Jump to content

Yikes! Over age 70 passengers need doctor’s note (Merged threads)


Recommended Posts

On 5/1/2020 at 6:42 AM, Ride-The-Waves said:

Agree.  If you look at the sources for the statistics in the link they are all cruise industry related.  Not a reliable independent source.

 

How about financial analysts as an alternative to cruise industry sources?

 

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/stock-market-wrap-up%3A-why-are-cruise-line-stocks-sailing-higher-again-2020-04-29

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Comprehensive article - thanks for sharing.  It really depicts the threat and confirms that finding a cure, or even a mitigation, is extremely difficult and will take some time.  To me it also shows that we will not be cruising as usual until this pandemic is corralled in some fashion.  Countries/ports will not want cruise ships visiting, cruise lines will struggle to get itineraries and even crews confirmed, and cruising using social distancing criteria is a nonstarter in a confined space.  Scary!

I tried to get to the study mentioned in the article...It is some type of peer review journal.  All things medical  and science are not in my lane.. Maybe someone else can get to the source..always best!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t ‘we’ think it’s time to drop this thread since the whole point of it was that us poor old geezers had to have a note from the Dr and now that’s been dropped? I realize there are some who have make a commitment to present various conspiracies around this but since it is Now Moot, maybe its time to start some another threads if there is some related-subject posts still be added to this 39 page tome, if those subjects seem worth discussing. There maybe some real gems in here worth reading, but it’s just too big and too many issues. 

 

Once we can cruise again with low enough (very subjective isn’t that) risk, we can all go back to complaining about the pool deck chair hogs, how dining has deteriorated to the level of inedibleness, and calling each other ‘constant complainers’ and ‘cheerleaders’. 

 

Den

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Denny01 said:

Don’t ‘we’ think it’s time to drop this thread since the whole point of it was that us poor old geezers had to have a note from the Dr and now that’s been dropped? I realize there are some who have make a commitment to present various conspiracies around this but since it is Now Moot, maybe its time to start some another threads if there is some related-subject posts still be added to this 39 page tome, if those subjects seem worth discussing. There maybe some real gems in here worth reading, but it’s just too big and too many issues. 

 

Once we can cruise again with low enough (very subjective isn’t that) risk, we can all go back to complaining about the pool deck chair hogs, how dining has deteriorated to the level of inedibleness, and calling each other ‘constant complainers’ and ‘cheerleaders’. 

 

Den

That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is this subject hasn't and will not end until we know for a fact they will not bring the note to the doctor back into in existence.  It does say it is subject to change, so it very well could be brought back. Until this mess is over done with will have to wonder what the if's are and I have a feeling it will be a very long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rshayes689 said:

That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is this subject hasn't and will not end until we know for a fact they will not bring the note to the doctor back into in existence.  It does say it is subject to change, so it very well could be brought back. Until this mess is over done with will have to wonder what the if's are and I have a feeling it will be a very long time.

If they bring the Fit to Travel form back they will have difficulty filling their ships certainly longer and more exotic voyages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rshayes689 said:

That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is this subject hasn't and will not end until we know for a fact they will not bring the note to the doctor back into in existence.  It does say it is subject to change, so it very well could be brought back. Until this mess is over done with will have to wonder what the if's are and I have a feeling it will be a very long time.

I doubt it will come back, a rushed and badly thought out idea. They have clearly had time to realise it should never have been introduced on the first place. As was pointed out on Sky news this morning a 70 year old in good health can be at less risk than an obese 40 year old with underlying health conditions. Everyone should be judged on an individual basis and not on a number which I think they probably now get.

Edited by yorky
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yorky said:

I doubt it will come back, a rushed and badly thought out idea. They have clearly had time to realise it should never have been introduced on the first place. As was pointed out on Sky news this morning a 70 year old in good health can be at less risk than an obese 40 year old with underlying health conditions. Everyone should be judged on an individual basis and not on a number which I think they probably now get.

I fully agree that a 70 year old in good health can be a lower risk than an obese 40 year old, just as an 18 year old can be less of a risk driving a car than an experienced 40 year old. The problem facing CDC, the CLIA and Celebrity is the same as the one faced by companies issuing car insurance: while there are exceptions to the rule, young drivers cause more accidents and damage than older ones, while those 70 and over pose a higher risk of complication and death from COVID-19 than those who are younger. Because of the higher risk, Celebrity and others imposed the Fit to Sail Form, while car insurance companies simply slap young drivers with much higher premiums. Neither is fair for everyone falling into those two categories, but I'm not sure what the alternatives might be.

