Jump to content

Will U.S. Passengers Comply with the Covid Requirements On Board?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is up to cruise lines themselves to hold the line. They are perfectly entitled to make mask-wearing mandatory in public spaces aboard. Just as they have rules about wearing shirts and shoes in dining venues.

 

 

They are not entitled to discriminate due to someone being disabled. If I do not wear shoes because my legs have been amputated should I be not allowed in the dining room because I am not wearing shoes? If I cannot breathe with a cloth mask covering my mouth an nose should you be able to ban me from your activities? Not according to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

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

If someone has a disease which interferes with his/her breathing, I have great sympathy.   But it would not give him/her any right to risk the health of others. 

 

If it determined that masks are necessary for the health for everyone present - then everyone present should wear masks. Of course, there may have to be exceptions:  someone with a LIGITIMATE inability to safely wear a mask needs to be accommodated — when it comes to necessary activities: getting medical assistance, for example.

 

But when it comes to a voluntary, absolutely unnecessary activity like cruising - which is what we are discussing here  - no accommodation makes sense.

The Americans With Disabilities Act was passed to ensure there would not be discrimination towards those with disabilities. It does not say that an activity you would consider unnecessary should be able to discriminate against those with disabilities. If you do not like the law, lobby those who represent you in Congress to amend or eliminate it. You cannot make it go away by making your interpretations of it and act like that is now the law of the land.

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

So you would make a person with a handicap quarantine for the rest of her life? The aim of the Americans with Disabilities Act is the exact opposite. It is to encourage them to a lead a full life and not be discriminated against.

 

If ignoring their handicap will impact mine and many other's health, I say that the answer is a qualified "yes".  They obviously have some things that they have to do to live.  Cruising is not one of them.

 

DON

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

 

If ignoring their handicap will impact mine and many other's health, I say that the answer is a qualified "yes".  They obviously have some things that they have to do to live.  Cruising is not one of them.

 

DON

Again that is not what the law says. It is not just for what you would not be inconvenienced for the handicap can to do.

 

Can it lead to ridiculous situations in which changes have to be made? Yes, see my original post in this topic where originally when the federal government passed a law that bringing a gun into a school mandated an immediate suspension except when the person bringing in the weapon was related to their handicap (their emotional problems that led them into being classified special ed.)

 

But that is not the same as not allowing the handicapped to enjoy a pleasurable activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

They are not entitled to discriminate due to someone being disabled. If I do not wear shoes because my legs have been amputated should I be not allowed in the dining room because I am not wearing shoes? If I cannot breathe with a cloth mask covering my mouth an nose should you be able to ban me from your activities? Not according to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

 

I refer you to the following links, some quotes from which are below:

 

"The ADA does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities from complying with legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operations."

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-warns-inaccurate-flyers-and-postings-regarding-use-face-masks-and

 

"Even if a person could identify their disability and prove that not wearing a mask without any other precaution was a reasonable request, “the business could still turn that person away based on the direct threat” that they posed to others, according to Roberts (Director of the Health Law & Policy Institute and the Leonard Childs Professor in Law at the University of Houston, who specializes in genetics and the law, health law, and disability law.)

 

A “direct threat” under the ADA is any substantial risk to the health and safety a disabled person poses to others, which cannot be countered with reasonable accommodations.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/15/fact-check-ada-disability-rights-and-face-mask-requirements/5391830002/

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

The Americans With Disabilities Act was passed to ensure there would not be discrimination towards those with disabilities. It does not say that an activity you would consider unnecessary should be able to discriminate against those with disabilities. If you do not like the law, lobby those who represent you in Congress to amend or eliminate it. You cannot make it go away by making your interpretations of it and act like that is now the law of the land.

Please see cruisemom42's post #150 on this point.   The ADA does not give the right to  persons with disabilities unlimited rights to ignore the rights of others.  It does, of course,  give them the right to sue if they feel that their rights have been disregarded.

 

I cannot tell you whose rights you should value over those of others, but I am reasonably confident that any court would dismiss the claim, in this context, of someone who felt his disability gave him the right to jeopardize the rights of many others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure you were waiting for this answer, I will comply with Covid-19 requirements onboard, but don't allow passengers to enforce their own Covid-19 rules, that are not included in the guidelines.

