Jump to content

Should Coronavirus Vaccination be Mandatory to Cruise?


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, clo said:

 

This post is a little alarmist.  It's news about the past.  They discovered that a mutated and more contagious strain infected Houston back in June.  It was a strain that previously existed in other parts of the world.  They're not currently suggesting that it may become even more contagious.  They're just saying that as it mutates, several things can happen and mutations could impact the effectiveness of the vaccine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 11:24 AM, Hlitner said:

Yep.  I only mentioned YF because the vaccine is still required by certain countries (and cruises that go to those countries).  For those of us old enough to remember, there was a time when a Smallpox vaccination certificate was required for travelers to many parts of the world.  And my arms still ache when I recall my stint in the USAF when I had many different vaccines (often given at the same time in both arms) so as to be ready to go anywhere in the world on moments notice.  My least favorite was the Cholera shot which actually hurt and had to be boosted every 6 months!  

 

But my point is that it would be nothing new for countries to impose a COVID-19 vaccine requirement.  What would be new (and I think a good idea) would also be for some other institutions (such as airlines, cruise ships, stadiums, etc) to also require mandatory vaccinations for highly contagious diseases.  It never made sense to me when we required certain shots for schools but not for other institutions.  What COVID has done is make much of the public aware of the high cost of contagious diseases....an issue ignored by many until this pandemic.  I am somewhat of a libertarian and do not like the idea of the government forcing folks to get shots.  But requiring shots as a requirement for entry to certain institutions (such as an airline) does give folks a choice.   The world managed to wipe out Smallpox through an international vaccination program (mandated by many countries).  Perhaps that should be a model used for other contagious diseases.

 

Hank


I sure hope you didn’t suffer the fate of my training class of newly inducted service members. Inoculations administered by E2 medical corps trainees. Hurt like the dickens to return salutes . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CPT Trips said:


I sure hope you didn’t suffer the fate of my training class of newly inducted service members. Inoculations administered by E2 medical corps trainees. Hurt like the dickens to return salutes . . . 

ROFL.  I still remember walking through a line (at basic training) with med techs on both sides nailing us with the inoculation guns.  Those things did not use needles but actually hurt more!  They might have been E2s or even E1s  :LOL.

 

Hank 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 9:31 AM, 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.


whether it’s required or not, I won’t get on a cruise unless I am vaccinated 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should Coronavirus Vaccination be Mandatory to Cruise?

 

Short answer......  Yes.  Too many idiots with the "it cant happen to me" attitude out there...   And a cruise is WAAAY to expensive to roll THAT dice!

 

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

What should be done is if a person does not get a vaccination and then comes down with the virus then the person should have to pay for any care out of pocket and insurance should not pay for medial costs.  

I've had this exact thought about people who don't wear helmet when riding a motorcycle and these days a bicycle. Yeah, do what you want and know you're going to have to pay the price.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, clo said:

I've had this exact thought about people who don't wear helmet when riding a motorcycle and these days a bicycle. Yeah, do what you want and know you're going to have to pay the price.

 

And this is EXACTLY why socialized medicine is so dangerous to freedom.  People will use it as a pretext to control unrelated behaviors they don't like.  Just as we are seeing in many states under the guise of 'necessary' measures because of the 'crisis.

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

 

But it is important to subject those 'sources' to critical analysis.  That's the point of the quote.

And I do that. I have a health issue that can have seemingly a gazillion possible manifestations. Or not. So my doctor and I are discussing various sides of the issue. You may have noticed that I'm not a "yes, dear" kinda gal 🙂

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

And this is EXACTLY why socialized medicine is so dangerous to freedom.  People will use it as a pretext to control unrelated behaviors they don't like.  

 

I think that is a bit of an overreaction. People don't live in bubbles. To think your decisions don't have wider implications or effects I reckon is a little unrealistic. In Australia we do have mandatory helmet wearing and while it doesn't eliminate the problem it has decreased the rate of brain injuries from crashes which means the government doesn't have to foot expensive bills for treatments, we don't lose productive people which includes the family members who would have to quit their employment to full time care for these people which in turn only puts more strain on government, social and charity services. If you can prevent something from becoming a bigger problem that goes on to affect more people is it so bad to try and prevent it? 