 

Again, I fully agree that everyone should be judged on an individual basis, but short of having EVERYONE acquire a signed Fit to Sail form, how do they go about assessing each and every passenger? While the idea is sound in theory, is there a practical means by which Celebrity and other lines can achieve this goal? Or do they change their focus to trying to prevent anyone with the coronavirus from boarding? There isn't any successful means as yet for doing so, certainly not on the scale required for cruise lines. And do you check as passengers reboard at each port? And the list goes on. Many good potential ideas, but none that are feasible at the current time.

 

You're right, it's very unlikely that the form will reappear, but the lingering question is what do they replace it with to ensure the health and safety of passengers and crew alike?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Denny01 said:

Don’t ‘we’ think it’s time to drop this thread since the whole point of it was that us poor old geezers had to have a note from the Dr and now that’s been dropped? I realize there are some who have make a commitment to present various conspiracies around this but since it is Now Moot, maybe its time to start some another threads if there is some related-subject posts still be added to this 39 page tome, if those subjects seem worth discussing. There maybe some real gems in here worth reading, but it’s just too big and too many issues. 

 

Once we can cruise again with low enough (very subjective isn’t that) risk, we can all go back to complaining about the pool deck chair hogs, how dining has deteriorated to the level of inedibleness, and calling each other ‘constant complainers’ and ‘cheerleaders’. 

 

Den

Dear Den,

YES YES YES YES YES YES.......................................................YES YES.

Agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rshayes689 said:

That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is this subject hasn't and will not end until we know for a fact they will not bring the note to the doctor back into in existence.  It does say it is subject to change, so it very well could be brought back. Until this mess is over done with will have to wonder what the if's are and I have a feeling it will be a very long time.

Please explain how any company/organization can ‘for a fact’ state they will not bring the form back.....that’s just not feasible. 

3 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Dear Den,

YES YES YES YES YES YES.......................................................YES YES.

Agree.

Oh TeeRick, you are soooooo wishywashy!!

 

OK, in my Battle against Windmills, I’ll sign off on this thing as I suggested for others. Do as I say, Don’t do....

 

Den

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

I fully agree that a 70 year old in good health can be a lower risk than an obese 40 year old, just as an 18 year old can be less of a risk driving a car than an experienced 40 year old. The problem facing CDC, the CLIA and Celebrity is the same as the one faced by companies issuing car insurance: while there are exceptions to the rule, young drivers cause more accidents and damage than older ones, while those 70 and over pose a higher risk of complication and death from COVID-19 than those who are younger. Because of the higher risk, Celebrity and others imposed the Fit to Sail Form, while car insurance companies simply slap young drivers with much higher premiums. Neither is fair for everyone falling into those two categories, but I'm not sure what the alternatives might be.

 

Again, I fully agree that everyone should be judged on an individual basis, but short of having EVERYONE acquire a signed Fit to Sail form, how do they go about assessing each and every passenger? While the idea is sound in theory, is there a practical means by which Celebrity and other lines can achieve this goal? Or do they change their focus to trying to prevent anyone with the coronavirus from boarding? There isn't any successful means as yet for doing so, certainly not on the scale required for cruise lines. And do you check as passengers reboard at each port? And the list goes on. Many good potential ideas, but none that are feasible at the current time.

 

You're right, it's very unlikely that the form will reappear, but the lingering question is what do they replace it with to ensure the health and safety of passengers and crew alike?

 

I think my main problem is you were putting the responsibility down to a doctor which was simply not right because every doctor will react in a different way, some won’t have a problem, others won’t sign it for all the tea in China. Even with insurance if you are willing to pay the premium you are good to go, with this you simply don’t have a choice and that’s not fair. My view is that there is no perfect answer but when cruising is up and moving again they need to find one that works for as many people as possible. People get ill, that’s just life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

 The problem facing CDC, the CLIA and Celebrity is the same as the one faced by companies issuing car insurance: while there are exceptions to the rule, young drivers cause more accidents and damage than older ones, while those 70 and over pose a higher risk of complication and death from COVID-19 than those who are younger. Because of the higher risk, Celebrity and others imposed the Fit to Sail Form, while car insurance companies simply slap young drivers with much higher premiums. Neither is fair for everyone

 

 

One problem with drawing age discrimination analogies between car insurance and luxury cruises is that car insurance is compulsory and insurance companies know that they are free to discriminate on the basis of age without going bankrupt.  Cruise lines that tried to play by the car insurance playbook would quickly discover that capitalism/free market forces would prevent them from having one set of rules for those over 70 versus another set of rules for everyone else.  Imagine how much business Viking, which does not belong to CLIA, would be doing in 2021 sales if CLIA had not abandoned the rule for 70s cruisers on April 3rd and Azamara on April 28th.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, travelordie said:

One problem with drawing age discrimination analogies between car insurance and luxury cruises is that car insurance is compulsory and insurance companies know that they are free to discriminate on the basis of age without going bankrupt.  Cruise lines that tried to play by the car insurance playbook would quickly discover that capitalism/free market forces would prevent them from having one set of rules for those over 70 versus another set of rules for everyone else.  Imagine how much business Viking, which does not belong to CLIA, would be doing in 2021 sales if CLIA had not abandoned the rule for 70s cruisers on April 3rd and Azamara on April 28th.

