vaccine required?

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, K.T.B. said:

 

The vaccines do not provide 100% protection.  Until everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, is vaccinated, masks should be worn.  I think by 2023 they can ease those restrictions, but masks are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future.

You do realize that what you are saying is we will have to wear masks unless we have vaccinations through the use of force?  If people want to take the risk of catching Covid by refusing to be vaccinated, that's their choice.  At some point, it will be my choice to not wear a mask, and I won't be alone in that.  Those who refuse to be vaccinated will need to endure any consequences for that decision.  I won't partake in molly coddling them.

[dog]

My guess is for 2021 & 2022 cruiselines will require passengers to be vaccinated & to wear masks. I would hope the same goes for crew- everyone. 
if you do not get vaccinated & refuse to wear a mask you do not sail until those requirements are lifted. 
NO ONE is Forcing anyone to do anything. 
keep others safe, as well as yourself. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by dog

[beg3yrs]

1 hour ago, K.T.B. said:

 

The vaccines do not provide 100% protection.  Until everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, is vaccinated, masks should be worn.  I think by 2023 they can ease those restrictions, but masks are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Well, EVERYONE will NEVER be vaccinated. So, your OPINION leads me to the conclusion that you want masks to be worn forever, not just until 2023. I'm certainly glad you aren't in charge.

[dog]

15 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

 

 

it is not our place to decide if this is required to cruise, is it?

15 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

i read for the foreseeable future 

[Steelers36]

On 3/27/2021 at 12:41 PM, wowzz said:

Evidence now indicates that a 12 week gap between vaccinations leads to a greater level of protection than just 3  or 4 weeks.

 

On 3/27/2021 at 1:10 PM, dog said:

Ontario .& a few other provinces have decided to go 16 weeks between shots. Not my choice and in past week they are re evaluating this decision. Possibly not effective decision for seniors. 

 

@wowzz, I would appreciate you quoting a source or two for this "evidence".  I have failed to find any since several Canadian provinces saw a sliver of light and jumped to 16 week gap.  The mfr (Pfizer) does not recommend anything like 12 or 16 weeks.  The CDC, the EMA (Europe), our own PHAC (Canada) are all at 3-6 weeks max.  In Canada, a separate body of medical people - the NACI - came out with something to suggest up to 16 weeks okay.  But they provided no details as to what the decision was based on. 

 

As @dogmentioned, the NACI is already reviewing what they very recently published.  Seems like they jumped the gun and we may see a revision - at least for more vulnerable groups. 

 

I think it is legitimate to question the continued efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine (and, BTW, what you stated above, @wowzz, is not a panacea across all vaccines).  I am addressing the Pfizer in this posting and its efficacy long term may be compromised by implementing such a long gap.  There have not been studies done with such a gap AFAIK. 

 

I have submitted formal inquiries to our Federal and Provincial authorities to explain the science or medical rationale for the decision.  When I received my second appointment notice, I wrote them back requesting an earlier date per known guidelines (not NACI).  It was recent, so I don't have a reply yet, but not very hopeful.  Just forcing them to address the issue.

 

Since the 16-week gap idea came out, the chorus of questions has grown.  Ontario jumped on it as a political move, thinking to vaccinate more people once was better than vaccinating less people properly.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Steelers36

[jagoffee]

On 3/27/2021 at 2:32 AM, wowzz said:

No, it's because no one knows at present how long any of the vaccines will keep you protected. The possibility of a top up vaccine in September is, if you like, a belt and braces measure,  to prevent any possible increased demand on the NHS next winter. 

Also no one knows that the vaccine effectiveness does not last for two years or more.

[beg3yrs]

1 hour ago, dog said:

 

 

it is not our place to decide if this is required to cruise, is it? i read for the foreseeable future 

And I read it as K.T.B. feels that by 2023 everyone will be vaccinated and that's why restrictions could be eased. We will never get to the point where everyone is vaccinated and if K.T.B. thinks that can happen, well ....

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

You do realize that what you are saying is we will have to wear masks unless we have vaccinations through the use of force?  If people want to take the risk of catching Covid by refusing to be vaccinated, that's their choice.  At some point, it will be my choice to not wear a mask, and I won't be alone in that.  Those who refuse to be vaccinated will need to endure any consequences for that decision.  I won't partake in molly coddling them.

And if a mutation that was vaccine resistant came out of one of those infections then every would have to endure the consequences of their decision.

