New CDC directives....

[Victoria2]

4 hours ago, david,Mississauga said:

 

The information I read a few days ago on the Cunard UK site made the mask requirement clear. It went on to say that if someone was exempted from wearing a mask they may not travel on the ship. (At the moment I can’t find that so I can’t quote it verbatim.)

 

 

 

From FAQ

 

While this Covid-19 (coronavirus) guidance is in place, there will be no exceptions. Guests will be required to wear a face mask in certain areas on board. Therefore, if you are exempt from wearing a face mask, we recommend you do not make a booking as you will not be permitted to travel.

If you have an existing booking, we will be regularly updating our policies in line with changing requirements as the Covid-19 situation evolves. Please check https://www.cunard.com/sailing-with-confidence for the latest information.

Alternatively, if you are worried that the situation will not change by the time you sail, you can transfer your booking for free, before your balance due date, under the terms of our flexible transfer policy.

[Victoria2]

36 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Possibly in fact probably a violation of the UK Disability Discrimination Act in some cases for what that statement is worth.

I'm sure whatever protocols Cunard will put in place will be taken with a nod to PHE guidelines amongst other advisories and will not flout any legalities..

Edited May 2, 2021 by Victoria2

[ace2542]

30 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

I'm sure whatever protocols Cunard will put in place will be taken with a nod to PHE guidelines amongst other advisories and will not flout any legalities..

Quotation of exemption criteria from UK  Gov website. Sounds like they are flouting a lot of stuff to me? I am sure you could make a discrimination case based upon these UK Guidelines?

 

When you do not need to wear a face covering

In settings where face coverings are required in England there are some circumstances where people may not be able to wear a face covering.

Please be mindful and respectful of such circumstances. Some people are less able to wear face coverings, and the reasons for this may not be visible to others.

This includes (but is not limited to):

• children under the age of 11 (Public Health England does not recommend face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)
• people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
• where putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress
• if you are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate
• to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others ‒ including if it would negatively impact on your ability to exercise or participate in a strenuous activity

Edited May 2, 2021 by ace2542

[Windsurfboy]

If the inability to wear a mask is directly linked to a recognised disability and that is acknowledged by the relevant bodies. Then the no mask no sail rule will be seen as direct discrimination and be illegal. 

[Windsurfboy]

For example  I expect the Asthma Society had a hand in drawing up the UK exemptions. If someone who has very bad Asthma and is registered disabled,  is then denied boarding, where they wouldn't be denied staying and eating in a UK hotel then it will be interesting to see what happens. 

[Victoria2]

6 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

If the inability to wear a mask is directly linked to a recognised disability and that is acknowledged by the relevant bodies. Then the no mask no sail rule will be seen as direct discrimination and be illegal. 

Maritime rules, PHE, CLIA and other agencies will guide individual cruise lines to make decisions on mask wearing, mandatory or disability exemptions respected

I am not a lawyer and so can't say yea or nay to your post but I don't think a Corporation which includes P&O and Cunard will lay themselves open to suits on disability grounds.

 

[Victoria2]

10 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

For example  I expect the Asthma Society had a hand in drawing up the UK exemptions. If someone who has very bad Asthma and is registered disabled,  is then denied boarding, where they wouldn't be denied staying and eating in a UK hotel then it will be interesting to see what happens. 

When I book into a hotel, I don't have the same contract with T&Cs as I do when booking a cruise. To a certain extent, if the cruise is booked knowing the company will have in place evolving protocols, then I would imagine the passenger agrees, or doesn't book.

Cruises booked prior to knowing protocols would be in place might come under a different scenario and if the passenger doesn't agree with them, then that would be cause for interest.

[ace2542]

3 hours ago, Victoria2 said:

I am not a lawyer and so can't say yea or nay to your post but I don't think a Corporation which includes P&O and Cunard will lay themselves open to suits on disability grounds

The big question is though is can and could afford to file the lawsuits. If they where to lose they might face a very big bill indeed. I don't think such a lawsuit would be under a no win no fee basis though I may be wrong about that.

[Covepointcruiser]

If someone cannot wear a face mask they should hold off all travel or going into public places.   They definitely are not able to board my transport in the U.S.   Probably not the time to travel if you have any of the disabilities preventing the wearing of masks.   Hopefully the restrictions will ease as more people are vaccinated.

[ace2542]

10 hours ago, Covepointcruiser said:

They definitely are not able to board my transport in the U.S.   Probably not the time to travel if you have any of the disabilities preventing the wearing of masks.   Hopefully the restrictions will ease as more people are vaccinated.

