Vaccine Required! For July in Galveston

[Purvis1231]

10 hours ago, 19cruiser59 said:

Just announced, Vaccines required sailing from Galveston in July only.

I HOPE THESE ARE ABLE TO SAIL.

[Branman]

2 minutes ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

These should be worked out ahead of time by the cruise lines and each countries respective CDC equivalent or body. Could some have a more restrictive policy that the US CDC? Sure. I don't think it will be a big problem though. The science will generally be the same and that should guide policy, not irrational fear. I trust it will work out just fine. They are pros at this, this is their business.   

It's not about the science, it's about the perceived risk to the populace because these islands don't have access to vaccines in the same way that the U.S. does. 

I honestly don't know what the protocol ship-wide would be once there is a case. We know that if someone is symptomatic, they have already been transmitting the virus during the pre-symptomatic phase of the disease. Other non-vaccinated people on board could be incubating or in the transmitting pre-symptomatic phase. 

If the protocol is "only vaccinated guests and crew may disembark and no masks/social distancing for vaccinated passengers while onboard" then I'm sure vaccinated guests would be cool with that, but the question isn't what other guests are cool with, it's what are the local authorities in each country cool with.

Similarly, would a protocol of "once there is a case onboard, all non-vaccinated guests (including children) must isolate in their rooms for the rest of the cruise" be better or worse than "only vaccinated guests are allowed on board"? I'm really curious to see what Royal Caribbean's "in case of a positive covid test on board" protocols will be. 

[cruisingguy007]

21 minutes ago, Branman said:

It's not about the science, it's about the perceived risk to the populace because these islands don't have access to vaccines in the same way that the U.S. does. 

I honestly don't know what the protocol ship-wide would be once there is a case. We know that if someone is symptomatic, they have already been transmitting the virus during the pre-symptomatic phase of the disease. Other non-vaccinated people on board could be incubating or in the transmitting pre-symptomatic phase. 

If the protocol is "only vaccinated guests and crew may disembark and no masks/social distancing for vaccinated passengers while onboard" then I'm sure vaccinated guests would be cool with that, but the question isn't what other guests are cool with, it's what are the local authorities in each country cool with.

Similarly, would a protocol of "once there is a case onboard, all non-vaccinated guests (including children) must isolate in their rooms for the rest of the cruise" be better or worse than "only vaccinated guests are allowed on board"? I'm really curious to see what Royal Caribbean's "in case of a positive covid test on board" protocols will be. 

 

Fair questions to be sure. Hopefully some procedural information will be coming down the pipe soon. 

[IntrepidFromDC]

1 hour ago, IrieBajan54 said:

One difference with the Texas law that Gov. Abbott signed today compared to Florida is no $5K per violation fine. But state regulatory agencies have the authority to pull operating licenses. How the new law would affect cruises lines no one knows at this time.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/07/texas-vaccine-passports-covid-19/

 

Abbott is being primaried so he has to do these things for his base.

Read the article, thanks for sharing.  No $5,000 fine?  Texas MAY pull licenses of businesses who blah, blah, blah?  As if Texas politicians had the gonads to pull CARNIVAL's port license or whatever.  Texas is playing checkers but Carnival is playing chess.

[BlerkOne]

56 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Kid heavy cruises are generally in the Caribbean and 7 days or less. Given that covid symptoms tend to manifest between 5 and 6 days from exposure the chance of hitting the threshold is very low. Made even lower by the fact that young children tend to be asymptomatic and the breakthrough infection rate is statically insignificant for cruise ship populations.

 

The issue of port regulations is valid. Consider though that a many ports on kid friendly cruises are US territory or private islands.

A person can test false one day and positive the next. It is known they can spread the viruses before symptoms appear. Asymptomatic is more dangerous than symptomatic for spreading since a person may not know. Even if there are symptoms, there will be people who lie.

 

As sure as there will be some covid on ships, there will be a cruise cancelled. Just as restrictions can be relaxed, they can also become more strict.

