Jump to content

Will you cruise if vaccination is mandatory in order to board?


Thrak
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

So I checked Dr Marty Makary and I see where his background is mainly focussed on Health Policy and Surgical Checklists though he at least has more knowledge than Dr Atlas. Reading Dr Makary's background I can probably guess he doesn't believe in climate change either.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Joebucks said:

Am I the only one who notices a double-standard in explaining every death around the time of vaccination with arguments such as "he was old and sick!" Yet when someone dies "with" COVID, that is their cause of death and the "he was old and sick" argument only means healthy people killed him?

You are not the only one to notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Joebucks said:

Am I the only one who notices a double-standard in explaining every death around the time of vaccination with arguments such as "he was old and sick!" Yet when someone dies "with" COVID, that is their cause of death and the "he was old and sick" argument only means healthy people killed him? Where's my recount of all of the old, sick, nursing home deaths? 

 

How is it a double standard? Every death of a vaccinated person comes under additional scrutiny to determine if the vaccine may have contributed to the death. 

 

I realize that there are those that attribute corrupt motives to all those that produce results that don't conform with their world view. But fantasy really has no place in dealing with something almost halfway to killing a million Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

How is it a double standard? Every death of a vaccinated person comes under additional scrutiny to determine if the vaccine may have contributed to the death. 

 

I realize that there are those that attribute corrupt motives to all those that produce results that don't conform with their world view. But fantasy really has no place in dealing with something almost halfway to killing a million Americans.

But correlation does not imply causation.  Just because 100% of cancer victims drank milk in childhood does not mean that drinking milk causes cancer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I agree, an anti-vaxxer can be defined as one "...who tries to convince other people not to get vaccines."

 

Don't you realize that your citing "...medical reasons...", "...the speed and novelty of it's (sic) development...", "...the short times that the studies were done...",  and "...distrust of a vaccine developed under a particular administration..." constitute presenting an argument obviously designed                     "... to convince other people...".  You are, by your own tight definition, an anti-vaxxer.

 

You do not understand the difference between explanation and advocacy.  Just as you do not understand the difference between a dichotomy and a false dichotomy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

How is it a double standard? Every death of a vaccinated person comes under additional scrutiny to determine if the vaccine may have contributed to the death. 

 

I realize that there are those that attribute corrupt motives to all those that produce results that don't conform with their world view. But fantasy really has no place in dealing with something almost halfway to killing a million Americans.

 

Double Standard: 

a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"
 
When someone dies with COVID in their body - COVID was the cause of death
When someone dies with the vaccine in their body - here an explanation of why it wasn't the cause of death

 

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes, there are a lot of folks out there who seek to minimize the overall threat represented by COVID, while maximizing the harmful side effects of getting the shot.

 

There's also a lot of folks out there who don't repeatedly say the same, sensationalized, deceptive things. There is more to the debate than black and white statements.

 

https://nypost.com/2021/02/19/covid-mutations-slow-vaccine-production-could-slow-return-to-normal-life-biden

 

A single-shot vaccine produced by Johnson & Johnson, which is at least 66 percent effective, is expected to further accelerate the vaccination timeline when it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as early as this month.

 

Preliminary research indicates vaccines are less effective against emerging and more contagious COVID-19 variations.

 

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, is 66 percent effective worldwide, but 72 percent effective in the US, where there is less prevalence of mutations that emerged in the UK, Brazil and South Africa.

A different vaccine in development by Novavax is 60 percent effective in South Africa. In the UK, the same vaccine was 95.6 percent effective against the original variant and 85.6 percent effective against the UK variant.

 

Biden’s chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday that the new variations of the virus mean the government and companies will “have to be nimble to adjust readily to make versions of the vaccine specifically directed towards whatever mutation is prevalent.”

 

 

Too many people have too much faith in the vaccination. I hope it does work. When even the proponents aren't confident, why do you insist on keep pushing the same, extreme, statements? The information and "science" is changing constantly. Some people just aren't ready to call this something that should be mandated. At least not yet.

