Jump to content

Should Coronavirus Vaccination be Mandatory to Cruise?


Recommended Posts

Today, a Yellow Fever Vaccination is required in order to cruise to regions that have Yellow Fever mosquito infections. I am wondering in the future, if a COVID-19 vaccination should be a requirement to board any cruise ship for any length of time?

I am interested in fellow cruiser’s opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LewiLewi said:

Today, a Yellow Fever Vaccination is required in order to cruise to regions that have Yellow Fever mosquito infections. I am wondering in the future, if a COVID-19 vaccination should be a requirement to board any cruise ship for any length of time?

I am interested in fellow cruiser’s opinions.

 

Yes, absolutely it should be required. I personally will not cruise unless the cruise line or ship requires it from all passengers. It's the only way we will have any chance of having a semi-normal experience of life, and particularly travel,  in future.

 

I'm assuming that on the spot testing for covid will also be required for travelling to safeguard staff and passengers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the difficulty of quarantining a whole ship I would not be surprised if individual countries make this a requirement, meaning cruise lines will just have to follow suit. On top of that if countries can refuse ships with infected passangers than cruise lines will be even more motivated to prevent people being stranded with nowhere to dock. Heck maybe even travel insurance might make it a requirement or otherwise void any treatment cost😳. I could see a lot of industries pushing people to be vaccinated against COVID 19. The reality is a COVID 19 infection spread can cost a lot of money probably more than what they would gain from anti vaxxer passengers.

Edited by ilikeanswers
Link to post
Share on other sites

If a record of vaccination is required for international travel,  then OK.  If the cruise line is the only entity requiring it, I won’t be booking.  Not so much a matter of whether I’ll get vaccinated when I can (I will), to me it’s a strong signal that cruising, as a mode of transportation, is not yet reliably safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Eventually we will wake up to the reality that a vaccine is a chimerical distraction.  They will not make travel safe.  Effective TREATMENTS are what will free things up.  

I imagine much the same was said about smallpox vaccine as it was introduced.

 

  And, of course, flu vaccine is reputed to be only about 50% effective -  so, while a fair number of the hundreds of thousands who die of the flu each year might have done better with the vaccine - all those suckers who got jabbed and still died probably died agreeing with you.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

 

Still I'm curious to know why, if YOU get the vaccination, why anyone else need be mandated to have one.  Surely if YOU have been vaccinated then no-one else can pose a risk to you right?

 

No, I don't think that is correct.  The vaccine is not likely to be 100% effective.  

 

   


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We each carry a small yellow booklet that lists our vaccinations/dates, etc.   Some countries ask for it on entry.  It really is not a big deal to carry on our person.  About the size of a paperback passport but much thinner.

 

Do not know if the cruise lines will make it mandatory but it certainly is not a big issue if they do.  Unless of course you happen to be an anti vaxer.

 

Will the cruise lines ask for it?  It would not surprise us if they do.   And definitely if it becomes a requirement at port stops.  No different than a visa.

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

 

Aha so now we come down to the detail.  Most vaccines are not 100% effective yes.   So the choice of whether to have one is not a straightforward one.  We need to know what it's efficacy actually is, and that won't be proven until the vaccine has been out there, in use, for a significant amount of time, maybe 1-2 years imo.   We also need to understand what harms come from it and again that won't be evident for 1-2 years imo.  The risk assessment is unique to each person, just as assessing one's risk of COVID is.  Some people are at significant risk from COVID, some are not.  Everyone's circumstances are different and unique.

 

The same applies to vaccines.  It's an assessment of risks.  The limited benefits, which as you say will be less than 100% effectiveness, pitched against the risks of being harmed.   Everyone should be free to make that risk assessment according to their own unique circumstances. 

 

Being less than 100% effective is not the same as saying it is ineffective.  And, as pointed out in an earlier post, your risk assessment is based on questionable "research".   I am comfortable with wanting a vaccine requirement.   