 

Port policy is up to the ports and whatever agreements Carnival has with each port. No port is going to want covid brought ashore and if they even suspect any is in the ship, they can deny the ship from stopping. Private islands are not private countries and have to follow whatever the rules of the country are.

[BlerkOne]

41 minutes ago, Branman said:

I'm really curious to see what Royal Caribbean's "in case of a positive covid test on board" protocols will be. 

I'm curious to see how effective cruise line protocols are. While cases are way down in the US, they are still occuring and people are still dying.

[cruisin from vegas]

This is what Carnival said late today about the Texas situation 

[rs45thompson]

9 hours ago, tm_aw_love said:

Well considering that only teenagers are eligible for a vax, that excludes most families with children that are not already adults. 

I believe that carnival is still a family cruise line.  My family will be going on the Mardi Gras.  Our family consists of Myself, husband and 15 year old son who is definitely not an adult. 

 

I understand that you are upset and I would be too in your place.  But I truly believe that this is temporary and will blow over in a month or two.  I have faith that Carnival will be able to work things out with the CDC and we will see families with young children on the ships again.  It will just take time.  

[firefly333]

9 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

So, what's your opinion about your governor now?  Could result in a major fly in the ointment for your Vista cruise.

Not worried. Did you read the news clipping above? Said carnival reviewed and new law doesnt affect them as long as they comply with cdc. Which they plan on doing. 

 

I know you pump ncl here and hope carnival has issues .. looks good so far. Sorry. 

[BlerkOne]

37 minutes ago, rs45thompson said:

I believe that carnival is still a family cruise line.  My family will be going on the Mardi Gras.  Our family consists of Myself, husband and 15 year old son who is definitely not an adult. 

 

I understand that you are upset and I would be too in your place.  But I truly believe that this is temporary and will blow over in a month or two.  I have faith that Carnival will be able to work things out with the CDC and we will see families with young children on the ships again.  It will just take time.  

No doubt there will be a long term solution.

[MrMarc]

From the law: 

(e)  This section may not be construed to:
	(1)  restrict a business from implementing COVID-19
	screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state
	and federal law to protect public health; or

[jfunk138]

I think folks are confusing "federal law" with "CDC guidelines".

 

The CDC has said repeatedly that it is not mandating vaccination, so any decision by the cruiselines to require vaccination (because it's 'easier') without a "federal law" requiring it would appear to present a violation of the Texas law.

[Bgwest]

12 hours ago, Radiioman46 said:

No more confusion. I like that! i feel really bad for those that are not vaccinated because this is a real last minute flip, and I know it hurts. But, even though I favor not being forced to be vaccinated, the CDC's protocols for a mixed set of passengers is totally unworkable for everybody. It would have been a disaster. So, let's cruise!

 

 

I think we all agree with your "let's cruise!!" sentiment but "even though I favor not being forced to be vaccinated," 

no one is being forced to do anything. If one chooses not to be vaccinated, fine, good for them. I support their choice if that makes them happy. And with making that choice,  they can avail themselves of any number of other leisure activities. Just not cruising. 

I don't believe anyone has ever been forced to cruise. 

[SNJCruisers]

46 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

Not worried. Did you read the news clipping above? Said carnival reviewed and new law doesnt affect them as long as they comply with cdc. Which they plan on doing. 

 

I know you pump ncl here and hope carnival has issues .. looks good so far. Sorry. 

I don't pump NCL.  I have 4 cruises on them versus 17 on Carnival.   Don't hope that Carnival has issues, with 3 booked on Mardi Gras and one booked on Celebration, just hoping that our B2B gets cancelled so I get 1200 in OBC

[BlerkOne]

24 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

I think folks are confusing "federal law" with "CDC guidelines".

 

The CDC has said repeatedly that it is not mandating vaccination, so any decision by the cruiselines to require vaccination (because it's 'easier') without a "federal law" requiring it would appear to present a violation of the Texas law.