MSC has come out with guidelines:

3. Social distancing:  When social distancing is not possible, guests will be asked to wear a face mask, for instance in the elevators.

THEREFORE, when social distance is possible, a face mask is not required.

Also, as the capacity of the theater will be reduced to ensure responsible social distancing, the entertainment schedule will be adapted so all our guests can still enjoy a great variety of award-winning shows.  

Therefore, in the theater, a face mask is not required.

Restaurants, bars and lounges, will allow for social distancing and all meals and drinks will be served to guests at their table.

Therefore, in the restaurants, a face mask is not required.

The buffet restaurant will offer a new service concept and a new guest flow to ensure social distancing.

Therefore, in the buffet, a face mask is not required.

At the pool, no face mask required.

In the lounge chairs, no face mask required.

Please don't enforce YOUR OWN rules.

 

Following the rules doesn't include forcing your rules on other people.

Edited by Geobugs
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I would say any disease that interferes with one's breathing.

 

6 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Those same people are probably the highest risk to be out and about... the logic of this is so laughable.

 

 

 

Bingo!  Why would someone with respiratory issues so bad that they cannot wear a protective mask openly expose themselves to a deadly airborne virus.  This is so nonsensical I would think anyone on a cruise ship claiming a mask exemption is a faker.    

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

I am sure you were waiting for this answer, I will comply with Covid-19 requirements onboard, but don't allow passengers to enforce their own Covid-19 rules, that are not included in the guidelines.

MSC has come out with guidelines:

3. Social distancing:  When social distancing is not possible, guests will be asked to wear a face mask, for instance in the elevators.

THEREFORE, when social distance is possible, a face mask is not required.

Also, as the capacity of the theater will be reduced to ensure responsible social distancing, the entertainment schedule will be adapted so all our guests can still enjoy a great variety of award-winning shows.  

Therefore, in the theater, a face mask is not required.

Restaurants, bars and lounges, will allow for social distancing and all meals and drinks will be served to guests at their table.

Therefore, in the restaurants, a face mask is not required.

The buffet restaurant will offer a new service concept and a new guest flow to ensure social distancing.

Therefore, in the buffet, a face mask is not required.

At the pool, no face mask required.

In the lounge chairs, no face mask required.

Please don't enforce YOUR OWN rules.

 

Following the rules doesn't include forcing your rules on other people.


Nice try. MSC would disagree with you on this. They specifically mention that you need to wear a mask in the theater and when moving around the ship (so getting your food at the buffet)

 

 

251E38C6-5265-4F2E-AABF-CB84E32B6064.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I refer you to the following links, some quotes from which are below:

 

"The ADA does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities from complying with legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operations."

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-warns-inaccurate-flyers-and-postings-regarding-use-face-masks-and

 

"Even if a person could identify their disability and prove that not wearing a mask without any other precaution was a reasonable request, “the business could still turn that person away based on the direct threat” that they posed to others, according to Roberts (Director of the Health Law & Policy Institute and the Leonard Childs Professor in Law at the University of Houston, who specializes in genetics and the law, health law, and disability law.)

 

A “direct threat” under the ADA is any substantial risk to the health and safety a disabled person poses to others, which cannot be countered with reasonable accommodations.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/15/fact-check-ada-disability-rights-and-face-mask-requirements/5391830002/

There are a lot of posts with this point of view, but since yours is the most reasoned, I will respond to this one.

 

So there is a ship say 2500 passengers, or 3000 passengers, or maybe even more. A handful of people qualify for the mask exemption out of those thousands. And everyone including those few are tested for Covid pre-boarding and every time they come back from a port. Where is this great danger to others that you refer to? Remember the purpose of the law is to provide that disabled people can live a full life without discriminatory barriers.

 

In another response someone mentioned others will say there are people not wearing masks, so I won't also. Now that could be a problem. But let the cruise line deal with those passengers instead of discriminating against those with a disability.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ADA has been referred to as full employment legislation for attorneys because it invites (in some cases begs for) litigation.  There are no ADA police to enforce its provisions, so enforcement has to be done on a case by case basis.

