Jump to content

Carnival’s CEO states that they will not require vaccinations


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Elaine5715 said:

There is no logical reason to say a small minority infected the majority.

 

What nonsense. The virus had to begin with one or at most a small number.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlerkOne said:

What nonsense. The virus had to begin with one or at most a small number.

We know now that the virus was in the US long before the first reports in China. How could they have known they had anything worse than the common cold. Yes, they should have stayed away from people if they were sick, but I cannot place blame on them in todays environment for what they knew then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, asalligo said:

We know now that the virus was in the US long before the first reports in China. How could they have known they had anything worse than the common cold. Yes, they should have stayed away from people if they were sick, but I cannot place blame on them in todays environment for what they knew then. 

What baloney. We don't know any such thing. Viruses spread exponentially which is exactly what this one did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Einstein didn't deny science and was capable of, and in fact did, change his mind at times. He made his share of mistakes, but was willing to learn from them.

The talk of denying science is the type of attitude he rejected.  Science is not an orthodoxy and agreement doesn't mean something is proven.  There are qualified scientists on both sides that have different theories but unless they agree with accepted norms they're ostracized.

 

I personally believe in wearing masks and I have been since the first week of March last year. I also got vaccinated and made sure my immediate family did at least the ones that are old enough. My issue using "science" as a political tool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ledges1 said:

The cruise industry is in disaray. Forget the CDC at the moment. We have NCL and RCL requiring the vaccine and Carnival indicating it will not require the vaccine for US cruises. We have NCL requesting the CDC to cruise with 100% vaccinations. If the CDC made a decision about cruising immediately, would they let NCL cruise or Carnival. NCL. The cruise industry should have a united front. Donald will look foolish if he has to change his decision and Carnival misses revenue opportunities due delays based on his decisions.

 

Agreed.

 

I think freedom and personal responsibility are THE cornerstones of our society so if you don't want the vaccine...sure, your choice. But you make that decision knowing that companies will dictate their own policies.

 

Want to go to Disney...vaccine and mask

Want to go to a concert....vaccine and mask

Attend a pro-sports event...vaccine and mask.

 

I love Carnival and we are neck deep in the Carnival ecosystem but this statement has me both scratching my head and kinda bummed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

You know this how? Isn't that protected information? Were all of you tested daily and I'm not referring to temperature? Ever hear of asymptomatic cases?

Is the world still running?. 

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

There is no data on this yet and I still would never take a vaccination for a virus that has a .03% death rate for my age bracket. .03% death rate! I have a much higher risk of dying while I drunken kite fish for tiger sharks every weekend as me and my Florida friends always do. RIP Nathan. 

 

Seriously though, people have been sending me reports of deaths from the vaccine for months and they were just being ignored. Healthy people dropping dead four hours after a vaccine is no coincidence. My wife came home from a mammogram yesterday and they asked her if she had gotten the vaccine and she said no and they said good and handed her a flyer from the Society of Breast Imaging which says there appears to be early results of malignancy rates higher than 56% in recent vaccinated women. This was a known issue in Flu vaccines, but only at .04%. They did not say not to take it, they just presented their data.    

 

Get your facts straight and reread the statement on mammograms. You completely twisted their position statement to suit you thinking.

The 56% rate you are tying to vaccinated women is absolutely incorrect.  That is the "up to" percentage of malignancies tied to enlarged lymph glands observed on a mammogram in normal circumstances...key normal circumstances. Not "early malignancy rates tied to the vaccine" as you state.   Adenopathy (or swollen lymph glands) is a temporary side effect of the vaccine (and is actually something observed with other vaccines too).  

 

And they asked your wife the same question they asked me...if and when had I gotten the covid vaccine bc they (and the statement states it) recommend waiting 4-6 week post 2nd shot to get a mammogram so readings can be accurate.  They have seen an uptick in adenopathy on mammos due to temporary side effects from the vaccine and they are being read as false positives and early vaccine takers had invasive biopsies and more testing that was unnecessary.  The statement even reads scoring these adenopathies at a lower risk grade if the woman got a vaccine recently bc they have a cause for the inflammation rather than no cause which requires more testing.  The answer of "good" that your wife got wasn't a position statement from the tech saying ...oh its causing cancer as you allude....It's "good" bc we'd recommend deferring a few weeks if you did have the vaccine. 