The CDC isn't mandating vaccines for passengers but has offered choices to cruise lines, one of which is effectively mandating vaccines. Didn't the CDC mandate vaccines for crew?

 

A couple of states are interfering with the ability of cruise lines to choose between mandates.

[Joe817]

40 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

He has signed it now, but there appears to be an exception: 

(e)  This section may not be construed to:
	(1)  restrict a business from implementing COVID-19
	screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state
	and federal law to protect public health; or

Phew. It's taken me a while, but I found the Section MrMarc is referring to. Here is the Section of the new law in its entirety. I am not interpreting this, just cutting and pasting that portion of the new law. I'll let you all be the judge of its meaning: 

 

  SB968 - (87)R

 

"SECTION 14.  Subchapter A, Chapter 161, Health and Safety

 Code, is amended by adding Section 161.0085 to read as follows:

        Sec. 161.0085.  COVID-19 VACCINE PASSPORTS PROHIBITED. (a)  

 In this section, "COVID-19" means the 2019 novel coronavirus

 disease.

        (b)  A governmental entity in this state may not issue a

 vaccine passport, vaccine pass, or other standardized

 documentation to certify an individual's COVID-19 vaccination

 status to a third party for a purpose other than health care or

 otherwise publish or share any individual's COVID-19 immunization

 record or similar health information for a purpose other than

 health care.

        (c)  A business in this state may not require a customer to

 provide any documentation certifying the customer's COVID-19

 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain

 access to, or to receive service from the business. A business that

 fails to comply with this subsection is not eligible to receive a

 grant or enter into a contract payable with state funds.

        (d)  Notwithstanding any other law, each appropriate state

 agency shall ensure that businesses in this state comply with

 Subsection (c) and may require compliance with that subsection as a

 condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization

 necessary for conducting business in this state.

        (e)  This section may not be construed to:

              (1)  restrict a business from implementing COVID-19

 screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state

 and federal law to protect public health; or

              (2)  interfere with an individual's right to access the

 individual's personal health information under federal law."

Edited June 8, 2021 by Joe817

[TNcruising02]

7 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

Phew. It's taken me a while, but I found the Section MrMarc is referring to. Here is the Section of the new law in its entirety. I am not interpreting this, just cutting and pasting that portion of the new law. I'll let you all be the judge of its meaning: 

 

  SB968 - (87)R

 

"SECTION 14.  Subchapter A, Chapter 161, Health and Safety

 Code, is amended by adding Section 161.0085 to read as follows:

        Sec. 161.0085.  COVID-19 VACCINE PASSPORTS PROHIBITED. (a)  

 In this section, "COVID-19" means the 2019 novel coronavirus

 disease.

        (b)  A governmental entity in this state may not issue a

 vaccine passport, vaccine pass, or other standardized

 documentation to certify an individual's COVID-19 vaccination

 status to a third party for a purpose other than health care or

 otherwise publish or share any individual's COVID-19 immunization

 record or similar health information for a purpose other than

 health care.

        (c)  A business in this state may not require a customer to

 provide any documentation certifying the customer's COVID-19

 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain

 access to, or to receive service from the business. A business that

 fails to comply with this subsection is not eligible to receive a

 grant or enter into a contract payable with state funds.

        (d)  Notwithstanding any other law, each appropriate state

 agency shall ensure that businesses in this state comply with

 Subsection (c) and may require compliance with that subsection as a

 condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization

 necessary for conducting business in this state.

        (e)  This section may not be construed to:

              (1)  restrict a business from implementing COVID-19

 screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state

 and federal law to protect public health; or

              (2)  interfere with an individual's right to access the

 individual's personal health information under federal law."

I am not sure how Carnival will be able to cruise with only vaccinated passengers unless some other agreement is worked out.  Covid screening would be covid testing or someone filling out a health form stating whether or not they have covid symptoms.  Screening is not the same as requiring vaccinations.