 

However, that is all besides the point.  It is not likely that anyone is going to force you to have a vaccine. You should be prepared to accept that anti-vaxxers could lose the argument.  In which case, just take responsibility and don't expect to go places where it has been deemed that a vaccine is required.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines provide a 'herd immunity' - any one person is way less likely to be infected if a substantial proportion of the population is vaccinated, and this applies not just to covid-19 when a vaccine does become available.  Hence the measles, mumps, rubella  vaccine if given to most children means every child is less likely to catch it.  Even if a coronavirus vaccine was only 50% effective, if most people were vaccinated then transmission would be significantly reduced, and the number of people with the virus at any one time would be also reduced substantially, and that leads to less people needing the limited number of hospital beds, and less people dying overall, and a lower cost to society as a whole.  It would also mean significant reduction in the chance of a repeat of the terrible situation at the start of the pandemic where ships had hundreds of people infected with covid-19 and some pretty ill. It is possible to argue that although you have the right to choose whether or not you are vaccinated, you don't have any ethically justified reason to leave yourself open to being infected and then consequentially passing the virus on to another human being who then may be very sick or die as a result.  So it is the responsibility to others that would be helped by being vaccinated if most of us do so, rather then accepting you might be ill with the disease.

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

 

It's about choice.  Freedom to decide what personal risks we wish to take or not to take.   Those who choose to be vaccinated, good luck to them.  Leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.  Vaccines should not be mandated, on cruises or anywhere else.

I think it's far, FAR more likely that masks are going to be required any time one is out of their cabin. CDC director Dr. Redfield and Dr. Fauci seem to be going in that direction and no US ships are going til the CDC releases them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Categorically No

 

There are a number of people who are regrettably very ill informed about vaccines.  They are not a panacea and they don't remove the problems that cruises face.

 

Some facts are in order:

 

1.  Having a vaccine DOES NOT mean that you will not still catch a virus.

It simply means your body should mount a defensive response to it quickly

 

2.   Having a vaccine DOES NOT mean that you can't or won't spread a virus to others

Kids who have had vaccination for mumps have sparked off mumps outbreaks despite being vaccinated.

Studies have shown that those who have flu vaccines can spread flu to others up to 6 times more than unvaccinated people.

 

3.  Having everyone vaccinated on-board IS NOT going to stop cases of COVID appearing.  So the issue still exists as to how a cruise lines deals with such cases

 

4.  Those who want to get vaccinated can and should do so.  What everyone else does should be absolutely of no concern to them.  If you have been vaccinated then it should not matter to you whether I have been or not should it?  I can't possibly harm you because after all . .  . . you've been vaccinated.    Unless of course the vaccine doesn't work . . .  .!

 

Those are the salient facts imo.

 

So no, in summary, cruise lines should NOT now nor ever mandate vaccines.   What they should do is have workable protocols in force that allow them to deal with virus outbreaks effectively and quickly without locking everyone up in their cabins.

Those who "feel" vulnerable or who are defined as vulnerable or who have underlying health conditions should be free to go and get vaccinated if they want to.  Good luck to them.  Everyone else should be free to make their own life choices.

 

 

 

The anti-vaccine crowd should instead argue what are the downsides... versus the fascination for possible not working, if everyone was, versus how ineffectual vaccines are, LOL

 

 

Why is personal liberty / freedom  versus a little sacrifice for a large societal benefit so hard for some people to comprehend.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Being less than 100% effective is not the same as saying it is ineffective.  And, as pointed out in an earlier post, your risk assessment is based on questionable "research".   I am comfortable with wanting a vaccine requirement.   

 

However, that is all besides the point.  It is not likely that anyone is going to force you to have a vaccine. You should be prepared to accept that anti-vaxxers could lose the argument.  In which case, just take responsibility and don't expect to go places where it has been deemed that a vaccine is required.    