 

I do not think there will be a requirement for everyone to get vaccinated, even if there should be.  I also expect that mask recommendations will fade as the disease incidence reaches a low enough level.

 

However, that the consequences ones decision to not protect themselves can reach far beyond that person and their decision.

[nocl]

44 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Also no one knows that the vaccine effectiveness does not last for two years or more.

No they do not.   They also do not know if it even lasts a year. Because at this point our knowledge about COVID19, its mechanisms of action, and immunity is still extremely limited.  The latest research concerning antibodies indicates dramatically different rates with different people.  With some they fade away in weeks in others they may last years, even decades.  A lot depends on how much of immunity is due to the antibodies and how much to other components such a t-cells.

[nocl]

On 3/27/2021 at 4:46 AM, nomad098 said:

 

Funny thing is UK government just announced that over 70's will be offered a booster jab come September to help fully vaccinate against covid and it's variants, so would this mean that over 70's are not fully protected until they have had their booster shot in September?

 

Another strange one Princess require people to be vaccinated based upon their own definition for cruises out of the UK for cruises around the UK, where the vaccine uptake will be around 70%+ but according to their own information there is no vaccination requirement for all the other cruises they presently have on sale in areas where uptake looks to be a lot lower

 

 **Vaccine policy Given the advanced progress of the UK vaccination programme and strong expressed preference on the part of our guests for this limited series of UK coastal cruises, these UK sailings on Regal Princess and Sky Princess (running from July 31 through to September 28) will be for UK resident, COVID-19 vaccinated guests only. For these cruises the definition of “vaccinated” is a minimum of seven days following the second dose of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines being administered. Proof of vaccination and the dates given will be required (approved forms of evidence will be confirmed closer to time of departure) and this will be required to be shown at the terminal prior to boarding. Failure to provide this evidence will result in denial of boarding. There is no age restriction on this series of UK coastal cruises but all guests of all ages must meet the requirements of the COVID-19 vaccination policy. All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated. 

 

Seems to me that Princess are setting their policy by social media posts and the personal beliefs of their executives rather than sound scientific advice or advice from the UK government.

 

 

 

More likely for those places where they actually might sail they are setting the requirements based upon what the country they are sailing out of requires them to do.

 

For those that have little likely hood of sailing why list more restrictions when it is unclear if they will sail or what those restrictions might be.

[dog]

46 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

And I read it as K.T.B. feels that by 2023 everyone will be vaccinated and that's why restrictions could be eased. We will never get to the point where everyone is vaccinated and if K.T.B. thinks that can happen, well ....

you are right.  Everyone will not be vaccinated.But to get on a cruise ship in the foreseeable future it might be required that everyone be vaccinated. 
 

 

[dog]

1 hour ago, Steelers36 said:

 

 

@wowzz, I would appreciate you quoting a source or two for this "evidence".  I have failed to find any since several Canadian provinces saw a sliver of light and jumped to 16 week gap.  The mfr (Pfizer) does not recommend anything like 12 or 16 weeks.  The CDC, the EMA (Europe), our own PHAC (Canada) are all at 3-6 weeks max.  In Canada, a separate body of medical people - the NACI - came out with something to suggest up to 16 weeks okay.  But they provided no details as to what the decision was based on. 

 

As @dogmentioned, the NACI is already reviewing what they very recently published.  Seems like they jumped the gun and we may see a revision - at least for more vulnerable groups. 

 

I think it is legitimate to question the continued efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine (and, BTW, what you stated above, @wowzz, is not a panacea across all vaccines).  I am addressing the Pfizer in this posting and its efficacy long term may be compromised by implementing such a long gap.  There have not been studies done with such a gap AFAIK. 

 

I have submitted formal inquiries to our Federal and Provincial authorities to explain the science or medical rationale for the decision.  When I received my second appointment notice, I wrote them back requesting an earlier date per known guidelines (not NACI).  It was recent, so I don't have a reply yet, but not very hopeful.  Just forcing them to address the issue.

 

Since the 16-week gap idea came out, the chorus of questions has grown.  Ontario jumped on it as a political move, thinking to vaccinate more people once was better than vaccinating less people properly.

 

I wrote my local health department and got an answer to why 16 week delay between shots. Answer : we are doing what we were told to do by the government. 

[nomad098]

40 minutes ago, nocl said:

More likely for those places where they actually might sail they are setting the requirements based upon what the country they are sailing out of requires them to do.

