Florida resident here a little confused over C19 protocol.

[mayleeman]

Celebrity might be trying a tack that depends on the "restricted sailings" designation by the CDC. Complying with the 95/95 vaccinations level established by federal standards arguably could supersede FL's prohibition.

 

Basically, to comply with the federal standard they would argue they have no choice but to require proof of vax. The standard is for "vaccinated" pax, not pax who claim to be vaxxed. They are required under the free pratique laws to actually be in compliance, not just go through the formality of saying so, or face sanctions for the company and the captain personally. 

 

The argument is pretty strong, I think, that FL cannot prohibit a company from being able to comply with federal law. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by mayleeman

[John&LaLa]

10 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

Celebrity might be trying a tack that depends on the "restricted sailings" designation by the CDC. Complying with the 95/95 vaccinations level established by federal standards arguably could supersede FL's prohibition.

 

Basically, to comply with the federal standard they would argue they have no choice but to require proof of vax. The standard is for "vaccinated" pax, not pax who claim to be vaxxed. They are required under the free pratique laws to actually be in compliance, not just go through the formality of saying so, or face sanctions for the company and the captain personally. 

 

The argument is pretty strong, I think, that FL cannot prohibit a company from being able to comply with federal law. 

 

That would be a gracious out, but doesn’t solve the 95% vaccinated dilemma when you count kids

Edited June 7, 2021 by John&LaLa

[broberts]

22 minutes ago, John&LaLa said:

 

That would be a gracious out, but doesn’t solve the 95% vaccinated dilemma when you count kids

 

Perhaps the CDC could change the rules. Everyone 12 and older must be vaccinated. Those less than 12 would not need to be vaccinated, nor would they need to wear masks.

[John&LaLa]

23 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Perhaps the CDC could change the rules. Everyone 12 and older must be vaccinated. Those less than 12 would not need to be vaccinated, nor would they need to wear masks.

 

Wouldn't count on it

[rtazz17]

10 hours ago, Ravbo said:

Easy solution.

ALL passengers undergo testing and other protocols HOWEVER if you voluntarily submit proof of vaccination you are

•  not required to undergo testing or other protocols.
• Issued a colored bracelet to be worn throughout cruise to assist crew in identifying who is not required to wear masks or other protocols.

Actually this makes sense. But really,you think royal wants to have mask police running around deck? I dont think that would work. Its just going to be a normal cruise. No masks for anyone. Anyone who doesnt show proof of vaccination shows proof of negative covid test. Infection rate is around 1%. Virus isnt circulating. Viruses die when herd immunity is reached. Covids over in America. If you want it to be.

[Starry Eyes]

56 minutes ago, John&LaLa said:

 

That would be a gracious out, but doesn’t solve the 95% vaccinated dilemma when you count kids

Why not? The cruiseline can do basic math, so they calculate the number of kids below vaccine age allowed on each sailing.  They know the ages of the passengers as they book, so once the threshold is reached, no more young ones may book unless somebody cancels.  Celebrity tends to draw adults anyway, so it should work OK while the restrictions are in place.

[jrapps]

35 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Perhaps the CDC could change the rules. Everyone 12 and older must be vaccinated. Those less than 12 would not need to be vaccinated, nor would they need to wear masks.

This is almost exactly what I think is going to happen. I think we will see another adjustment that allows for 12+ vaccinated, under 12 can sail, no ship wide mask or social distancing rules. Maybe the one caveat is the unvaccinated under 12 will be required to wear a mask in certain locations such as theaters and kids clubs.

[John&LaLa]

19 minutes ago, Starry Eyes said:

Why not? The cruiseline can do basic math, so they calculate the number of kids below vaccine age allowed on each sailing.  They know the ages of the passengers as they book, so once the threshold is reached, no more young ones may book unless somebody cancels.  Celebrity tends to draw adults anyway, so it should work OK while the restrictions are in place.

 

Yea, that aint happening. These cruises are already full of kids

Edited June 7, 2021 by John&LaLa

[Starry Eyes]

34 minutes ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Yea, that aint happening. These cruises are already full of kids

My past Celebrity cruises have not been full of young kids.  In fact, as one of my traveling companions tended to favor simpler fare than offered on the dinner menus, we asked if there was a children’s menu…Nope, so few kid there was no kid’s menu.  If they announced these FL X’s as new sailings, they can control the number of kids.

[John&LaLa]

22 minutes ago, Starry Eyes said:

My past Celebrity cruises have not been full of young kids.  In fact, as one of my traveling companions tended to favor simpler fare than offered on the dinner menus, we asked if there was a children’s menu…Nope, so few kid there was no kid’s menu.  If they announced these FL X’s as new sailings, they can control the number of kids.

