Keys2Heaven

5 minutes ago, BoozinCroozin said:

You obviously have no clue how the real world works. If I had a vacation like this canceled this late, it is not as simple as saying "Oh, just do something else!!". It will take hours if not weeks to get everything canceled and refunded. It will take months working through insurance on the losses and most likely you will lose money. Booking flights for another vacation this close has gone up over 2x in price.

Thousands of people have already experienced this over the past 15 months. And, yes, supply and demand is on full display right now. I dread having to purchase tickets for flights to Europe next year for our TA in November. Prices are going to be crazy.

16 minutes ago, BoozinCroozin said:

Tell that to the people that just lost 3 weeks of cruises.

If I had a cruise booked in the next month or so, I would rate my chances of actually sailing at < 25%. Heck, we've got one booked for December out of Jacksonville and would rate our chances to sail on that cruise the same.

I get that mentioning Covid and cruise ships in the same sentence makes for a good headline right now, but let's have some common sense about all of this. Remember, cruising isn't fully back and every day brings new challenges. We'll get there.
 

2 minutes ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

Honest question.   Are you OK if the crew had been given the J&J vaccine and would consider them fully vaccinated?

 

 

Absolutely.

I feel this is a big nothing burger. Bound to happen with bringing crew in from around the world who haven't been vaccinated. Good news is that they are quarantined, protocols are in place now to address and the crew will be 100% vaccinated in the near future.

I guess one could argue RCCL not acting quicker with vaccines but, as we've seen, all of this is still extremely fluid and we should expect the unexpected for awhile.

20 minutes ago, Tippyton said:

The State has its constituency, businesses, revenue, etc. in the game.  CDC may say they have public health in mind but this is no longer supported by the science, but can still hide behind the excuse.  The judge believes there is merit otherwise he would have tossed it.  I thing hes giving the CDC the benefit of the doubt and really doesnt want to rule against them.

Probably true and I think, in this case, the CDC is right in the short term. Let's just hope they lift the CSO by Nov 1 of this year.

I know it sucks for those that have children right now and want to cruise, and I hope cruise lines grant those exemptions so families can sail, but opening the flood gates too soon would be a mistake.

My gut feeling tells me Sept/Oct will be very good to the cruise industry.

8 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

On Saturday, a federal court ruling upheld the right of private employers to require all of their employees to get the COVID-19 shots, just as employers have already been permitted to order employees to get flu shots and other vaccines.

 

The ruling in Texas is setting precedent nationwide, including in Georgia where two-thirds of the people are not fully vaccinated, and may not want the shots, ever.

As it is under the ruling, workers have no rights of refusal, at all, other than to prove they have a religious or medical exemption; or they can simply quit.

Right, and since workers are "at will" employees for a private business and can go work someplace else if they don't like the rules, wouldn't the same apply to consumers who can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the rules enacted by a private business?

Wouldn't this essentially nullify what Florida is trying to do? I mean how is a private business mandating a vaccine in the name of public health and safety any different from the CDC who has established protocols for the cruising industry in the name of public health and safety. And how would the cruise lines be wrong in asking for proof as part of the screening protocols?

I feel this judge's decision is very important to the case in Florida.

12 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Would this only apply to medical facilities in Texas as setting a precedent?

I don't know, which is why I asked. To me, the laymen, it appears that the judge is saying as much by not allowing the lawsuit to go forward.

Just curious if this decision might have any impact on the current Florida case.

I'm not a lawyer, nor will I pretend to be, but I have a question for anyone who is or who at least knows more about legal issues than I do.

Regarding the decision of the federal judge this weekend to toss the lawsuit by unvaccinated workers employed by Houston Methodist, does this not set a precedent that unvaccinated workers are not a protected class. And, if that is the case, doesn't this led more weight towards the cruise lines following the CDC and therefore are o.k. with requiring proof of vaccination?

I find this quote by the judge interesting:

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes said, “This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

After all, isn't this what the cruise lines are trying to do?

13 minutes ago, cscurlock said:

Pretty much what you said is true any way you hack it the court battles will take so long that by the time the end of the road is reached so to speak the ships will all be sailing and there won't be an issue anymore.  Just wasting time and money.

This whole mess is good for at least another month of new coverage! I might be jaded, but can't help but think that this is nothing more now than a pi**ing contest between parties.

Just now, stellarose said:

if the RCCL AOTS from Nassau goes well - then we know that vaccinated is the way to go.  

So far, so good. I think, at least in the short term, vaccinated is the only way to go. Prove that the protocols work and let the industry regain some confidence amongst all the doom and gloom prophets.

1 hour ago, d12j28 said:

And the US is still under %50 fully vaccinated so there you go. According to you the minority (vaxxed) doesn't get to dictate to the majority (unvaxxed). 

You're leaving out all those exposed to the virus, were asymptomatic and recovered without incident. I suspect that number is larger than anyone wants to admit.

59 minutes ago, Floriduh said:

To say it again...

 

The fear is not for ourselves. The fear is non vaxxers getting on the ship, testing positive, spreading to others and setting the cruise industry back to square one. These companies are hanging by a thread right now and one more set back may be the end for some.

 

It's called looking at the bigger picture.

A lot of assumptions here.

Given that a majority of folks surveyed indicated that they would prefer to sail with other vaccinated guests (> 12), what percentage of passengers would realistically not volunteer their vaccination status online as part of the health screening and would want to be subject to restrictive protocols and expenses?