 

Here is the guidance on mammos: https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position Statements/2021/SBI-recommendations-for-managing-axillary-adenopathy-post-COVID-vaccination.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Elaine5715 said:

There is no logical reason to say a small minority infected the majority.  Wasn't the majority self segregated from this minority?  The small minority could only have infected themselves. 

Many of us have continued to work in our places of businesses without the luxury of working in your own bubbles.  None of my fellow "essentials"  have gotten the virus but we have keep the world running.  

The number of people infected in the US is a minority: 31 million out of  population of ~330 million, or ~10%.

 

So yes, they self-infected to a great extent.  They also cross-infected family, friends, and co-workers who had been trying to stay safe but let their guard down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Elaine5715 said:

Since 98% of people do not wear masks properly, they might as well be maskless

Have any proof to back that false claim up? It is easier to toilet train a toddler than some deniers, however.

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

Your logic isn't. If you don't use middle seats, you eliminate a third of the people but not a third of the risk. The spread of virus depends a number of factors including distancing. By not using middle seats, you increase the separation distance and decrease the risk. It has little to do with the number of people on the plane. A 777 carries more people than a 737, but either one could have higher risk depending on spacing. OR they could have the same.

I agree with you. The issue is the CDC made a statement to the media, as fact, that by eliminating the middle seats the risk is reduced by 50%. This is from the CDC who has publicly stated and directly inferred that air travel is covid free because they can circulate air. They are now contradicting themselves and stating air travel is not covid free. It goes to the argument that airlines should have been shutdown 100% like the cruise industry has been.

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

 

Get your facts straight and reread the statement on mammograms. You completely twisted their position statement to suit you thinking.

The 56% rate you are tying to vaccinated women is absolutely incorrect.  That is the "up to" percentage of malignancies tied to enlarged lymph glands observed on a mammogram in normal circumstances...key normal circumstances. Not "early malignancy rates tied to the vaccine" as you state.   Adenopathy (or swollen lymph glands) is a temporary side effect of the vaccine (and is actually something observed with other vaccines too).  

 

And they asked your wife the same question they asked me...if and when had I gotten the covid vaccine bc they (and the statement states it) recommend waiting 4-6 week post 2nd shot to get a mammogram so readings can be accurate.  They have seen an uptick in adenopathy on mammos due to temporary side effects from the vaccine and they are being read as false positives and early vaccine takers had invasive biopsies and more testing that was unnecessary.  The statement even reads scoring these adenopathies at a lower risk grade if the woman got a vaccine recently bc they have a cause for the inflammation rather than no cause which requires more testing.  The answer of "good" that your wife got wasn't a position statement from the tech saying ...oh its causing cancer as you allude....It's "good" bc we'd recommend deferring a few weeks if you did have the vaccine. 

 

Here is the guidance on mammos: https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position Statements/2021/SBI-recommendations-for-managing-axillary-adenopathy-post-COVID-vaccination.pdf

Oh my God.  Thank you so much for posting this.  I am so tired of posters coming on these boards and spouting blatant disinformation about vaccines and using outright false and misleading statements to try and support their ignorance on vaccines.  I applaud people like yourself who challenge these folks and post the truth.  And, this post was of great benefit to me as a woman in thinking about this for my mammogram coming up shortly.  Thank you again!!

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

A great benefit from everyone getting vaccinated is that it significantly reduces the chances of it spreading to the the portion of the population that is very vulnerable (because, as is pointed out consistently, the vaccines are not 100% effective).  So you aren't doing it just to protect yourself, but all of the society you live in.

 

But I guess that involves a smidge of empathy and understanding of doing things for the "common good".

 

The transmission claim is up in the air. (Hell, so are asymptomatic spreaders and viruses on surfaces) Remember, you still have to mask even if vaccinated because they don't know if it will spread. So either, they really don't know, or are lying to not give people autonomy to decide if they should be masked.

 

What the vaccine does is reduce symptoms and make it less severe. It does not prevent the virus. At some point, the fear has to go away when we have as many mitigation options as we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

But I guess that involves a smidge of empathy and understanding of doing things for the "common good".