There is no federal law that states cruises can only sail with passengers who are vaccinated.  So, I am not sure how Carnival can handle this situation other than to sail a test cruise and open up cruising to everyone.  But maybe they can work out some kind of agreement.

[MrMarc]

4 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

Phew. It's taken me a while, but I found the Section MrMarc is referring to. Here is the Section of the new law in its entirety. I am not interpreting this, just cutting and pasting that portion of the new law. I'll let you all be the judge of its meaning: 

 

  SB968 - (87)R

 

"SECTION 14.  Subchapter A, Chapter 161, Health and Safety

 Code, is amended by adding Section 161.0085 to read as follows:

        Sec. 161.0085.  COVID-19 VACCINE PASSPORTS PROHIBITED. (a)  

 In this section, "COVID-19" means the 2019 novel coronavirus

 disease.

        (b)  A governmental entity in this state may not issue a

 vaccine passport, vaccine pass, or other standardized

 documentation to certify an individual's COVID-19 vaccination

 status to a third party for a purpose other than health care or

 otherwise publish or share any individual's COVID-19 immunization

 record or similar health information for a purpose other than

 health care.

        (c)  A business in this state may not require a customer to

 provide any documentation certifying the customer's COVID-19

 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain

 access to, or to receive service from the business. A business that

 fails to comply with this subsection is not eligible to receive a

 grant or enter into a contract payable with state funds.

        (d)  Notwithstanding any other law, each appropriate state

 agency shall ensure that businesses in this state comply with

 Subsection (c) and may require compliance with that subsection as a

 condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization

 necessary for conducting business in this state.

        (e)  This section may not be construed to:

              (1)  restrict a business from implementing COVID-19

 screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state

 and federal law to protect public health; or

              (2)  interfere with an individual's right to access the

 individual's personal health information under federal law."

Since health protocols are really not dealt with in actual laws, but rules and regulations created by various Federal entities, I'm making an assumption that all of these will be considered Federal Law, including CDC guidelines or rules.  I've always wondered if these also superceded the Florida Law even if it isn't specifically stated.  In general, Federal law supercedes State law if there is a Federal law applicable to the same situtation.

[MrMarc]

16 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

Phew. It's taken me a while, but I found the Section MrMarc is referring to. Here is the Section of the new law in its entirety. I am not interpreting this, just cutting and pasting that portion of the new law. I'll let you all be the judge of its meaning: 

 

  SB968 - (87)R

 

"SECTION 14.  Subchapter A, Chapter 161, Health and Safety

 Code, is amended by adding Section 161.0085 to read as follows:

        Sec. 161.0085.  COVID-19 VACCINE PASSPORTS PROHIBITED. (a)  

 In this section, "COVID-19" means the 2019 novel coronavirus

 disease.

        (b)  A governmental entity in this state may not issue a

 vaccine passport, vaccine pass, or other standardized

 documentation to certify an individual's COVID-19 vaccination

 status to a third party for a purpose other than health care or

 otherwise publish or share any individual's COVID-19 immunization

 record or similar health information for a purpose other than

 health care.

        (c)  A business in this state may not require a customer to

 provide any documentation certifying the customer's COVID-19

 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain

 access to, or to receive service from the business. A business that

 fails to comply with this subsection is not eligible to receive a

 grant or enter into a contract payable with state funds.

        (d)  Notwithstanding any other law, each appropriate state

 agency shall ensure that businesses in this state comply with

 Subsection (c) and may require compliance with that subsection as a

 condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization

 necessary for conducting business in this state.

        (e)  This section may not be construed to:

              (1)  restrict a business from implementing COVID-19

 screening and infection control protocols in accordance with state

 and federal law to protect public health; or

              (2)  interfere with an individual's right to access the

 individual's personal health information under federal law."