 

2 hours ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

Well, depends on what "beer" you drink.

 

If those guys were drinking Natty Light, well, that sounds like a personal problem.  Go grab some of the higher-octane beers they have, like Angel City Brewery IPA at 6.1% or Parched Pig West Coast IPA at 6.2% ABV, and 15 should be enough. (I will admit many of the beers I drink have ABVs in the 7 and 8% range, typically.)

Boo, IPA. I'd rather chew grass! LOL

Give me a good Scotch Ale, Porter or Stout.

 

12 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

Soon.  It seems like cruising is the very last thing to open back up.  I will reach platinum on my next cruise and am wondering if the gift is still a lanyard.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Better hope its not a facemask!

28 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, unless the judge wants to dive into the epidemiology to the point of determining which aspects of the CSO are too restrictive, and which are not, I see him saying to the CDC "come up with something that is less restrictive, maybe work with the cruise industry, and until then, the CSO stands", and so cruising would start up under the CSO.  However, he may rule that by tossing the CSO, there are no requirements for protecting the public health at this time, so cruising should not start until the CDC comes up with a new plan.  I think my first outcome is the most likely, especially as the CDC is moving towards less requirements in the CSO all the time.  But, as I've said before, I believe that aspects of the CSO, like the port and service agreements/contracts, will become a permanent part of the VSP, and part of cruising in the future.  Even such things as requiring masks for the remainder of a cruise if a person comes down with something that is airborne, may become a permanent "emergency procedure" or "mitigation measure".

I don't believe the judge would rule in a way that would, in effect, invalidate the newly signed ATRA.

35 minutes ago, Scottbro said:

I'm amused at the "how can this happen?" comments. 

 

These are not traditional vaccines. They are not vaccines at all. These drugs protect you and only you from symptoms. They don't prevent you from getting or spreading the virus. They don't protect anyone around you. Your chances of getting the virus are no different if you are vaccinated or not. The only thing that changes is your immune system reaction to it. 

This is absolutely not true.

3 minutes ago, AbbyCruiser45 said:

Or they socialize together regularly and both spent the same amount of time with the likely unvaccinated covid infected individual and there’s not some higher level conspiracy. 

Statistically speaking, two breakout cases at the same time should raise some legitimate questions and concerns. Conspiracy? Is that what asking questions means nowadays?

10 minutes ago, Dwight1 said:

Two things this event suggests:

1. Cruises need 100% vaccinated passengers, sorry Fl and Tx Govs,

2. Vaccinated individuals getting covid around a .0007% incidence rate. Two occur in same cabin? Statistics indicate something may be wrong here.

I find it very odd statistically that two vaccinated people in the same cabin would both test positive. This has been bugging me all night. I mean think about what this means in terms of vaccine efficacy.

1. How did these passengers show proof?

2. Which vaccine did they receive?

3. How long ago were they vaccinated?

44 minutes ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

I guess it does if you want to ensure the demise of cruising. Why would anyone sail if they risk being booted off the ship and have to wear a mask? What's the point of getting vaccinated then? 

I remember just a few months back reading comments from folks on various social media sites about how they would gladly wear a mask if it meant that they could cruise. Now, masks are a resounding "no" for those who have been vaccinated.

As far as these two new Celebrity cases, I have a few questions:

1) How did they prove they were vaccinated?
2) Which vaccine did they receive?

3) How long ago did they receive the vaccine?

I find it odd that two vaccinated persons who were sharing a cabin both tested positive.

2 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

In a nut shell, herd immunity is when each case of covid, spreads to less than one person, on average. When that happens the number of cases approaches zero, although it may never reach zero.

 

Once reached, herd immunity can be lost if enough people are careless and each case results in more than 1 new case, on average. Then the total number of cases increases.

 

When someone gives a percentage of vaccinated, they are estimating based on a number of assumptions.

Much like the assumptions being made that the 5% unvaccinated are going to cause an outbreak amongst passengers. Can't say a case couldn't happen, but I'm inclined to believe that the risk of an outbreak is extremely small.

13 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

Herd immunity is not a percentage of vaccinated, but related to how many people a covid person infects. Herd immunity can be lost if people don't follow basic instructions.

But that isn't what's been communicated to the public. We've constantly been told that herd immunity is reached when a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated or has been previously exposed and now has antibodies.

14 hours ago, cruisegus said:

why should anyone be exempted from the fees if un-vaccinated, being un-vaccinated poses the same risk no mater who you are, period.

You should address this with the cruise lines then. This isn't my opinion.

2 minutes ago, bamaone said:

I totally agree with your last quote.

I also think 95% chances you won’t become infected are extremely good odds. Especially considering most vaccinated who do get infected are usually unaware they are.

I look at it like this...we've been told that herd immunity is achieved somewhere around 70 - 80% from vaccinations or those who are naturally immune from previous exposure. So, a cruise ship sailing 95% vaccinated should have enough folks onboard to prevent a major outbreak.

15 minutes ago, cruisegus said:

I think those that are un-vaccinated will have to take multiple test while onboard at their own expense.

 

 

I'm not trying to guess what the cruise lines are thinking, but IMHO, I have a feeling that they suspect that these testing fees and other restrictions will reduce the number of unvaccinated from sailing at this time. And, from what I've read, children and those who can't be vaccinated for a particular reason would be exempt from the testing fees.