 

But,   to stay in context :  enforcing health safety on cruise ships - it needs to be remembered that the disabled are NOT the only people with rights.  And in a number of situations practicality has to be considered.  An ADA argument can be made that every cabin on every ship must be wheelchair accessible - otherwise the mobility-challenged do not get treated equally.   It is this sort of BS situation that courts have to look at in deciding ADA cases —- and in deciding that the disabled simply do not have rights which trump everyone elses.  

 

There will always be some activities that ADA or similar legislation will not be able to make available to the disabled : for example a wheelchair bound individual will not qualify for firefighter, or Navy SEAL training - no matter how much he might want it. 

 

If if you cannot climb a ladder there will be some jobs you will not be able to get - and ADA will not change that.  And, if you cannot comply with essential health precautions such as wearing a mask (especially when engaged in a non-essential activity like cruising) there will be some vacation activities you will not be able to enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

 

Bingo!  Why would someone with respiratory issues so bad that they cannot wear a protective mask openly expose themselves to a deadly airborne virus.  This is so nonsensical I would think anyone on a cruise ship claiming a mask exemption is a faker.    

It is not only respiratory issues that preclude mask wearing. I know a person with throat tumors who cannot wear a mask. Many people have anxiety and cannot wear a mask. There are many others which do not make them any more susceptible to respiratory illness.

What is laughable—no, actually pathetic—is that people actually say all these people, along with all the vulnerable, should “just stay home”. For years? Try quarantining yourself—no company either—for a month and see how that works.

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

The ADA has been referred to as full employment legislation for attorneys because it invites (in some cases begs for) litigation.  There are no ADA police to enforce its provisions, so enforcement has to be done on a case by case basis.

 

But,   to stay in context :  enforcing health safety on cruise ships - it needs to be remembered that the disabled are NOT the only people with rights.  And in a number of situations practicality has to be considered.  An ADA argument can be made that every cabin on every ship must be wheelchair accessible - otherwise the mobility-challenged do not get treated equally.   It is this sort of BS situation that courts have to look at in deciding ADA cases —- and in deciding that the disabled simply do not have rights which trump everyone elses.  

 

There will always be some activities that ADA or similar legislation will not be able to make available to the disabled : for example a wheelchair bound individual will not qualify for firefighter, or Navy SEAL training - no matter how much he might want it. 

 

If if you cannot climb a ladder there will be some jobs you will not be able to get - and ADA will not change that.  And, if you cannot comply with essential health precautions such as wearing a mask (especially when engaged in a non-essential activity like cruising) there will be some vacation activities you will not be able to enjoy.

Could an argument get any sillier? Common sense has gone out the window for many people.

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

It is not only respiratory issues that preclude mask wearing. I know a person with throat tumors who cannot wear a mask. Many people have anxiety and cannot wear a mask. There are many others which do not make them any more susceptible to respiratory illness.

What is laughable—no, actually pathetic—is that people actually say all these people, along with all the vulnerable, should “just stay home”. For years? Try quarantining yourself—no company either—for a month and see how that works.

 

Come on now.  I never said the vulnerable or anyone else should stay home at all much less for years without company.  Implying that is just a little excessive.   What I said is why anyone with a respiratory problem so severe that they cannot even wear a mask, for even the most basic protection, would even consider going to a place where they would be heavily exposed to a virus that is deadly to them.  Not to mention they will be potentially exposing others.  

 

 There are few absolutes in life, meaning there will always be exceptions like your acquaintance.  Though I would be concerned that person might be among the higher at-risk from exposure to this pandemic and might want avoid a crowded cruise ship for a while.    

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

It is not only respiratory issues that preclude mask wearing. I know a person with throat tumors who cannot wear a mask. Many people have anxiety and cannot wear a mask. There are many others which do not make them any more susceptible to respiratory illness.

What is laughable—no, actually pathetic—is that people actually say all these people, along with all the vulnerable, should “just stay home”. For years? Try quarantining yourself—no company either—for a month and see how that works.