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

What should be done is if a person does not get a vaccination and then comes down with the virus then the person should have to pay for any care out of pocket and insurance should not pay for medial costs.  

 

Are you saying they should pay for everyone on a cruise or just their own? I wouldn't mind if someone else would foot the bill for my quarantine😂

Edited by ilikeanswers
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clo said:

I've had this exact thought about people who don't wear helmet when riding a motorcycle and these days a bicycle. Yeah, do what you want and know you're going to have to pay the price.

 

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I think that is a bit of an overreaction. People don't live in bubbles. To think your decisions don't have wider implications or effects I reckon is a little unrealistic. In Australia we do have mandatory helmet wearing and while it doesn't eliminate the problem it has decreased the rate of brain injuries from crashes which means the government doesn't have to foot expensive bills for treatments, we don't lose productive people which includes the family members who would have to quit their employment to full time care for these people which in turn only puts more strain on government, social and charity services. If you can prevent something from becoming a bigger problem that goes on to affect more people is it so bad to try and prevent it? 

So overweight people should have to pay out of pocket for all medical care related to weight issues. Diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, cancer, etc? Or the drinker who causes an accident. No treatment for him? But what about his passengers? Did they LET him drive and are culpable as well or are they victims and deserve treatment. 

We can take measures to try to prevent problems, but deny treatment????

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Donray said:

What should be done is if a person does not get a vaccination and then comes down with the virus then the person should have to pay for any care out of pocket and insurance should not pay for medial costs.  

 

The unfortunate thing is the person who didn't get the vaccine creates a burden on others.  If behavior had no external consequences than what you say would make sense.  The impact and responsibility of externalities provide the basis of many lawsuits and regulations/laws.

 

I feel cruise lines should be able to impose any requirement on passengers as long as they it is done in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion. 

 

2 hours ago, clo said:

I've had this exact thought about people who don't wear helmet when riding a motorcycle and these days a bicycle. Yeah, do what you want and know you're going to have to pay the price.

 

My classic liberal tendencies support this view.   Unfortunately other laws, such as the right to medical treatment, make following through on this impractical.  Amazingly many states allow riding of motorcycles without helmets.  

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/motorcycle-accidents/state-helmet-laws/

 

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And this is EXACTLY why socialized medicine is so dangerous to freedom.  People will use it as a pretext to control unrelated behaviors they don't like.  Just as we are seeing in many states under the guise of 'necessary' measures because of the 'crisis.

 

It's a delicate balancing act to manage private and personal interests.  Most modern societies make these tradeoffs in many areas.  I live in a state that is considering the elimination of natural gas as a fuel for climate change reasons.  I personally like cooking & heating with gas - not to mention my BBQ and fire pit.  Regardless of my preferences to use gas it may become illegal to do so where I live in the future.  My options at that point will be to 1) conform, 2) look for an alternate place to live or 3) buy propane on the black market and hope my neighbors don't turn me in!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

It's a delicate balancing act to manage private and personal interests. 

As usual, a very good post.

 

OT but for cooking I've used an induction cooktop with electric/convection oven for some years now. You couldn't pay me to go back to gas 🙂

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

What should be done is if a person does not get a vaccination and then comes down with the virus then the person should have to pay for any care out of pocket and insurance should not pay for medial costs.  

 

3 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And this is EXACTLY why socialized medicine is so dangerous to freedom.  People will use it as a pretext to control unrelated behaviors they don't like.  Just as we are seeing in many states under the guise of 'necessary' measures because of the 'crisis.

 

Two sides of a slippery slope between a society and a mob.

 

Imagine a cruise where there were no sense of rules for what everyone desired versus what could be provided, LOL

Edited by chipmaster
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 6:31 AM, LewiLewi said:

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?

 

Long answer is Yes.

Edited by JRG
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

 

So overweight people should have to pay out of pocket for all medical care related to weight issues. Diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, cancer, etc? Or the drinker who causes an accident. No treatment for him? But what about his passengers? Did they LET him drive and are culpable as well or are they victims and deserve treatment. 

We can take measures to try to prevent problems, but deny treatment????