This type of attitude is one of the reasons I don't allow other people's views to determine my behavior. Oh, I'll grant you that there are some people in society who are going to behave recklessly. No doubt about it. But I worry less about them and more about arrogant, smug people who make comments like the one above. It's just dripping with condescension, judgmentalism and self-satisfaction. It implies that anyone who isn't on board with literally anything the government tells us is "for the common good" is a heartless, selfish pig. The world is not, and has never been, black and white like that. Not everyone is altruistic and charitable OR selfish and unempathetic. What a sad, binary view of humanity. I'd ask people who see things this way how much "empathy and understanding" they have for the many among us who can't provide for their families thanks to lock downs that were instituted "for the common good."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, asalligo said:

 

3 hours ago, asalligo said:

 

Lemming meringue pie anyone? Studies are not limited to the US.

 

First cases in China were in Nov if not earlier.

 

A 55-year-old individual from Hubei province in China may have been the first person to have contracted COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus spreading across the globe. That case dates back to Nov. 17, 2019, according to the South China Morning Post.

 

That's more than a month earlier than doctors noted cases in Wuhan, China, which is in Hubei province, at the end of December 2019....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BroadwayGirl said:

 

Get your facts straight and reread the statement on mammograms. You completely twisted their position statement to suit you thinking.

The 56% rate you are tying to vaccinated women is absolutely incorrect.  That is the "up to" percentage of malignancies tied to enlarged lymph glands observed on a mammogram in normal circumstances...key normal circumstances. Not "early malignancy rates tied to the vaccine" as you state.   Adenopathy (or swollen lymph glands) is a temporary side effect of the vaccine (and is actually something observed with other vaccines too).  

 

And they asked your wife the same question they asked me...if and when had I gotten the covid vaccine bc they (and the statement states it) recommend waiting 4-6 week post 2nd shot to get a mammogram so readings can be accurate.  They have seen an uptick in adenopathy on mammos due to temporary side effects from the vaccine and they are being read as false positives and early vaccine takers had invasive biopsies and more testing that was unnecessary.  The statement even reads scoring these adenopathies at a lower risk grade if the woman got a vaccine recently bc they have a cause for the inflammation rather than no cause which requires more testing.  The answer of "good" that your wife got wasn't a position statement from the tech saying ...oh its causing cancer as you allude....It's "good" bc we'd recommend deferring a few weeks if you did have the vaccine. 

 

Here is the guidance on mammos: https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position Statements/2021/SBI-recommendations-for-managing-axillary-adenopathy-post-COVID-vaccination.pdf


Thank you for the clarification.  It's crazy when someone makes a post to scare people in order to promote their own agenda or misunderstands information and spreads their misinformed opinion without researching the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BroadwayGirl said:

 

Get your facts straight and reread the statement on mammograms. You completely twisted their position statement to suit you thinking.

The 56% rate you are tying to vaccinated women is absolutely incorrect.  That is the "up to" percentage of malignancies tied to enlarged lymph glands observed on a mammogram in normal circumstances...key normal circumstances. Not "early malignancy rates tied to the vaccine" as you state.   Adenopathy (or swollen lymph glands) is a temporary side effect of the vaccine (and is actually something observed with other vaccines too).  

 

And they asked your wife the same question they asked me...if and when had I gotten the covid vaccine bc they (and the statement states it) recommend waiting 4-6 week post 2nd shot to get a mammogram so readings can be accurate.  They have seen an uptick in adenopathy on mammos due to temporary side effects from the vaccine and they are being read as false positives and early vaccine takers had invasive biopsies and more testing that was unnecessary.  The statement even reads scoring these adenopathies at a lower risk grade if the woman got a vaccine recently bc they have a cause for the inflammation rather than no cause which requires more testing.  The answer of "good" that your wife got wasn't a position statement from the tech saying ...oh its causing cancer as you allude....It's "good" bc we'd recommend deferring a few weeks if you did have the vaccine. 