 

People with anxiety, I agree that is a disease, but like freedom and liberty is it okay for people with anxiety to bring their comfort cat, dog, lama on a airplane, or be allowed to be exempt from the best and easiest preventative measures to prevent the spread of a worldwide pandemic?

 

I am okay if vulnerable people choose to take risk, but that shouldn't give them the right to flout common rules.  Okay for older people that don't worry about the risk of drunk driving and dying be allowed to drink drive, or known AIDs infected to have unprotected sex, etc. etc.  

 

Remember for the most part cruising, going out out to eat, etc. are not life necessary activities.  People who do this need to be mindful, caring and considerate of others who also are doing this, not following simply caring for others because of your conditions doesn't fall into that IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Anyone have any idea how many people have a health problem that is seriously affected by wearing a mask? How many have a health problem seriously affected by exposure to codiv-19? My wife has a compromised immune system, so we are very careful about where we go.
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SelectSys said:

All of these posts remind me of people who bring on "therapy" animals on cruise ships and planes.  Will something similar develop with mask wearing?

 

Different case since therapy animals are different than Service animals.   Service animals are covered under the ADA, therapy animals are not. 

 

Here's the rules

 

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

There are a lot of posts with this point of view, but since yours is the most reasoned, I will respond to this one.

 

So there is a ship say 2500 passengers, or 3000 passengers, or maybe even more. A handful of people qualify for the mask exemption out of those thousands. And everyone including those few are tested for Covid pre-boarding and every time they come back from a port. Where is this great danger to others that you refer to? Remember the purpose of the law is to provide that disabled people can live a full life without discriminatory barriers.

 

In another response someone mentioned others will say there are people not wearing masks, so I won't also. Now that could be a problem. But let the cruise line deal with those passengers instead of discriminating against those with a disability.

 

 

 

I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, merely pointing out that ADA has clearly already signaled their position, which is that there is no "mandatory" entitlement to not having to wear a mask in situations where masks are required to stop the spread of the virus. 

 

Could there be a person-by-person accommodation by the cruise lines, perhaps. But that would be up to the "business owner" to decide what was an acceptable accommodation that would not increase the risk to others. 

 

Saying that someone is tested before boarding and regularly onboard is not a substitute for wearing a mask to protect others -- otherwise no one would be required to wear one.

 

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

It is not only respiratory issues that preclude mask wearing. I know a person with throat tumors who cannot wear a mask. Many people have anxiety and cannot wear a mask. There are many others which do not make them any more susceptible to respiratory illness.

What is laughable—no, actually pathetic—is that people actually say all these people, along with all the vulnerable, should “just stay home”. For years? Try quarantining yourself—no company either—for a month and see how that works.

 

How do you propose separating out people with legitimate disabilities vs made up disabilities. Doesn't the ADA also not allow a business to ask about a person's disability? It's an unsolvable issue to say that IF you have a medical issue you don't have to wear a mask but I can't ask anything to confirm that you actually have a medical issue where you can't wear a mask. Really not sure how this is different from no shirt, no shoes, no service. I believe businesses have a right to refuse service. Yes, they have to make reasonable accommodations, but since most US based businesses offer carry out, drive through, delivery service, then those are reasonable accommodations. they don't have to let someone in without a mask. I don't believe cruising will have to abide by this either. A lot of things go off the table during a pandemic, like HIPPA. I cant tell you that in my profession, I have access to people's personal medical information, provided by their doctors, that relates to COVID. 

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

What is laughable—no, actually pathetic—is that people actually say all these people, along with all the vulnerable, should “just stay home”. For years? Try quarantining yourself—no company either—for a month and see how that works.

 

No, vulnerable people should not have to "just stay home". 
 

But there is a world of difference between going out (with appropriate precautions) to pick up a few groceries or a prescription, and undertaking a completely voluntary activity such as cruising where there is significant exposure to others. Especially before vaccines or effective treatments are widely available.

 

And btw, I have effectively been quarantining since I returned from Italy at the end of February -- first two weeks at the request of my company (due to the situation in Italy), then just when that period ended the US had the first few weeks of lockdown. Plus I live in an area where infection rates have been high almost from the start.

