Is NCL going to require passengers to be vaccinated like RCL & Celebrity?

[juju2454]

On 3/26/2021 at 2:39 PM, Incognito1 said:

It's difficult for me to comprehend that a pregnant woman would put her baby at risk -- even if the risk is near zero, what kind of person takes any extra chance at damaging their unborn child? /smh

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-pregnancy/pfizer-biontech-start-testing-covid-19-vaccine-in-pregnant-women-idUSKBN2AI2NT

 

[juju2454]

On 3/26/2021 at 2:39 PM, Incognito1 said:

It's difficult for me to comprehend that a pregnant woman would put her baby at risk -- even if the risk is near zero, what kind of person takes any extra chance at damaging their unborn child? /smh

https://www.upstate.edu/news/articles/2021/2021-04-01-pfizerkids.php

[Incognito1]

Ah, thank you.  That explains it.  The vax is not for the child - it's for the mother.  THAT I can understand.  A woman putting herself before her child.

[juju2454]

11 minutes ago, Incognito1 said:

It's not about stopping a pregnant woman from getting a vaccine.  I just don't understand the mindset of a mother who chooses to take an extra risk to her child when a child between 1-5 has almost zero risk, but when a child under one does not: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/children/symptoms.html

 

Just has me shaking my head.  But, then, there are a lot of things that people do that are hard to justify.

You do realize the age line is lowering as to death from child covid right?  The children are contrating it and dying.   and that link is old 2019.  it is no longer valid: 

 

This is Feb 2021:

Among cases reviewed, data were available for 41.9%, 8.9%, and 49.1% of cases for hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths, respectively. Among children, adolescents, and young adults with available data for these outcomes, 30,229 (2.5%) were hospitalized, 1,973 (0.8%) required ICU admission, and 654 (<0.1%) died (Table), compared with 16.6%, 8.6%, and 5.0% among adults aged ≥25 years, respectively. Among children, adolescents, and young adults, the largest percentage of hospitalizations (4.6%) and ICU admissions (1.8%) occurred among children aged 0–4 years. Among 379,247 (13.2%) children, adolescents, and young adults with COVID-19 and available data on underlying conditions, at least one underlying condition or underlying health condition was reported for 114,934 (30.3%), compared with 836,774 (60.4%) among adults aged ≥25 years.

[AstoriaPreppy]

1 hour ago, Incognito1 said:

China is a great example of this.  Their vaccine passports are tied to their state surveillance (no, not a conspiracy theory.  Here's one report quoting the New York Times:) 

 

Are you comfortable with the World Health Organization awarding China the bid for vaccine passports?  I'm not.

 

You understand that China already has extensive data on all of us? It’s oddly naive to suddenly raise this as an issue when China has been data harvesting and hacking American data for decades. 

[BermudaBound2014]

9 minutes ago, AstoriaPreppy said:

You understand that China already has extensive data on all of us? It’s oddly naive to suddenly raise this as an issue when China has been data harvesting and hacking American data for decades. 

 

Just because it's been going on "for decades" does not make it less of a concern.

Edited April 8, 2021 by BermudaBound2014

[AstoriaPreppy]

18 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

Just because it's been going on "for decades" does not make it less of a concern.

It’s concerning, but if you’re largely worried about the WHO and China and vaccines, you’re misguided at best.
 

If you’re posting here, or using gmail, or clicking like on FB or watching videos on YouTube, or have ever been involved in a data breach from a national retailer, you’ve provided much more valuable data to the Chinese than if you were smart enough to get a vaccine.  

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by AstoriaPreppy

[BermudaBound2014]

6 minutes ago, AstoriaPreppy said:

It’s concerning, but if you’re largely worried about the WHO and China and vaccines, you’re misguided at best.
 

If you’re posting here, or using gmail, or clicking like on FB or watching videos on YouTube, or have ever been involved in a data breach from a national retailer, you’ve provided much more valuable data to the Chinese than if you were smart enough to get a vaccine.  

 

I fail to see the correlation. 

[AstoriaPreppy]

9 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

I fail to see the correlation. 

Happy to explain in further detail, but TLDR: you're scared about China vaccine passports tracking you, and that ship of privacy already sailed years ago. 

[VtMac]

On 4/3/2021 at 10:35 AM, Turtles06 said:

 

And here we have it . . . Godwin's Law.   😮

Perhaps a bit...I don't normally walk that route but in this case it does apply.  Do you really want to HAVE to show papers to fly for work?, Enter a hotel? Cross a state line?  Do you?

