat a coronavirus variant first documented in South Africa could be ready by the end of 2021, an AstraZeneca official in Austria said in an interview published on Sunday.

So appreciate your informed posts!  

[Mary229]

 This is not the first pandemic in human history.  All of theses viruses jumped species.  This is not a first. This is manageable and the hyperbole and the refusal to see any positive news is disturbing.  When a vaccine company says they can manage the variants, you say no, there might be more. When the hospitalization rates are clearly down, you compress the graph looking for acceleration, when people are lining up in winter snow and sleet for a shot you say there is hesitancy.  This is an unsurmountable philosophical difference. 

[bennybear]

Unfortunately the facts speak for themselves. Yes, we’ve made progress but with the new variants we are not out of the woods yet.  We still need to be vigilant for a little while longer.  

 

In many places  our hospitalization rates are through the roof, and in some cases the highest ever largely due to the new variants.  
 

One needs to be informed based on the reality of the situation.   Neither rose coloured glasses nor tints are good, we all must look carefully at the world situation.  

Edited April 20, 2021 by bennybear

[nocl]

13 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I have read some of the articles , I posted in response to the negative view point and as I said we are not going to meet, the philosophical gap is too wide.  

Data is data not philosophy. 

[Mosaic]

Thank you nocl! Very informative.  As a Philosopher, I see no philosophical difference.

[Mary229]

14 minutes ago, Mosaic said:

Thank you nocl! Very informative.  As a Philosopher, I see no philosophical difference.

Maybe that is selection bias?  Even though the trendy slogan is "science is real" as a philosopher I am sure you are aware that science is an interpretation not actually real.  What we draw from data is philosophical.   The scientific method attempts to filter our biases.  But back to the discussion at hand.....

[harkinmr]

4 hours ago, kazu said:

 

I’m sorry but that is just not true any longer.  Now that the variants are out there, many young people have been hospitalized and died.  This is no longer the virus of the elderly.  Everyone is susceptible and needs to be vaccinated for their protection as well as their community’s.

Oh, don't tell them that!  They want to remain in their own little world where it's only old people who get really sick or die from it, so it's no big deal.  If they find out that it's now hitting young people hard they may be faced with having to change their perspective because we know the young are so much more valuable.

[kazu]

2 hours ago, Mary229 said:

This is not the first pandemic in human history.  All of theses viruses jumped species.  This is not a first. This is manageable

 

Absolutely correct - this is not the first pandemic.  The last one of this magnitude was just over 100 years ago and the solution was lockdown and masks.  When they let up to celebrate the end of the war is when the 2nd wave broke out and so many died.  And that was long before international travel.  

 

The most recent in my memory was SARS.  Again, lockdown and masks.  Luckily it was mostly contained.

 

We are lucky to have vaccines now but we need time to get everyone immunized and in the meantime we all need to do our part to physically distance, wear masks and listen to the scientists.  At least that’s what I am doing and I believe that the more of us that do that, the sooner we can overcome this.  JMHO.
 

[Mary229]

1 minute ago, kazu said:

 

Absolutely correct - this is not the first pandemic.  The last one was just over 100 years ago and the solution was lockdown and masks.  When they let up to celebrate the end of the war is when the 2nd wave broke out and so many died.  And that was long before international travel.  

 

We are lucky to have vaccines now but we need time to get everyone immunized and in the meantime we all need to do our part to physically distance, wear masks and listen to the scientists.  At least that’s what I am doing and I believe that the more of us that do that, the sooner we can overcome this.  JMHO.
 

@Kazu.  As long as we give the correct scientists' their due.  I detect in many posts a willingness to faithfully follow all of the minutiae dictated by government scientists at the same time calling into question the quality of work that the vaccine scientists have produced .  That is the stunning achievement, not the lockdowns, not the masks, not the crowd control.  In my immediate community a majority of the adults are vaccinated and 75% of the adults over 65 are vaccinated. That is outstanding considering I was one of the first non-medical provider adults to get a vaccine in my county and that was on January 20.  Here we are 3 months later to the day and that many people have been vaccinated.  NO hesitancy,  not only compliant but an enthusiastic response.  

 

But what do I hear here on CC - oooooh, people are hesitant, it is people of some political beliefs who will not be vaccinated - it is just not true. And that makes me upset.  Dissing the vaccine makes me upset.  