I wasn't drawing age discrimination analogies, as neither the higher rate for young drivers nor the since abandoned Fit To Sail form constitute age discrimination IMO. There isn't a province or territory in Canada either that would consider these to be discriminatory. As a 70+ senior I considered that form to be an inconvenience, not an instrument of discrimination, but my bigger problem with it was that it simply didn't solve the problem that Celebrity faced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

There isn't a province or territory in Canada either that would consider these to be discriminatory. As a 70+ senior I considered that form to be an inconvenience, not an instrument of discrimination, but my bigger problem with it was that it simply didn't solve the problem that Celebrity faced.

If Celebrity brings back the form and my doctor won't sign it I'd be just as happy to go on a River cruise as there are many to choose from.  At the moment the earliest time frame I am looking at is a 12 night European cruise for September 2021. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, drakes2 said:

If Celebrity brings back the form and my doctor won't sign it I'd be just as happy to go on a River cruise as there are many to choose from.  At the moment the earliest time frame I am looking at is a 12 night European cruise for September 2021. 

Well in the USA there are discriminatory actions. My husband is an insurance agent, and Hippa may have a leg, because that it a invasion of privacy laws. A lot of Home ports are out of the US. They will have a hard time if they decide to reinstate this Dr. Note, and if the cruisers don't stick together we are doomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

I wasn't drawing age discrimination analogies, as neither the higher rate for young drivers nor the since abandoned Fit To Sail form constitute age discrimination IMO. There isn't a province or territory in Canada either that would consider these to be discriminatory. As a 70+ senior I considered that form to be an inconvenience, not an instrument of discrimination, but my bigger problem with it was that it simply didn't solve the problem that Celebrity faced.

Since my physician won't sign the form and tells me that it is in part because the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia advises against signing it, it is the equivalent of age discrimination rather than a mere inconvenience to me.

 

Sounds like you live in a province where blatant age discrimination against younger drivers is permitted.

 

The provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which have government-run car insurance, do not discriminate on the basis of age or gender when setting rates.  The British Columbia Human Rights Code states “anyone aged 19 or older may not be discriminated against on the basis of age, in life, work or the delivery of service.”   I do not know about Saskatchewan and British Columbia, but I am informed by a lawyer in the BC Attorney General's Office that age discrimination for car insurance violates the code.

 

Of course I would never file a code violation complaint or even contemplate it as it would be a complete waste of my time and everyone else involved.  I would rather see the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal use their limited resources to deal with serious issues.   Instead, I will cruise with non-CLIA members such as Viking which do not engage in age discrimination against seniors as well as CLIA members which do not engage in age discrimination against seniors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, travelordie said:

Since my physician won't sign the form and tells me that it is in part because the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia advises against signing it, it is the equivalent of age discrimination rather than a mere inconvenience to me.

 

Sounds like you live in a province where blatant age discrimination against younger drivers is permitted.

 

The provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which have government-run car insurance, do not discriminate on the basis of age or gender when setting rates.  The British Columbia Human Rights Code states “anyone aged 19 or older may not be discriminated against on the basis of age, in life, work or the delivery of service.”   I do not know about Saskatchewan and British Columbia, but I am informed by a lawyer in the BC Attorney General's Office that age discrimination for car insurance violates the code.

 

Of course I would never file a code violation complaint or even contemplate it as it would be a complete waste of my time and everyone else involved.  I would rather see the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal use their limited resources to deal with serious issues.   Instead, I will cruise with non-CLIA members such as Viking which do not engage in age discrimination against seniors as well as CLIA members which do not engage in age discrimination against seniors.

So all the headlines like "ICBC sticker shock: Young drivers walloped under new rate system" (The Province) or "Outrage continues among new drivers forced to pay high ICBC insurance rates" (Global News) are all fake news?

 

BC introduced a new rate plan last September that places a heavy emphasis on risk, and driving experience is a major component of the risk assessment. From the ICBC website:

 

Changes to how we determine insurance premiums
As of September 1, 2019, we’re moving to a more driver-based model, which means driving experience and crash history will play a bigger role in determining the cost of your insurance premiums.

 

Driver and vehicle risk
Like any insurer, we try to match insurance costs to a driver's and a vehicle's risk—that is, the likelihood of a claim in the future.
The higher the risk, the more you’ll pay in insurance. The more crashes you’ve caused, for example, the more it will cost to insure your car.
The good news is, safe driving and lots of experience can help to lower your premiums.