Edited by Joebucks
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

 

Too many people have too much faith in the vaccination. I hope it does work. When even the proponents aren't confident, why do you insist on keep pushing the same, extreme, statements?

 

Didn't you say you won't cruise if vaccination is mandatory? If that is what you said and vaccination is mandatory you won't cruise. If vaccination is not mandatory you will be able to cruise. We won't have any say in the matter. The CDC, cruise lines and ports will have the say. If it is required I think that a lot of hesitation and antivaxxerism will melt away except among die hard flat earth types. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find both interesting and hilarious is how some people here express such deep anger and disdain at anyone who resists their narrative.  But let's look at it from a practical level. 

When someone says they will delay or altogether skip getting the virus it's not like they are going to throw away the vaccine that person would have gotten.  If my number comes up and I politely decline and say not now, that means that someone else who wants the vaccine gets it earlier than they would otherwise.  But rather than be glad that someone is getting the vaccine sooner they choose to be enraged because someone refused to bend the knee to their narrative.

It is also both weird and funny when someone says they won't get the vaccine and we get a calvacade of triumphal nanny nanny boo boo posts along the lines of, "Well YOU won't be cruising again.".  When it is already obvious that if vaccines become mandatory to cruise, someone who doesn't get the vaccine won't cruise.  But they must be verbally bludgeoned for daring to make their own decision and challenge the narrative.

It is a little scary how many people here seem to get a self-esteem boost by demonizing people who make different choices in life than they do.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Didn't you say you won't cruise if vaccination is mandatory? If that is what you said and vaccination is mandatory you won't cruise. If vaccination is not mandatory you will be able to cruise. We won't have any say in the matter. The CDC, cruise lines and ports will have the say. If it is required I think that a lot of hesitation and antivaxxerism will melt away except among die hard flat earth types. 

 

This is a good example of what I just said.  OBVIOUSLY the decision about mandatory vaccination will be made by the CDC and cruiselines, and OBVIOUSLY if it is mandatory and someone doesn't get it they can't cruise.  But you had to make a point of saying the OBVIOUS anyway, and then used it as a vehicle to insult people who think and choose differently than you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Didn't you say you won't cruise if vaccination is mandatory? If that is what you said and vaccination is mandatory you won't cruise. If vaccination is not mandatory you will be able to cruise. We won't have any say in the matter. The CDC, cruise lines and ports will have the say. If it is required I think that a lot of hesitation and antivaxxerism will melt away except among die hard flat earth types. 

I think some people here are confusing the concepts of mandatory versus compulsion.  If something is mandatory, then there are consequences for not complying with the mandate.  If something is compulsory, then compliance with the mandate can be effected by use of force.  I haven't seen anybody on these threads advocate compulsory vaccinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

You do not understand the difference between explanation and advocacy.  Just as you do not understand the difference between a dichotomy and a false dichotomy.

Since many of your "explanations" involve advocacy you tend to blur that difference, and since you seem unable to accept the notion of even the existence of a false dichotomy - while claiming almost sole authority to define any dichotomy, I am disinclined to accept instruction from you.

 

Please give it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Since many of your "explanations" involve advocacy you tend to blur that difference, and since you seem unable to accept the notion of even the existence of a false dichotomy - while claiming almost sole authority to define any dichotomy, I am disinclined to accept instruction from you.

 

Please give it up.

 

I'm not instructing anyone about anything.  I defy you to point to a single post of mine saying someone shouldn't get it.  But I also defy you to find a single post of yours where you display any understanding of why someone would choose to delay or skip.


And I deny the existence of the existence of a false dichotomy despite the fact that I gave an EXAMPLE of a false dichotomy???  What a weird statement.

And no, you can't bully me to give up anything.

Edited by Toofarfromthesea
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I think some people here are confusing the concepts of mandatory versus compulsion.  If something is mandatory, then there are consequences for not complying with the mandate.  If something is compulsory, then compliance with the mandate can be effected by use of force.  I haven't seen anybody on these threads advocate compulsory vaccinations.