[rkacruiser]

The  CC host on the MSC Message Board has posted this afternoon a report from Cruise Industry News.  MSC's CEO Onorata states in the article that their ships will sail with both vaccinated crew and unvaccinated crew.  At this time, guests will not be required to be vaccinated, "but, we are open to it."  

 

This seems to support the statement that Mr. Donald has made.  

[idiebabe]

8 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

The  CC host on the MSC Message Board has posted this afternoon a report from Cruise Industry News.  MSC's CEO Onorata states in the article that their ships will sail with both vaccinated crew and unvaccinated crew.  At this time, guests will not be required to be vaccinated, "but, we are open to it."  

 

This seems to support the statement that Mr. Donald has made.  

Did Mr. Donald mention Unvaccinated Crew?  I don't recall reading where he said it.  

[kazu]

28 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

@Kazu.  As long as we give the correct scientists' their due.  I detect in many posts a willingness to faithfully follow all of the minutiae dictated by government scientists at the same time calling into question the quality of work that the vaccine scientists have produced .  That is the stunning achievement, not the lockdowns, not the masks, not the crowd control.  In my immediate community a majority of the adults are vaccinated and 75% of the adults over 65 are vaccinated. That is outstanding considering I was one of the first non-medical provider adults to get a vaccine in my county and that was on January 20.  Here we are 3 months later to the day and that many people have been vaccinated.  NO hesitancy,  not only compliant but an enthusiastic response.  

 

But what do I hear here on CC - oooooh, people are hesitant, it is people of some political beliefs who will not be vaccinated - it is just not true. And that makes me upset.  Dissing the vaccine makes me upset.  

 

I’m not sure why you addressed this post to me when I was agreeing with you but since you have....

Yes, the vaccines are a great achievement but recognize that everyone is not in the same position as your area with 75% vaccinated.  thus, precautions are necessary until we achieve a reasonable level of herd immunity or everyone needs to stay in their own community.

Had we not had lockdowns, masking, hygiene and physical distancing, the virus would have spread uncontrollably before we had the wonderful victory of vaccines.

 

They all work together.  Just as we need to until we have enough people vaccinated.

[rkacruiser]

17 minutes ago, idiebabe said:

Did Mr. Donald mention Unvaccinated Crew?  I don't recall reading where he said it.  

 

No, I didn't read that as well.  In my post concerning the Cruise Industry News article, my attempt was to inform what another major cruise industry player is expecting to do.  

[iceman93]

2 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Oh, don't tell them that!  They want to remain in their own little world where it's only old people who get really sick or die from it, so it's no big deal.  If they find out that it's now hitting young people hard they may be faced with having to change their perspective because we know the young are so much more valuable.

The young may be more valuable to you, but to me all lives are important.  I just think it was pretty obvious early on who was at most risk from COVID-19, and we should have poured society's resources into protecting them (rather than drastically clamping down on everything or, in the worst cases, putting the highest-risk folks in even higher-risk scenarios unnecessarily).

 

If new variants are of sufficient risk to other demographic groups, then we should work to protect them as well.  But it is still a risk calculus decision.  I feel very badly for parents of a toddler who died of COVID-19, just as I do for one who died of the flu or choking on a piece of food or hitting their head on a table or drowning in a bathtub.  But we need to make the world reasonably safe, as it will never be perfectly safe.

[idiebabe]

6 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

No, I didn't read that as well.  In my post concerning the Cruise Industry News article, my attempt was to inform what another major cruise industry player is expecting to do.  

Just to be clear!  Here's the Interview which started this Thread.  I haven't seen anything else since from Mr. Donald since this Interview.  If he never mentioned Crew, it should not be stated as Support of what MSC is doing!

 

 

Cut and Pasted from the story:

Carnival Corp.’s U.S. business has been halted by a yearlong ban on cruises from U.S. ports. Chief executive officer Arnold Donald questions the fairness of restricting cruises while allowing other travel modes with less-stringent health protocols.

Donald has been CEO of Carnival, the world’s largest cruise company, with nine lines, since 2013. Carnival’s eponymous U.S.-based unit said on April 6 it may consider moving its ships from U.S. home ports. The U.S. later said it might allow restricted cruising by midsummer.