Surely this is unconstitutional especially if it kept for life by CDC. Forget cruising for a second being unable to fly denies disabled Americans access to parts of their country in which they are citizens. What about disabled persons living in Hawaii or Alaska they would be denied to entry and access the other 49 states of the union if unable to fly would they not?

[Windsurfboy]

15 hours ago, Victoria2 said:

When I book into a hotel, I don't have the same contract with T&Cs as I do when booking a cruise. To a certain extent, if the cruise is booked knowing the company will have in place evolving protocols, then I would imagine the passenger agrees, or doesn't book.

Cruises booked prior to knowing protocols would be in place might come under a different scenario and if the passenger doesn't agree with them, then that would be cause for interest.

 

Contracts that are inherently discriminatory are null and void and illegal.  The UK has has anti discrimination laws. No contract can break the law. If the contract  amounts to discrimination in that it prevents a disabled person doing something that a non disabled person is allowed to do by UK laws then it is no defence to the charge of discrimination. 

 

The only defence is one of practicality,  in that it would be prohibitively difficult or expensive to adapt to the needs of the disabled person. Clearly it is not difficult or expensive to allow someone not to wear a mask.

 

NB , the US laws may be completely different to the UK

Edited May 3, 2021 by Windsurfboy

[ace2542]

4 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

Contracts that are inherently discriminatory are null and void and illegal.  The UK has has anti discrimination laws. No contract can break the law. If the contract  amounts to discrimination in that it prevents a disabled person doing something that a non disabled person is allowed to do  by UK laws then it is no defence to the charge of discrimination. 

I agree with you 100%. But I would like to see either of us try and explain that to the check in girl at Southampton and her supervisor who she would call over. Be interesting to see how this plays out on a lot of levels during the months to come.

[carlmm]

16 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

The only defence is one of practicality,  in that it would be prohibitively difficult or expensive to adapt to the needs of the disabled person. Clearly it is not difficult or expensive to allow someone not to wear a mask.

 So by this you tell us, that precaution in the protection of human life is prohibited?

 

Is ist allowed to drive a motorbike without helmet?  Clearly it is not difficult or expensive to allow someone not to wear a helmet.

 

Or does this mean that as long as not everybody is allowed to cruise nobody is?

 

What about those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and cannot wear a mask? Must they be allowed onboard? 

[Victoria2]

29 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

Contracts that are inherently discriminatory are null and void and illegal.  The UK has has anti discrimination laws. No contract can break the law. If the contract  amounts to discrimination in that it prevents a disabled person doing something that a non disabled person is allowed to do by UK laws then it is no defence to the charge of discrimination. 

 

The only defence is one of practicality,  in that it would be prohibitively difficult or expensive to adapt to the needs of the disabled person. Clearly it is not difficult or expensive to allow someone not to wear a mask.

 

NB , the US laws may be completely different to the UK

The mandatory mask requirement is aimed specifically at certain cruises. What will happen after these cruises, is anyone’s guess.

The company has given its decision on the protocols to be put in place and although I’m not a lawyer, as I have previously stated, I cannot see the company circumventing any legalities.
 

[ace2542]

7 minutes ago, frankp01 said:

Per the Cunard website, masks will be required on certain portions of the ship on this summer's UK cruises. Neither is speculation

Those portions of the ship are not governed by the ship geographical location in the ocean so far as I am aware.

[frankp01]

5 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Those portions of the ship are not governed by the ship geographical location in the ocean so far as I am aware.

We'll, so far, there are only UK cruises. We can only make statements as things stand now. Conditions are changing quickly enough that I would not attempt to make predictions. That's why Cunard acknowledges "the guidance continues to evolve," and all of their COVID-related statements have an "as of" date attached.

[Victoria2]

27 minutes ago, frankp01 said:

We'll, so far, there are only UK cruises. We can only make statements as things stand now. Conditions are changing quickly enough that I would not attempt to make predictions. That's why Cunard acknowledges "the guidance continues to evolve," and all of their COVID-related statements have an "as of" date attached.

Evolve, being the key word. The whole situation is evolving every day, in some countries for the better and in at least one country for the reverse.

 

The Cunard summer programme seems to have gone down rather well with passengers, and I assume all those who have booked will have read and will abide by any protocols put in place this summer at the time of booking

 

It would be interesting to see, if those on this board who are against the summer protocols and have brought up an element of discrimination, have actually booked one of the cruises.   If not, why bother with a health element which has nothing to do with their travel arrangements unless they just feel antsy about something which goes against their grain but obviously not against those who will actually be travelling.