Thanks for posting more, it makes it easier to see the context.

[Joe817]

2 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

I am not sure how Carnival will be able to cruise with only vaccinated passengers unless some other agreement is worked out.  Covid screening would be covid testing or someone filling out a health form stating whether or not they have covid symptoms.  Screening is not the same as requiring vaccinations.

There is no federal law that states cruises can only sail with passengers who are vaccinated.  So, I am not sure how Carnival can handle this situation other than to sail a test cruise and open up cruising to everyone.  But maybe they can work out some kind of agreement.

TN, I hear you. The law as written, and not just this law, but ALL of State, Local, and Federal law, is written in hyper legal terminology, and it winds up as sounding like gibberish. To me, a layperson, it is full of contradictions, and inconsistencies. But that's not the case. That's why we need lawyers to interpret the law for us.....for example...

 

you said: "I am not sure how Carnival will be able to cruise with only vaccinated passengers". Well, me neither. BUT...but...but...if you read the law as written, it says that the State cannot restrict(prohibit) a business from implementing covid-19 screening and protection protocols....

 

Well....there's your out. They cannot prevent a business from implementing, etc, etc, etc. But they CAN implement screening and protection ( read that to mean they CAN deny boarding without having to worry about being penalized) protocols. I hope that makes sense. I'm through trying to interpret law. It's beyond me. 

 

 

[BlerkOne]

7 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Since health protocols are really not dealt with in actual laws, but rules and regulations created by various Federal entities, I'm making an assumption that all of these will be considered Federal Law, including CDC guidelines or rules.  I've always wondered if these also superceded the Florida Law even if it isn't specifically stated.  In general, Federal law supercedes State law if there is a Federal law applicable to the same situtation.

CDC implements public health laws... I think CDC qualifies.

 

I also saw this

Employees can require vaccines

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210601/eeoc-says-employers-can-require-covid-19-vaccination

 

 

[MrMarc]

1 hour ago, jfunk138 said:

I think folks are confusing "federal law" with "CDC guidelines".

 

The CDC has said repeatedly that it is not mandating vaccination, so any decision by the cruiselines to require vaccination (because it's 'easier') without a "federal law" requiring it would appear to present a violation of the Texas law.

CDC rules and regulations are Federal Law.  The Law authorizes various entities to implement those laws.  The rules promulgated by those agencies are laws.

[MrMarc]

Bolt may be the first Rollercoaster on a ship, but I'm getting dizzy from this Rollercoaster on land.

[sm3ds]

12 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

TN, I hear you. The law as written, and not just this law, but ALL of State, Local, and Federal law, is written in hyper legal terminology, and it winds up as sounding like gibberish. To me, a layperson, it is full of contradictions, and inconsistencies. But that's not the case. That's why we need lawyers to interpret the law for us.....for example...

 

you said: "I am not sure how Carnival will be able to cruise with only vaccinated passengers". Well, me neither. BUT...but...but...if you read the law as written, it says that the State cannot restrict(prohibit) a business from implementing covid-19 screening and protection protocols....

 

Well....there's your out. They cannot prevent a business from implementing, etc, etc, etc. But they CAN implement screening and protection ( read that to mean they CAN deny boarding without having to worry about being penalized) protocols. I hope that makes sense. I'm through trying to interpret law. It's beyond me. 

 

 

I think if a cruise line needs an out or way to circumvent a law that the people of that state support as evidenced by the bipartisan legislative support. They should probably just cruise out of another state. There are plenty of states that would welcome vaccine mandates. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by sm3ds

[Joe817]

1 minute ago, sm3ds said:

I think if a cruise line needs an out or way to circumvent a law that the people of that state support as evidenced by the bipartisan legislative support they should probably just cruise out of another state. There are plenty of states that would welcome vaccine mandates. 

Well, with all due respect to you sm3ds, you do not speak for those other states. You may find that your claim is not the case at all. Let's just let this thing play out and see how it goes.