 
Was mentioning possibly leaving U.S. ports a threat to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
No, there was no threat. It’s just a practical reality that if we’re not able to sail from the U.S. in some months soon, we would have to sail from elsewhere.

 
So what’s next with U.S. officials?
We’re hopeful we’ll be able to meet with the administration and the CDC and come up with something that’s practical and will allow people to return to their choice of vacation travel—and get a lot of Americans back to work. Over a half-million people are impacted in the U.S. in jobs associated with the cruise industry, outside of the cruise lines themselves.

 
Are cruise lines being treated unfairly?
Today you can board a plane, fly to a country, get on a cruise ship and sail, fly back from that country, and come back to the U.S. You’d have to do certain testing, but you can do that. Yet, even if vaccinated, you can’t get on a cruise ship in the U.S. If you look at arenas where people are able to attend sporting events, restaurants, hotels, resorts, air travel, there’s a level of risk management and mitigation. So we would like to just be treated similarly to the rest of the travel and tourism sector.

 
Are travelers ready to resume cruising?
When we announced three brands with sailings in July in the U.K., Princess had its second-highest-ever single-day bookings. P&O had its highest in seven years, and Cunard its highest in a decade. There’s plenty of pent-up demand.

 
Will you require passengers to be vaccinated, like Norwegian Cruise Line just announced it will?
No, absolutely. We would encourage everyone to get vaccinated, but today vaccines are not accessible to everyone. In some places it is illegal to mandate. And we respect personal choice and personal liberty. So we’ll follow what the regulations are wherever it is.

 
Even when the rules about vaccinations may go harder against your industry?
We stand to do the thing that’s in the best interest of public health. However, if vaccines are not mandated for other forms of travel and tourism, then we’re not sure that it makes sense to mandate them for cruises either. We think fair and level treatment, serving the best interest of public health, is what we should be about.

 
What do you say to those who argue that other forms of travel, like flying, are safer?
Some people say, “Well, you’re only on a plane for a few hours.” But you are sitting right next to someone. Before you got on the plane, you were in an airport terminal. Before you were in the terminal, you were in some kind of transportation. Before that, you came from somewhere. When you land, you go to another airport terminal. And then you get in an automobile, or a bus, or whatever you need to get on for transport. And then you might go to a restaurant, stay in a hotel, go to a resort. A cruise is a city at sea. So to compare us just to an airplane ride is inappropriate. And to compare us just to a hotel stay is inappropriate. Look at the evidence: Over 400,000 people have sailed in Europe [since the pandemic began] with fewer than 50 cases of Covid, all handled seamlessly without disruption. And that all happened before vaccines.

 
How will the rapid expansion of vaccines change things?
Now we have the vaccines, which are another layer, and a major layer. We would encourage everyone to get vaccinated, because it is one of the best levels of protection against any serious effects from Covid that you can have. And that’s what the science says. But we will respect whatever the rules are wherever we go, as we always do. We have to be in compliance.

 
Cruise lines already have a lot of health safety measures in place. How will vaccinations change those?
With the sailings we’ve had so far [almost 60 of Carnival’s 90 ships don’t sail to U.S. ports and aren’t subject to the U.S. ban], we’ve had universal testing, physical distancing, mask-wearing, additional medical screenings, and enhanced sanitation on the ships. And it’s worked well. Going forward with vaccines, we’ll have to see whether all that layering on top of vaccines makes sense—whether it could be, for example, you may not need to wear the mask in a group if everyone’s vaccinated. That will evolve over the coming weeks. We’ll listen to the medical experts and scientists on what the best practice is in the best interest of public health. And, of course, we will follow whatever the rules are wherever we go.

 

[ontheweb]

50 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

 

 

But what do I hear here on CC - oooooh, people are hesitant, it is people of some political beliefs who will not be vaccinated - it is just not true. And that makes me upset.  Dissing the vaccine makes me upset.  

You make the assumption that because you do not see vaccine hesitancy in your area that it does not exist in other places. Therefore you reject any proofs that have been show as to its existence.

[rkacruiser]

2 minutes ago, idiebabe said:

If he never mentioned Crew, it should not be stated as Support of what MSC is doing!

 

Thanks for your post.  You apparently are not understanding the reason why I made my post.  It was NOT to support what MSC is or is not doing.  My post was simply trying to be informative to those on our Message Board who do not check the MSC Message Board nor do they follow Cruise Industry News.