Agreed - the only incentive for vaccination being mentioned is making it a precondition to cruising -- hardly definable as either mandatory or a compulsion .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

Double Standard: 

a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
"the prolonged consideration of the issue represented a double standard"
 
When someone dies with COVID in their body - COVID was the cause of death
When someone dies with the vaccine in their body - here an explanation of why it wasn't the cause of death

 

You can't really believe this??  Or are you just kidding around?

 

If someone has a pre-diagnosed illness or chronic condition and then is infected with the COVID-19 virus, the coroner determines whether, in their opinion, the person would have died absent the COVID infection. If not, then COVID is not listed as the primary cause of death. It may or may not be listed as a contributor.

 

If someone has a pre-existing condition and gets vaccinated, the same holds true. Vaccines do not cause cancer to progress faster, no more than COVID does. If, in the coroner's opinion, what killed the individual is related to effects of receiving the vaccination, then the vaccination is ruled as the cause of death. Otherwise it is the disease.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

What I find both interesting and hilarious is how some people here express such deep anger and disdain at anyone who resists their narrative.  But let's look at it from a practical level. 

When someone says they will delay or altogether skip getting the virus it's not like they are going to throw away the vaccine that person would have gotten.  If my number comes up and I politely decline and say not now, that means that someone else who wants the vaccine gets it earlier than they would otherwise.  But rather than be glad that someone is getting the vaccine sooner they choose to be enraged because someone refused to bend the knee to their narrative.

It is also both weird and funny when someone says they won't get the vaccine and we get a calvacade of triumphal nanny nanny boo boo posts along the lines of, "Well YOU won't be cruising again.".  When it is already obvious that if vaccines become mandatory to cruise, someone who doesn't get the vaccine won't cruise.  But they must be verbally bludgeoned for daring to make their own decision and challenge the narrative.

It is a little scary how many people here seem to get a self-esteem boost by demonizing people who make different choices in life than they do.


That word should have been vaccine.  I couldn't change it because editing timed out before I noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

But correlation does not imply causation.  Just because 100% of cancer victims drank milk in childhood does not mean that drinking milk causes cancer.

 

Care to explain how this is relavent to the (inaccurate) claim that coroners have a double standard when it comes to establishing cause of death of those that have been vaccinated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

You can't really believe this??  Or are you just kidding around?

 

If someone has a pre-diagnosed illness or chronic condition and then is infected with the COVID-19 virus, the coroner determines whether, in their opinion, the person would have died absent the COVID infection. If not, then COVID is not listed as the primary cause of death. It may or may not be listed as a contributor.

 

If someone has a pre-existing condition and gets vaccinated, the same holds true. Vaccines do not cause cancer to progress faster, no more than COVID does. If, in the coroner's opinion, what killed the individual is related to effects of receiving the vaccination, then the vaccination is ruled as the cause of death. Otherwise it is the disease.

 

I think a lot of these people are trying too hard to justify their reluctance to get vaccinated if, as they insist,  they are not anti-vaxxers.  All they have to do is not get vaccinated - and, of course, live with the side effects, such as possibly not being able to cruise.

 

Others, however, who may have reason to accept the current science and recognize the notion that the desired goal of herd immunity (85% +/- immunized one way or the other) have some right to resent the advocates of non-vaccination because they are slowing progress toward that goal.

 

If that first batch would simply not get vaccinated and stop advocating their position, these tedious exchanges would not exist — but for their own reasons they keep it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Care to explain how this is relavent to the (inaccurate) claim that coroners have a double standard when it comes to establishing cause of death of those that have been vaccinated?

I believe that post is in agreement with you.  Just because somebody gets vaccinated and dies of a heart attack, stroke or an existing condition the fact that they were vaccinated and they died shortly thereafter is not evidence that the vaccination was linked to the death.  If one were to get vaccinated today and develop shingles the following week, does not imply that the vaccine caused the shingles.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

If that first batch would simply not get vaccinated and stop advocating their position, these tedious exchanges would not exist — but for their own reasons they keep it up

 

Seems to me that they have as much right to prosthelytize as you.