 

For those that have little likely hood of sailing why list more restrictions when it is unclear if they will sail or what those restrictions might be.

 

You are probably right,

 

but a strange situation for someone from the UK, they cannot book a UK only cruise today for August because they cannot have the vaccination for medical reasons or they will only have had 1 dose because of their age but they can book an August Med cruise today which according to Princess does not have a vaccination policy. Surely a better statement at the end would have been "All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated. This is subject to change due to local restrictions"

 

"All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated." This statement will now form part of the cruise contract in the UK from the moment it was published until it is altered.

 

If Princess alters the T&C's in the future in regards to vaccinations they will be required by law to either obtain agreement from the customer who booked under the old terms to adhere to the new policy or issue a full refund within 14 days.

 

Last year cruiselines and holiday companies were given leeway in returning customers money after the legal 14 day period, this year the authorities are cracking down with one large company in the UK being given a deadline to return it's customers money, if owed for more than 14 days or face financial penalties.

 

Strange times we are living in and it must be difficult for cruiselines with an ever evolving situations, just heard Denmark will lift all mandatory restrictions once over 50's are vaccinated.

[Steelers36]

58 minutes ago, dog said:

I wrote my local health department and got an answer to why 16 week delay between shots. Answer : we are doing what we were told to do by the government. 

I wouldn't stop there.  Make someone in authority either provide the medical evidence or simply admit it was a political decision.  That would be embarrassing when they otherwise claim to be following the science.

 

I received an email a little earlier about my inquiry from the local health unit and I replied by highlighting the miss-statements and asking for medical evidence they claimed exists.

[By The Bay]

3 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

On 3/28/2021 at 3:41 AM, wowzz said:

Evidence now indicates that a 12 week gap between vaccinations leads to a greater level of protection than just 3  or 4 weeks.

 

@wowzz, I would appreciate you quoting a source or two for this "evidence". 

 

"Both Pfizer and AstraZeneca require two doses to provide the best immunity. Pfizer doses are given at least 21 days apart. AstraZeneca doses can be given 4 – 12 weeks apart, but the Australian Technical Advisory Group in Immunisation recommend doses should be 12 weeks apart." Source

[nomad098]

2 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

 

 

@wowzz, I would appreciate you quoting a source or two for this "evidence".  I have failed to find any since several Canadian provinces saw a sliver of light and jumped to 16 week gap.  The mfr (Pfizer) does not recommend anything like 12 or 16 weeks.  The CDC, the EMA (Europe), our own PHAC (Canada) are all at 3-6 weeks max.  In Canada, a separate body of medical people - the NACI - came out with something to suggest up to 16 weeks okay.  But they provided no details as to what the decision was based on. 

 

As @dogmentioned, the NACI is already reviewing what they very recently published.  Seems like they jumped the gun and we may see a revision - at least for more vulnerable groups. 

 

I think it is legitimate to question the continued efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine (and, BTW, what you stated above, @wowzz, is not a panacea across all vaccines).  I am addressing the Pfizer in this posting and its efficacy long term may be compromised by implementing such a long gap.  There have not been studies done with such a gap AFAIK. 

 

I have submitted formal inquiries to our Federal and Provincial authorities to explain the science or medical rationale for the decision.  When I received my second appointment notice, I wrote them back requesting an earlier date per known guidelines (not NACI).  It was recent, so I don't have a reply yet, but not very hopeful.  Just forcing them to address the issue.

 

Since the 16-week gap idea came out, the chorus of questions has grown.  Ontario jumped on it as a political move, thinking to vaccinate more people once was better than vaccinating less people properly.

 

 

1 hour ago, dog said:

I wrote my local health department and got an answer to why 16 week delay between shots. Answer : we are doing what we were told to do by the government. 

 

 

According to the MHRA in the UK apparently Moderna did run trials of 12 weeks between doses and it made no difference to efficacy, Moderna seem to have done a good job of keeping that quiet, the rational according to the MHRA was if it works for Moderna's mRNA vaccine the same should apply to Pfizer's mRNA vaccine whether they are right or not I have no idea. 

 

I had the AstraZeneca vaccine but when all said and done we all just part of a global "Phase IV Clinical Trial" maybe Canada's part is to trial 16 week dosing regime.  

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

I had the AstraZeneca vaccine but when all said and done we all just part of a global "Phase IV Clinical Trial" maybe Canada's part is to trial 16 week dosing regime.  