 

I would not go so far but your idea do have some merit.  As an example, why should I have to pay for the medical care of a person who decides that they do not have to wear a helmet when they are on a motorcycle and then suffers an accident and is hurt.  In the same way, the people who do really dumb stunts and are hurt should be on their dime and not mine.  Finally, why should the search and rescue people waste their time and take  risk their lives to find and rescue people who are lost in the wilderness when satellite based locating systems are available at a very reasonable cost.  In some instances I would approve of denying treatment.

 

DON

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

 

I would not go so far but your idea do have some merit.  As an example, why should I have to pay for the medical care of a person who decides that they do not have to wear a helmet when they are on a motorcycle and then suffers an accident and is hurt.  In the same way, the people who do really dumb stunts and are hurt should be on their dime and not mine.  Finally, why should the search and rescue people waste their time and take  risk their lives to find and rescue people who are lost in the wilderness when satellite based locating systems are available at a very reasonable cost.  In some instances I would approve of denying treatment.

 

DON

And where do you draw the line? EMTs arrive at accident scene and find one victim was not wearing a seat belt. Cancel the ambulance. Leave him to die. After all, he should have been wearing a seat belt. To be clear—none of these ideas have merit for those of us living in a free country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

 

So overweight people should have to pay out of pocket for all medical care related to weight issues. Diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, cancer, etc? Or the drinker who causes an accident. No treatment for him? But what about his passengers? Did they LET him drive and are culpable as well or are they victims and deserve treatment. 

We can take measures to try to prevent problems, but deny treatment????

 

Many alcoholics/addicts are denied treatment today due to the shortages of treatment beds/slots, the obviously bad decisions they made while their addiction is active and the 3 strike restrictions some states place on treatment episodes.

 

Imagine (as above) if the same restrictions were put on obesity, cardiac issues or diabetes?  Oh this is your 5th time trying to lose weight?  Every other episode ended in failure and you put the weight back on?  Sorry no treatment for you.

 

Or:  this is the 4th time you're asking to have angioplasty for a clogged artery?  Obviously, you are just being a burden to the taxpayer and the health system.  Too bad for you.

 

Or:  You haven't been taking your meds regularly and you aren't eating a healthy diet over the last year so we can't justify approving more diabetes meds for you.

 

Or:  You want a knee or a hip replacement?  You should have been exercising regularly, and managing your obesity problem better since all that extra weight caused your joint to fail.  Come back after you lose 100 lbs and have kept it off for a year and then maybe we can talk about joint replacement.

 

Or:  You're overweight, diabetic, and have cardiac issues, yet you went on a cruise and ate and drank all day long for a week?  HaHaHaHaHa.

 

I'll just join 2Wheelin in presenting ethical quandaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the cruise lines don't impose a mandatory vaccine requirement it should be expected that when a coronavirus vaccine is widely available most nations will establish proof of inoculation as a condition of entry. Mandatory vaccinations aren't new and many nations already require visitors to have various inoculations before being admitted.  So while anti-vax kooks may be allowed to cruise they won't be let off the boat. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I am not sure why you quoted me as I never said or implied anything about denying people treatment. 

I was supporting your example because you said  “If you can prevent something from becoming a bigger problem that goes on to affect more people is it so bad to try and prevent it?“ The other poster I quoted was blatantly stating we should deny treatment to those who do not meet her personal conditions.

However, even using your statement, there are limits to how far we can go to control others.

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

I was supporting your example because you said  “If you can prevent something from becoming a bigger problem that goes on to affect more people is it so bad to try and prevent it?“ The other poster I quoted was blatantly stating we should deny treatment to those who do not meet her personal conditions.

However, even using your statement, there are limits to how far we can go to control others.

 

Well that clears that up. Though it would perhaps have been better if you quoted us seperately to make it less confusing. I certainly don't think you can control everything and I wouldn't want that but we do already legislate against certain behaviour like making it illegal to murder each other or having limits on blood alcohol when driving. These things have not led to the end of democracy as some people seem to think something like mandating helmets will but they are the acceptance that the world and people are not perfect and that sometimes we do need a framework that controls certain behaviours. It doesn't have to be everyone gets to do anything they like or we have to control every minute behaviour, we can have a middle ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Alberto Aliberti, President of Atlas Ocean Voyages
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with RiverCruising, the River Cruise Experts
      • 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...