 

Throwing around terms like "anti-vaxxers" is just intellectual laziness.  The issue is far more nuanced than that.  There is a huge difference between a smallpox vaccine, where the disease doesn't change and is the same as it was back when Catherine the Great innoculated her own family with a crude early vaccine.  Compared to the flu with multiple strains and evolving strains, only a few of which can be included based on what they think might emerge.  There are also differences in individual health.  There is also the severity of the disease.  It really is OK to consider a variety of issues and make your decision.  And which way you decide in any case doesn't make you an annti-vaxxer.

The real problem seems to be the people that just get very upset if anyone questions their version of the one and only way to live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

Why is personal liberty / freedom  versus a little sacrifice for a large societal benefit so hard for some people to comprehend.  

I've been asking that question for over six months now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

The real problem seems to be the people that just get very upset if anyone questions their version of the one and only way to live.

Kinda like when someone says that they won't cruise if they have to wear a mask. Okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

 

Still I'm curious to know why, if YOU get the vaccination, why anyone else need be mandated to have one.  Surely if YOU have been vaccinated then no-one else can pose a risk to you right?

If you stop to think, you will realize that, in the case of a vaccine only being 50% effective - meaning that you still have a 50% chance of infection - the fact that half of everyone else getting the vaccine being unable to infect you will help you.   So even if you do not get the vaccine, if everyone else gets it their doing so will cut the chances of your being infected by 50%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently, I took a trip to a destination that required a Covid swab test within 72 hours of arrival. My choices were to say “screw it, I’m not doing that” and staying home  or saying “Ok, I’ll do it” and go on that vacation. 
 

I chose to take the test and off we went on our vacation. We had an absolutely fantastic time, and the nuisance of having to abide by this requirement was just a small blip in an otherwise relaxing and blissful vacation. 
 

With all of that said, if I needed to have ANY vaccination (Covid or any other) to go on a vacation that I’ve been wanting to take, I wouldn’t think twice. I’d do it. Otherwise I’d feel like I’d be cutting off my nose to spite my face. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

 

Still I'm curious to know why, if YOU get the vaccination, why anyone else need be mandated to have one.  Surely if YOU have been vaccinated then no-one else can pose a risk to you right?

Without getting into the argument of benefit to each individual with respect to the vaccine, there is another reason why the individual cruise lines as well as the ports may still require proof of vaccination.  
The company’s will wish to avoid in any way possible the fiascos they found themselves in earlier this year where even a single case of COVID 19 played havoc with their itineraries and added layers of extra costs required when they were made responsible for transporting passengers back to points of origin.  I suspect, again an opinion, in no way to be construed as a fact, that some ports will want assurances from arriving ships that they have taken all steps possible to mitigate the risk of transmission of COVID 19 into the local population.  These MAY include providing proof of immunization, providing proof of negative Covid tests and possibly limiting the freedom of passengers to tour on their own among others.
Whether I agree with any of those steps and whether I believe them to be beneficial will be of little or no consequence.  If the Cruise line and the ports set the rules and vigorously enforce them then my, or your, only option will be to comply or not sail.

 

My personal experience in February was to have been on the sailing of the Grand Princess that ultimately was shown to have a few cases of Covid with at least one death.  The subsequent sailing had many more cases and was forced to stay at sea until it was finally allowed to port and slowly disembark its passengers at a normally unused dock in Oakland.  We received phone and email messages requesting us to quarantine at home for 14 days from Public Health 9 days after our return.  Needless to say we had been involved in all of our usual activities before they contacted us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

If you stop to think, you will realize that, in the case of a vaccine only being 50% effective - meaning that you still have a 50% chance of infection - the fact that half of everyone else getting the vaccine being unable to infect you will help you.   So even if you do not get the vaccine, if everyone else gets it their doing so will cut the chances of your being infected by 50%.

Or you could get vaccinated too and statistically cut your chances to 25%.

Funny how some will say they have a RIGHT to not be vaccinated and go anywhere will claim someone else has no right to forego a mask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A with Chris Prelog, President of Windstar Cruises!
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • 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
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...