 

For the rest of Cunard's itineraries, wait and see what will happen once any road maps are put in place and restrictions lifted somewhat. IF masks remain mandatory,  once the furore dies down a bit and certain passengers become exempt, I would like to think medical proof will be required and yes, I KNOW that's not a UK requirement but I hope Cunard can ask for proof.  Whatever is said, I will be wearing my mask in enclosed places such as lifts etc. for a while to come.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Victoria2
added 'at the time of booking'

[ace2542]

42 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

It would be interesting to see, if those on this board who are against the summer protocols and have brought up an element of discrimination, have actually booked one of the cruises.   If not, why bother with a health element which has nothing to do with their travel arrangements unless they just feel antsy about something which goes against their grain but obviously not against those who will actually be travelling

We are booked for November as you know. My father does not want to the wear the mask end of discussion. But that is not even our first issue. First problem we will suffer with as I have said before is the lack of high tech phone/need to show vaccine status/negative test or whatever. 

 

Now talking about discrimination and disability or even age discrimination and that sort of thing. What do you make of this below. Might apply to a lot of older cruisers if and when it comes to showing vaccine status that kind of thing to Cunard?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467823/Older-drinkers-without-smartphones-risk-discrimination-pubs.html

[Victoria2]

15 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

We are booked for November as you know. My father does not want to the wear the mask end of discussion. But that is not even our first issue. First problem we will suffer with as I have said before is the lack of high tech phone/need to show vaccine status/negative test or whatever. 

 

Now talking about discrimination and disability or even age discrimination and that sort of thing. What do you make of this below. Might apply to a lot of older cruisers if and when it comes to showing vaccine status that kind of thing to Cunard?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467823/Older-drinkers-without-smartphones-risk-discrimination-pubs.html

and as I have already said, if you are really concerned and don't meet any health exemption requirements, the only thing you can do is transfer your booking or cancel and lose the deposit.

 

This whole situation is unprecedented and unfortunately there will be those who will  have their travel arrangements disrupted. You might fall into this group.

 

I don't have a Smart Phone, yet, but don't feel discriminated against at all as it's my decision. If I felt that badly about it, I'd get one, which I will if it becomes a necessary part of future travel.

edit

I have the NHS app on my pad so that will do for proof of vaccination at the moment.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Victoria2

[Windsurfboy]

3 hours ago, carlmm said:

 So by this you tell us, that precaution in the protection of human life is prohibited?

 

Is ist allowed to drive a motorbike without helmet?  Clearly it is not difficult or expensive to allow someone not to wear a helmet.

 

Or does this mean that as long as not everybody is allowed to cruise nobody is?

 

What about those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and cannot wear a mask? Must they be allowed onboard? 

 

Don't understand the motor bike helmet analogy. 

 

 

There are exemptions to the mask wearing precautions  in law.

 

What it means is that the laws and rules that apply on land apply to cruises. The government created the exemptions to avoid discrimination.  If there are legal exemptions on land then the cruise lines must obey these legal exemptions. They can ask for proof, which is why I  said registered disability,  not just someone  saying i can't wear a mask. 

 

[Windsurfboy]

Not owning a smart phone is very questionable as age discrimination as anyone of any age can buy a smart phone, and if you can afford a cruise you can afford a smartphone. 

 

However discrimination against people with registered disabilities that would stop them wearing a mask is clearly a very different  matter.  People with registered  disabilities are protected by law. Hence the government introduced the exemptions to avoid discrimination. 

 

 

[Windsurfboy]

1 hour ago, ace2542 said:

We are booked for November as you know. My father does not want to the wear the mask end of discussion. 

 

Not waning to wear a mask , is not one of the legal exemptions to wearing a mask.

 

Neither is not wanting to buy a smart phone or tablet age discrimination. 

 

The exemptions are there to protect people with disabilities, and real medical reasons not to wear a mask. This should be a very very small % of passengers. I understand why cruise lines worry that if they open the door an inch for exemptions people will take a mile. The amount of so called exempt people you see in supermarkets. So rather than have the hassle of checking exemptions are real and then issuing Cunard exempt lanyards (not the flower ones anyone can buy on internet ) they have just said no mask no cruise. 

 

 

 

 

[frankp01]

4 hours ago, ace2542 said:

Surely this is unconstitutional especially if it kept for life by CDC. Forget cruising for a second being unable to fly denies disabled Americans access to parts of their country in which they are citizens. What about disabled persons living in Hawaii or Alaska they would be denied to entry and access the other 49 states of the union if unable to fly would they not?