It sounds to me like rationing more than a pre-planned program of vaccination.

[nocl]

40 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

"Both Pfizer and AstraZeneca require two doses to provide the best immunity. Pfizer doses are given at least 21 days apart. AstraZeneca doses can be given 4 – 12 weeks apart, but the Australian Technical Advisory Group in Immunisation recommend doses should be 12 weeks apart." Source

Since dosing information comes from clinical trials, has there been a trial for the AZ vaccine that shows efficacy when the doses are given 12 weeks apart?

[nomad098]

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It sounds to me like rationing more than a pre-planned program of vaccination.

 

Not sure they do seem to be having enough deliveries of vaccine to run a 12 week schedule according to Canadian news sources.

 

In the UK the government has decided to give over 70's a third dose and for most that will be in the space of less than a year.

Why? no one seems to have a satisfactory answer, precautionary is what we are told but no scientific data or evidence to back the decision up, but it does make for good trial data.

 

 

[jagoffee]

23 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It sounds to me like rationing more than a pre-planned program of vaccination.

True.

 

 Based on the fact that there was (and is) a very limited vaccine supply, and there is science and/or belief that a significant portion of the benefit comes from the first doses, certain health agencies felt they could save more lives/reduce hospitalizations by giving twice as many people only one dose initially.   It will be an interesting study, when they evaluate how it worked.  The UK does certainly have a much higher portion of their population with just on dose.

[Daniel A]

3 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Based on the fact that there was (and is) a very limited vaccine supply, and there is science and/or belief that a significant portion of the benefit comes from the first doses, certain health agencies felt they could save more lives/reduce hospitalizations by giving twice as many people only one dose initially.   It will be an interesting study, when they evaluate how it worked.  The UK does certainly have a much higher portion of their population with just on dose.

It sounds somewhat questionable, ethics wise, for a country to be using it's subjects in a study without their informed consent.  Knowing how government and politicians work, I would think that the ability to claim twice as many vaccinations were given (even though very few fully vaccinated) makes it look like a government program progressing at a more rapid pace even with limited supply.  I wonder how many doses each government leader got...

[wowzz]

18 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It sounds somewhat questionable, ethics wise, for a country to be using it's subjects in a study without their informed consent.  Knowing how government and politicians work, I would think that the ability to claim twice as many vaccinations were given (even though very few fully vaccinated) makes it look like a government program progressing at a more rapid pace even with limited supply.  I wonder how many doses each government leader got...

Well, here you are. And, thanks to the UK policy regarding vaccinations, our death rate and hospitalisation rates are plummeting. A scientific decision was made, based on the available evidence and the results  are irrefutable.  You might care to look at the rising death rates in France and Germany,  and decide if they made  the  right decisions. 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00528-6/fulltext

And Boris got his first jab last week. You really are paranoid!

Edited March 28, 2021 by wowzz

[jagoffee]

20 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It sounds somewhat questionable, ethics wise, for a country to be using it's subjects in a study without their informed consent.  Knowing how government and politicians work, I would think that the ability to claim twice as many vaccinations were given (even though very few fully vaccinated) makes it look like a government program progressing at a more rapid pace even with limited supply.  I wonder how many doses each government leader got...

In the case of the UK, I believe they had data to support their decision.  I would hope the focus was on saving lives.   It is not like they are not doing second doses, the just put a priority on the first dose. AZ mostly.  
Moderna says you can get the second dose 12 weeks later and still receive the full benefit.

 

Neither of us live in the UK or Canada, so our opinions do not really matter.  
 

edit to add:  see above.  Wowzz opinion does matter.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by jagoffee

[wowzz]

1 minute ago, jagoffee said:

Neither of us live in the UK or Canada, so our opinions do not really matter.  

Thank you. I live in the UK, and the effect of vaccinating over 50%of the population has been fantastic. Death rates down, hospitalisation rates down, and shops, restaurants etc opening up again in the next couple of weeks. Contrast and compare to Europe!

[ontheweb]

38 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Thank you. I live in the UK, and the effect of vaccinating over 50%of the population has been fantastic. Death rates down, hospitalisation rates down, and shops, restaurants etc opening up again in the next couple of weeks. Contrast and compare to Europe!

Score one for Brexit. Seriously, glad for the news for the UK; sorry to see what is happening in the rest of Europe.