 

Here is the guidance on mammos: https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position Statements/2021/SBI-recommendations-for-managing-axillary-adenopathy-post-COVID-vaccination.pdf

Facts versus twisted interpretations, thank you. Unfortunately it probably will not affect the thinking of those who don't really care about any facts that don't agree with their conspiracy theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 12:07 PM, Jasonsterling said:

He makes a lot of good points here. I'm vaccinated so I'm not concerned with catching it but I am worried about outbreaks that disrupt the cruise itself or lead to calls for halting the industry again. That said, the interesting thing here is that three major lines that I'm aware of have mandated vaccines but Carnival is convinced that they're cliental won't accept the restriction. It's an interesting view of how the different lines view their customer base. In the end, I just want to see them sailing again. I called my senator's office this morning to support the Rubio bill to reopen cruising, fingers crossed. 

You can still contract COVID even with the vaccine but your symptoms may be less severe.  The vaccines are 90% effective. Because Carnival caters to many families with children, the issue will be when the children are required to vaccinate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BoozinCroozin said:

I agree with you. The issue is the CDC made a statement to the media, as fact, that by eliminating the middle seats the risk is reduced by 50%. This is from the CDC who has publicly stated and directly inferred that air travel is covid free because they can circulate air. They are now contradicting themselves and stating air travel is not covid free. It goes to the argument that airlines should have been shutdown 100% like the cruise industry has been.


Yeah, I never believed air travel was low risk  because of the air filtering or circulation.  If I was sitting next to someone with covid, the masks would do nothing.  On a plane, you sit for hours in a small area, which is exactly the type of scenario that people have said is a covid risk.

Anyway, of course air travel is risky. My husband and I are vaccinated and feel comfortable flying now.  We have a trip planned this Sunday and it feels good.  I think the reason that it was stated that air travel was safe was because it would be impossible to shut it down.  I also think it was stated that masks help because that would help people feel like they are in control of a virus (a virus that goes through the masks, people wear them incorrectly, people touch them all day, people use the same one without washing it or changing it, the list goes on).  

Now that people have options of getting vaccinated, obtaining successful medical care, or assuming the risks, life should go on.  

Edited by TNcruising02
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BoozinCroozin said:

I agree with you. The issue is the CDC made a statement to the media, as fact, that by eliminating the middle seats the risk is reduced by 50%. This is from the CDC who has publicly stated and directly inferred that air travel is covid free because they can circulate air. They are now contradicting themselves and stating air travel is not covid free. It goes to the argument that airlines should have been shutdown 100% like the cruise industry has been.

A true shutdown would have closed grocery stores and everything else deemed essential. Air travel is essential for many; cruising essential for none.

 

I seriously doubt circulated air is a mitigating factor for an airborne virus or that CDC inferred that.

 

I know your 33% claim is wrong and can easily think of simulations that would provide data for the CDC to claim 50%.

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

 

Get your facts straight and reread the statement on mammograms. You completely twisted their position statement to suit you thinking.

The 56% rate you are tying to vaccinated women is absolutely incorrect.  That is the "up to" percentage of malignancies tied to enlarged lymph glands observed on a mammogram in normal circumstances...key normal circumstances. Not "early malignancy rates tied to the vaccine" as you state.   Adenopathy (or swollen lymph glands) is a temporary side effect of the vaccine (and is actually something observed with other vaccines too).  

 

And they asked your wife the same question they asked me...if and when had I gotten the covid vaccine bc they (and the statement states it) recommend waiting 4-6 week post 2nd shot to get a mammogram so readings can be accurate.  They have seen an uptick in adenopathy on mammos due to temporary side effects from the vaccine and they are being read as false positives and early vaccine takers had invasive biopsies and more testing that was unnecessary.  The statement even reads scoring these adenopathies at a lower risk grade if the woman got a vaccine recently bc they have a cause for the inflammation rather than no cause which requires more testing.  The answer of "good" that your wife got wasn't a position statement from the tech saying ...oh its causing cancer as you allude....It's "good" bc we'd recommend deferring a few weeks if you did have the vaccine. 

 

Here is the guidance on mammos: https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position Statements/2021/SBI-recommendations-for-managing-axillary-adenopathy-post-COVID-vaccination.pdf

Correct.  Same questions I was asked before my Mammo and before my vax.  I have have mammograms postponed due to lymph node involvement with an infection.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Crystal Cruises - New! Luxury Bahamas Escapes
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • 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...