 

Since then my company -- a very solid, respected pharmaceutical company -- has kept sites closed and asked employees to work from home except for essential workers. To me, this is a clear signal that it is not safe to travel or to spend time in the company of others. Since February I have only filled up my tank once (and it is still half full); I have not visited friends or family nor have they visited me; I have not eaten in a restaurant or been to a bar.  I've been to the grocery or drugstore a handful of times but mostly use delivery.  And I have no plans to change these behaviors anytime soon.  And I don't even have any predisposing risk factors.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Covid CASE DATA FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

400,000 population

Average age 49

with over 150,000 seniors

Total Cases: 10,755
Deaths: 347

Hospitalizations: 1050

99.7% chance of not going to the hospital.

0.0008% chance of dying of Covid-19.

2.7% chance of contracting Covid-19.

Here is the kicker:  Sheriff Billy Woods mandated the non-use of masks for his workers and forbid masks indoor any county facility.  He asked that no one wear masks.  If you walk the streets of Ocala, very few wear masks. 

 

Lets bring back cruising, this plandemic has gone on long enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sanger727 said:


Nice try. MSC would disagree with you on this. They specifically mention that you need to wear a mask in the theater and when moving around the ship (so getting your food at the buffet)

 

 

251E38C6-5265-4F2E-AABF-CB84E32B6064.png

 

MSC's implementation of these guidelines, as reported in several trip reports, is that masks are to be worn when entering and leaving the theater.  Once seated, masks may be removed.  @Geobugs post properly points out that masks are only required when social distancing is not possible.  This opens up a huge grey area and I'm sure will result in many confrontations among passengers.  

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

The ADA has been referred to as full employment legislation for attorneys because it invites (in some cases begs for) litigation.  There are no ADA police to enforce its provisions, so enforcement has to be done on a case by case basis.

 

But,   to stay in context :  enforcing health safety on cruise ships - it needs to be remembered that the disabled are NOT the only people with rights.  And in a number of situations practicality has to be considered.  An ADA argument can be made that every cabin on every ship must be wheelchair accessible - otherwise the mobility-challenged do not get treated equally.   It is this sort of BS situation that courts have to look at in deciding ADA cases —- and in deciding that the disabled simply do not have rights which trump everyone elses.  

 

There will always be some activities that ADA or similar legislation will not be able to make available to the disabled : for example a wheelchair bound individual will not qualify for firefighter, or Navy SEAL training - no matter how much he might want it. 

 

If if you cannot climb a ladder there will be some jobs you will not be able to get - and ADA will not change that.  And, if you cannot comply with essential health precautions such as wearing a mask (especially when engaged in a non-essential activity like cruising) there will be some vacation activities you will not be able to enjoy.

I thank you for the reasoned debate, but we are just going to end up agreeing to disagree. Maybe if there is a court case, we will really find out how the ADA applies.

 

The ADA is for the benefit of the handicapped. It cannot just be ignored because it would be inconvenient to not accommodate those who are afraid people not qualifying will demand the same accommodations. It also does not stretch to silly things like giving a drivers license to a blind person.  

 

 

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

I thank you for the reasoned debate, but we are just going to end up agreeing to disagree. Maybe if there is a court case, we will really find out how the ADA applies.

 

The ADA is for the benefit of the handicapped. It cannot just be ignored because it would be inconvenient to not accommodate those who are afraid people not qualifying will demand the same accommodations. It also does not stretch to silly things like giving a drivers license to a blind person.  

 

 

There will probably have to be a test case or two before this question is resolved .  But just as giving a blind person a drivers license is seen a a silly application of ADA ,  it is possible that it might be also be found that it is silly to ignore full compliance with necessary health precautions just because someone with a different sort of disability wants to take an unnecessary cruise.  After all, driving can be seen as more important to living a full life than cruising.

 

Life is not “fair” - denying a person the right to cruise is not “fair” ; but denying hundreds or thousands of people the right  to cruise safely (assuming it is determined that wearing a mask is necessary for safe cruising) just so that one handicapped person can cruise is also not “fair”.

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
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A with Chris Prelog, President of Windstar Cruises!
      • Register Now for Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Royal Caribbean
      • 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...