[VtMac]

On 4/2/2021 at 4:54 PM, d9704011 said:

Why not take a stand for your principles and forego the vaccine?  Set a noble standard; don’t be one of the sheeple!!

I would not have a choice in the end due to the job thing, and sadly...legally they can force it or as an employee at will I could leave, but I'm too close to start anew

 

[VtMac]

On 4/2/2021 at 1:11 PM, AstoriaPreppy said:

 

1. Vaccines aren't Fascism, or Communism, and is barely socialism (other than the government paying for all Americans to get vaccinated). No one is dragging you forcibly to be vaccinated. If they are, you should call the police.
2. Choosing not to get vaccinated endangers members of your community who can't get vaccinated. This is commonly known as community/herd immunity. As people can both get and spread the coronavirus, often without knowing it, getting a community vaccinated above a statistically significant threshold is super important. 
3. You aren't being forced, because the US government doesn't guarantee employment... you're free to get whatever job you want. If you want to hold a job that requires vaccination to successfully complete that job, that's your *choice*.... you could always get another job.

1:   Didn't say it was any of that, I did say requiring paper to prove anything is, history teaches that.  Didn't say anyone was dragging me but thank you for your concern.

 

2:   Your choosing to get it does not negate anyone's choice to not get it.  You are assuming all others believe as you do and your binary thought process can't fathom that those that disagree could be right, because you KNOW you are right, therefore they are wrong.  Your guilt of "endangers members" may work for some I guess.  Herd immunity, welp...if you factor in the WHO and CDC estimates on actual infections vs reported and recorded (that being a minimum 10% on top of what we know of) one could argue we are rapidly closing in on that with, or without, a vaccine no matter how super important you feel the vaccine is.

 

3:   Interesting argument you make here.  Yes, I could find another job, however in my industry I think it will more than likely be the norm to have it demanded of me, even at that I could go independent if I chose.  I do however have 22 years invested so to keep the benefits, wages, and job satisfaction I am in many ways FORCED to choose to stay. You are correct though I do have options.  But, what if I was a low wage earner and my options were limited?  Off the top of my head in this itty bitty town in an itty bitty state I can think of two companies that are requiring the vaccine.  Many of those people could not replace the job they have...what do they do?  What is the choice you want them to make?

 

Lastly, in this is where it will get fun, if any business can exclude the unvaccinated does that mean they can also exclude a cake for a wedding that don't agree with?  Can they say we don't like your political belief so get out?  Can NCL say this cruise line is only for "x" and not "Y"?  

[AstoriaPreppy]

1 hour ago, VtMac said:

Lastly, in this is where it will get fun, if any business can exclude the unvaccinated does that mean they can also exclude a cake for a wedding that don't agree with?  Can they say we don't like your political belief so get out?  Can NCL say this cruise line is only for "x" and not "Y"?  

Happy to chat SCOTUS and the rights of businesses!

Since the Citizen's United case in 2010, a majority of the US Supreme Court has repatedly endorsed the concept of corporate personhood, that is, corporations should have the same rights and protections that people have. In short, corporations are people, and should be treated as such under the law. 

 

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the court decided on narrow grounds that the Cakeshop's rights had been violated by the Colorado Civil Rights commission in sanctioning them for refusal to make a gay wedding cake. Although the options were written narrowly, the court signaled they would be entirely receptive to a more expansive case that would allow them to codify this into law, that business can and should be protected for excluding customers because of personal preference. 

 

In other words, yes, it's likely that if a business did any of the things you listed, the Supreme Court would decide in their favor, as corporations are people and can do what they want. In your example, NCL would be entirely protected under the law as the court currently interprets it to accept or exclude passengers (as long as it's based on something other than a legally protected characteristic or trait). 

It's not something I agree with, but the court has moved dramatically in the past 15 years to shelter corporations and their personhood rights over the rights of the general public.

Edited April 8, 2021 by AstoriaPreppy

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, AstoriaPreppy said:

should be protected for excluding customers because of personal preference. 

That's not entirely correct. I followed that case very closely, partly because I make a living as a professional singer and since I sing for weddings, I was concerned. The issue was not excluding customers, because Masterpiece Cakeshop had, in fact, made cakes for plenty of gay customers, including the plaintiffs. The issue was that the owner did not make cakes for same-sex weddings, and in fact he also didn't make Halloween cakes because they went against his religious beliefs. He exercised his rights as an artist not to be required to produce content that violated his beliefs. In fact he even offered to sell a pre-made cake to the plaintiffs, but they decided to make a big deal out of it.