 

In my earlier post, I stated that I did not consider charging young drivers higher rates to be discriminatory, and that no province or territory considered it discriminatory either. My statement still stands, and it's clear that BC agrees. It has nothing to do with age per se, but with the resulting lack of experience and therefore higher risk.

 

BTW, on the subject of BC and drivers, the province has another practise that you will probably believe to be discriminatory but I believe to be simply a common sense requirement:

 

Senior Drivers

Health problems tend to manifest themselves, or become more prevalent as drivers age which is why, beginning at age 80 and every two years thereafter, drivers must be assessed by their doctor and submit a medical report to RoadSafetyBC. Further, cognitive impairment with respect to driving represents a growing public safety issue as BC’s population ages. As a result it is imperative that drivers who show signs of cognitive decline are assessed to ensure that they are fit to drive. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

 

 

Driver and vehicle risk
Like any insurer, we try to match insurance costs to a driver's and a vehicle's risk—that is, the likelihood of a claim in the future.
The higher the risk, the more you’ll pay in insurance. The more crashes you’ve caused, for example, the more it will cost to insure your car.
The good news is, safe driving and lots of experience can help to lower your premiums.

 

In my earlier post, I stated that I did not consider charging young drivers higher rates to be discriminatory, and that no province or territory considered it discriminatory either. My statement still stands, and it's clear that BC agrees. It has nothing to do with age per se, but with the resulting lack of experience and therefore higher risk.

 

 

 

As you point out, basing insurance rates on experience is not age discrimination.  Whether one is a new driver at 50 years of age or a new driver at 20 years of age, the rates are identical.  Were it otherwise, that would be blatant age discrimination and would violate the BC Human Rights Code.

 

I have no interest in continuing this discussion as I do not have the time and more importantly, it is not likely to be of interest to most readers of this thread.  Most come here to read about cruises and developments in the cruise industry, not discussions about car insurance variables in provincial jurisdictions of a foreign country.

 

You are welcome to get in the last word as based on the number of your posts, you clearly have more time on your hands than I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are asked to show doctors certificate according to Celebrity on embarkation day my doctor said he would not sign this as it covers to many medical problems why travel to a Port then get refusal on embarkation day its Celebrity ripping off people who have prepaid fares and deposits when we paid deposit there was nothing said about doctors certificate so should we get back our non refundable deposits if cruise cancelled   confused in Aussie 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aussie One said:

you are asked to show doctors certificate according to Celebrity on embarkation day my doctor said he would not sign this as it covers to many medical problems why travel to a Port then get refusal on embarkation day its Celebrity ripping off people who have prepaid fares and deposits when we paid deposit there was nothing said about doctors certificate so should we get back our non refundable deposits if cruise cancelled   confused in Aussie 


The doctors permission has been dropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, yorky said:


The doctors permission has been dropped.

That does not seem to matter.  The topic goes on and on.  Now some are focused on the hypothetical question- What if the bring back the form? I'm with Den and his windmills.  Outta here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rshayes689 said:

Well in the USA there are discriminatory actions. My husband is an insurance agent, and Hippa may have a leg, because that it a invasion of privacy laws. A lot of Home ports are out of the US. They will have a hard time if they decide to reinstate this Dr. Note, and if the cruisers don't stick together we are doomed.

 

In the U.S., age discrimination laws are mainly related to employment. 

 

Examples of legal discrimination based on age:

 

Most people under the age of 18 cannot vote or buy cigarettes

Most people under age 21 cannot drink alcohol

Many people under age 25 cannot rent cars

Many people over a certain age can get senior discounts

 

There are a host of other examples, from mandatory retirement dates in the employment arena to age-restricted communities in the real estate world.  What the cruise industry was proposing would not be deemed age discrimination, particularly since at the time of enactment, they were relying on medical advice from the federal government.  Again, all of that thinking has changed for now, but you can bet that an army of lawyers has looked at their exposure on this and drawn the same conclusion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, bEwAbG said:

 

In the U.S., age discrimination laws are mainly related to employment. 

 

Examples of legal discrimination based on age:

 

Most people under the age of 18 cannot vote or buy cigarettes

Most people under age 21 cannot drink alcohol

Many people under age 25 cannot rent cars

Many people over a certain age can get senior discounts

 

There are a host of other examples, from mandatory retirement dates in the employment arena to age-restricted communities in the real estate world.  What the cruise industry was proposing would not be deemed age discrimination, particularly since at the time of enactment, they were relying on medical advice from the federal government.  Again, all of that thinking has changed for now, but you can bet that an army of lawyers has looked at their exposure on this and drawn the same conclusion.

 

I think discrimination go deeper than the employer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: American Queen Steamboat Company - Celebrate Your Freedom
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com - June 2021
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...