 

What i find objectionable is the attempt to broadly apply a label that fits only a small group. It is akin to labelling all Democrats communists or all Republicans fascists. None are accurate characterizations and certainly false in the vast majority of cases. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I think a lot of these people are trying too hard to justify their reluctance to get vaccinated if, as they insist,  they are not anti-vaxxers.  All they have to do is not get vaccinated - and, of course, live with the side effects, such as possibly not being able to cruise.

 

Others, however, who may have reason to accept the current science and recognize the notion that the desired goal of herd immunity (85% +/- immunized one way or the other) have some right to resent the advocates of non-vaccination because they are slowing progress toward that goal.

 

If that first batch would simply not get vaccinated and stop advocating their position, these tedious exchanges would not exist — but for their own reasons they keep it up.

 

You see things a bit more black and white than I. I'm willing to concede some amount of "wait and see" attitude, especially given some of the vaccines are of a new type. Perpetuating a series of endless retorts doesn't really help, IMO. 

 

However, I will respond when I feel there is a major mis-statement or misunderstanding of the actual facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

You see things a bit more black and white than I. I'm willing to concede some amount of "wait and see" attitude, especially given some of the vaccines are of a new type. Perpetuating a series of endless retorts doesn't really help, IMO. 

 

However, I will respond when I feel there is a major mis-statement or misunderstanding of the actual facts. 

Why "wait and see" ? See what exactly  - thousands more deaths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wowzz said:

Why "wait and see" ? See what exactly  - thousands more deaths?

 

If they are taking precautions -- masking, social distancing -- and choose to wait a few additional months (given that there is not enough vaccine for everyone right now anyway), is it going to make a huge difference in the scheme of things?

 

I am not eligible for a vaccine now nor any time in the near future. (I am not 65+ nor do I have any risk factors).  Is my 'not getting vaccinated now' leading to more deaths?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

You can't really believe this??  Or are you just kidding around?

 

It's half-kidding. Half-serious.

 

Quote

If someone has a pre-diagnosed illness or chronic condition and then is infected with the COVID-19 virus, the coroner determines whether, in their opinion, the person would have died absent the COVID infection. If not, then COVID is not listed as the primary cause of death. It may or may not be listed as a contributor.

 

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing-april-7

 

In theory, that's the way it should be counted, and probably is in most cases. However, if you've ever worked with people, especially multiple people across multiple regions, multiple organizations, etc etc, results are not always consistent. Don't forget the words of Dr Birx and countless other health professionals who have said otherwise on record. Here is Dr Birx's quote:

 

"the intent is right now that if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death"

 

In the 2017-2018 flu season, the original number of deaths was later revised down about 25% (about 80k to 60k) from the original "count". While coroners know a lot more than I do, makes you wonder how many different variables there are in this data. Not to mention, there was also a large pool of pneumonia deaths that year too. How do we know where we robbed Peter to pay Paul? We're probably pretty close, but it's too hard to know for sure.

 

To be fair, I'm sure some COVID deaths are missed. While some are counted wrong. It's not an easy feat. When one of the biggest at risk groups is those who are old, have a comorbidity, etc there is no way we get it right every time. Do we most of the time? Probably. Where is the cutoff that the virus was the cause of death from someone who is 90, in a nursing home, and has had failing kidneys? 

 

My point was this, who questions any of the COVID deaths? Why would anyone even want to? We accept them all at face value. I think most of us have read countless claims from someone that a family member was falsely listed as dying of COVID. They don't get a defense force like the vaccines do. Disclaimers: 1.) I am not saying there is this big conspiracy to falsify numbers. I am saying the human element accounts for all sorts of variables that don't seem to get same level of scrutiny as any complications after vaccination 2.) I don't believe I necessarily said people are dying from the vaccine as some sort of common occurrence. Allergic reactions are not out of the ordinary in any medicine. How many times have we heard "we don't know the long-term effects of COVID," followed by some panic. Yet the vaccine in its few months of life, all we know is it's safe. No need to concern yourself with any long-term effects there. Really?

Edited by Joebucks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Princess Cruises - Medallion Masters!
      • 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...