I don't see that happening with vaccines, though. Also, it's worth pointing out in the Citizens United case that nonprofit organizations like unions had long had the practice of participating in political campaigns, including donations, while for-profit corporations were excluded. That was blatantly unfair and SCOTUS rendered the correct decision by leveling the playing field.

[AstoriaPreppy]

57 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

That's not entirely correct. I followed that case very closely, partly because I make a living as a professional singer and since I sing for weddings, I was concerned. The issue was not excluding customers, because Masterpiece Cakeshop had, in fact, made cakes for plenty of gay customers, including the plaintiffs. The issue was that the owner did not make cakes for same-sex weddings, and in fact he also didn't make Halloween cakes because they went against his religious beliefs. He exercised his rights as an artist not to be required to produce content that violated his beliefs. In fact he even offered to sell a pre-made cake to the plaintiffs, but they decided to make a big deal out of it.

I don't see that happening with vaccines, though. Also, it's worth pointing out in the Citizens United case that nonprofit organizations like unions had long had the practice of participating in political campaigns, including donations, while for-profit corporations were excluded. That was blatantly unfair and SCOTUS rendered the correct decision by leveling the playing field.

Unions are able to make political donations, but 501(c) 3s have always been prohibited from doing so by the internal revenue code. They also can't lobby excessively or be engaged in political campaign activities.

Also, Masterpiece Cakeshop is a horrible case study, as the court intentionally decided the case so narrowly as to not have a broader impact. I expect we'll see a similar case on the docket sooner than later. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by AstoriaPreppy
left out the word excessively

[DCGuy64]

I'm not a legal expert like you, I just know that the Supreme Court looked at the double standard that allowed some organizations to make political donations and others not, decided it was unconstitutional, and then decided accordingly.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, interestingly, turned, at least in part, on the blatant hostility toward the plaintiff's religious beliefs shown by members of the Colorado Human Rights Commission. Ironically, it seems to imply that if they'd been more subtle in their contempt, the case might've been decided differently. I found the whole thing deeply disheartening.

[Incognito1]

On 4/7/2021 at 7:33 PM, AstoriaPreppy said:

It’s concerning, but if you’re largely worried about the WHO and China and vaccines, you’re misguided at best.
 

If you’re posting here, or using gmail, or clicking like on FB or watching videos on YouTube, or have ever been involved in a data breach from a national retailer, you’ve provided much more valuable data to the Chinese than if you were smart enough to get a vaccine.  

 

Explain "If you're posting here..."  People who still use Google or FB or sign in when watching YT have to be using it knowing that they're the product.  Maybe I ought to go read the fine print here?  I don't think that I've provided personal information, but I'll have to double-check.

[AstoriaPreppy]

6 hours ago, Incognito1 said:

Maybe I ought to go read the fine print here?  I don't think that I've provided personal information, but I'll have to double-check.

Providing personal details is secondary. It's relatively easy for a motivated party to connect a user with an IP address, and extrapolate from there. 

[VtMac]

19 hours ago, AstoriaPreppy said:

Happy to chat SCOTUS and the rights of businesses!

Since the Citizen's United case in 2010, a majority of the US Supreme Court has repatedly endorsed the concept of corporate personhood, that is, corporations should have the same rights and protections that people have. In short, corporations are people, and should be treated as such under the law. 

 

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the court decided on narrow grounds that the Cakeshop's rights had been violated by the Colorado Civil Rights commission in sanctioning them for refusal to make a gay wedding cake. Although the options were written narrowly, the court signaled they would be entirely receptive to a more expansive case that would allow them to codify this into law, that business can and should be protected for excluding customers because of personal preference. 

 

In other words, yes, it's likely that if a business did any of the things you listed, the Supreme Court would decide in their favor, as corporations are people and can do what they want. In your example, NCL would be entirely protected under the law as the court currently interprets it to accept or exclude passengers (as long as it's based on something other than a legally protected characteristic or trait). 

It's not something I agree with, but the court has moved dramatically in the past 15 years to shelter corporations and their personhood rights over the rights of the general public.

Thanks for the respectful back and forth.  It's nice to debate and chat.  For the record I do agree with the corporation being treated as you said above.  However, I would be the guy opening a cake shop next to Masterpiece and would be more than willing to aggressively go after his business!  Be well, hope to meet you on a cruise sometime and not talk politics but solve the worlds problems with mojito in hand