 

There are exemptions. Asthma, by itself, is not considered a qualification to be exempted. The range of exemptions is quite narrow. If you're curious, here is the paragraph:

 

Disability Exemptions of the Order

Who is covered by the exemption for “a person with a disability who cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, because of the disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Actexternal icon (ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)”?

Most people, including those with disabilities, can tolerate and safely wear a mask and are required to wear one as per CDC’s Order. However, certain people with disabilities who, because of their disability, cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, are exempted from CDC’s mask-wearing requirement.

The exemption is not meant to cover people with disabilities for whom wearing a mask might only be difficult or whose disability does not prevent them from wearing a mask or wearing a mask safely.

The following narrow subset of persons with disabilities are exempt from CDC’s requirement to wear a mask:

• A person with a disability who, for reasons related to the disability, would be physically unable to remove a mask without assistance if breathing becomes obstructed. Examples might include a person with impaired motor skills, quadriplegia, or limb restrictions
• A person with an intellectual, developmental, cognitive, or psychiatric disability that affects the person’s ability to understand the need to remove a mask if breathing becomes obstructed

The following persons with disabilities might be exempt from CDC’s requirement to wear a mask based on factors specific to the person:

• A person with a disability who cannot wear a mask because it would cause the person to be unable to breathe or have respiratory distress if a mask were worn over the mouth and nose. A person with a condition that causes intermittent respiratory distress, such as asthma, likely does not qualify for this exemption because people with asthma, or other similar conditions, can generally wear a mask safely.
• A person with a disability requiring the use of an assistive device, such as for mobility or communication, that prevents the person from wearing a mask and wearing or using the assistive device at the same time. If use of the device is intermittent and the person can remove the mask independently to use the device, then a mask must be worn during periods when the person is not using the device.
• A person with a severe sensory disability or a severe mental health disability who would pose an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others if required to wear a mask. Persons who experience discomfort or anxiety while wearing a mask without imminent threat of harm would not qualify for this exemption.

Edited May 3, 2021 by frankp01

[oskidunker]

Fighting technology is not to your benefit. I have friends over 70 who are fighting it every step of the way. They are just doing themselves harm and are going to make their  lifes more difficult.  In the US, the only proof we have is a paper card. You can take a photo of it and have it on your phone if you want. There is no vaccine passports or other on line proof unless you go to your health provider and pull up your vaccinations. 

[ace2542]

2 hours ago, frankp01 said:

 

There are exemptions. Asthma, by itself, is not considered a qualification to be exempted. The range of exemptions is quite narrow. If you're curious, here is the paragraph:

 

Disability Exemptions of the Order

Who is covered by the exemption for “a person with a disability who cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, because of the disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Actexternal icon (ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)”?

Most people, including those with disabilities, can tolerate and safely wear a mask and are required to wear one as per CDC’s Order. However, certain people with disabilities who, because of their disability, cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, are exempted from CDC’s mask-wearing requirement.

The exemption is not meant to cover people with disabilities for whom wearing a mask might only be difficult or whose disability does not prevent them from wearing a mask or wearing a mask safely.

The following narrow subset of persons with disabilities are exempt from CDC’s requirement to wear a mask:

• A person with a disability who, for reasons related to the disability, would be physically unable to remove a mask without assistance if breathing becomes obstructed. Examples might include a person with impaired motor skills, quadriplegia, or limb restrictions
• A person with an intellectual, developmental, cognitive, or psychiatric disability that affects the person’s ability to understand the need to remove a mask if breathing becomes obstructed

The following persons with disabilities might be exempt from CDC’s requirement to wear a mask based on factors specific to the person:

• A person with a disability who cannot wear a mask because it would cause the person to be unable to breathe or have respiratory distress if a mask were worn over the mouth and nose. A person with a condition that causes intermittent respiratory distress, such as asthma, likely does not qualify for this exemption because people with asthma, or other similar conditions, can generally wear a mask safely.
• A person with a disability requiring the use of an assistive device, such as for mobility or communication, that prevents the person from wearing a mask and wearing or using the assistive device at the same time. If use of the device is intermittent and the person can remove the mask independently to use the device, then a mask must be worn during periods when the person is not using the device.
• A person with a severe sensory disability or a severe mental health disability who would pose an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others if required to wear a mask. Persons who experience discomfort or anxiety while wearing a mask without imminent threat of harm would not qualify for this exemption.

What about a person with a physical deformity meaning they did not have an ear for whatever reason or lost an ear? I am not going to list the reasons but I can think of several ways that could happen?