 

Sorry, we started discussing Royal.

 

Celebrity is definetely different clientele 

[broadwaybaby123]

12 hours ago, Ravbo said:

Easy solution.

ALL passengers undergo testing and other protocols HOWEVER if you voluntarily submit proof of vaccination you are

•  not required to undergo testing or other protocols.
• Issued a colored bracelet to be worn throughout cruise to assist crew in identifying who is not required to wear masks or other protocols.

Totally agree on the last point.  With the relaxed regulations for those of us that are vaccinated, there needs to be something to identify who is and isn't vaccinated so staff can see who's following protocols.  It doesn't have to be anything big, it can even be a sticker or something on your Sail And Sign card, if they wanted.

Edited June 8, 2021 by broadwaybaby123

[Jarmo]

9 hours ago, boatseller said:

Please, do a search before you dig the hole any deeper.

 

I've paid the tax even with the package and so has many other members.

Have always had a package, never paid tax on a drink on a Royal ship, have sailed out of MD, TX, FL.

[Iamcruzin]

11 hours ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Possibly, but that goes against the spirit of the law. The whole point is to avoid creating two classes of people. Haves and have nots, so to speak

There is always a loophole and a good lawyer will find it.

[cruisegus]

5 hours ago, mayleeman said:

Celebrity might be trying a tack that depends on the "restricted sailings" designation by the CDC. Complying with the 95/95 vaccinations level established by federal standards arguably could supersede FL's prohibition.

 

Basically, to comply with the federal standard they would argue they have no choice but to require proof of vax. The standard is for "vaccinated" pax, not pax who claim to be vaxxed. They are required under the free pratique laws to actually be in compliance, not just go through the formality of saying so, or face sanctions for the company and the captain personally. 

 

The argument is pretty strong, I think, that FL cannot prohibit a company from being able to comply with federal law. 

 

Or Celebrity could just be looking to be fined, so that they then have standing to take this law to court.  Not a lawyer but I do believe that you have to be actually impacted, maybe even adversely impacted by a law before you can bring an action in court.

 

The other option i see is that the Florida law says you can be fined up to 5k per person / incident and it may already have been negotiated with the stat for a very minimal fine ie $1.00

 

I just do see it happening one way or another that vaccination will be required. 

 

JMHO you are certainly entitled to yours

 

 

[coffeebean]

15 hours ago, cubsfan1129 said:

This opt in/opt out procedure is what some of the employers in Chicago are asking of their employees so it is a voluntary option. You can be vaccinated and opt out because you don't want to share medical information with a company. You would just then have to follow their specific COVID protocols. If you opt in, voluntarily, you get to not wear a mask and not get tested. Simple. Effective. It's what should be done and probably will be done. 

There had to be a work around and this does seem quite effective. I hope the cruise lines will figure out an effective work around too.

 

In fact there is some discussion about this on another thread. It goes something like this..............

ALL passengers must test for Covid BUT if you show your proof of vaccine, you don't have to test. Covid tests will be charged to the passenger, $350. The tests will be done a couple more times during the cruise and the passenger pays for the tests......$350 each. Gotcha!

 

LOVE IT! It just might work.

[coffeebean]

15 hours ago, gadaboutgal said:

Adventure cruises from the Bahamas are set up this way:  

Bahamas requires a PCR test within 5 days of country entry except if one can show proof of vax.

Royal then requires testing at check-in unless passenger shows proof of vax.  

All vax passengers are then exempt from Covid protocols on the ship.  

 

Has Royal said how they plan to identify the vaxxed from the un-vaxxed?

[coffeebean]

15 hours ago, jrapps said:

The other perspective here is jurisdiction. FL has argued that they have jurisdiction on controlling who can get on the ship based on vax status. Fair enough, I know some argue against this but there is at least some logic to this argument.

 

They most certainly have no jurisdiction as to what a cruise line asks for, and what services they provide or deny while onboard as soon as that ship is 12 miles out at sea.

 

People can argue letter of law, intent of the law all they want. Once you have left FL, there is nothing that law can do.

You are very right about that. Imposing different values and protocols on one segment of the population on board a cruise ship just my turn ugly. I would want to think that DeSantis does not want things to turn ugly on cruise ships so he needs to exempt cruise lines from his law.

[coffeebean]

14 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

 

Huge difference between singling out someone's medical history vs giving people a way to buy alcohol

Vaccine status is not disclosing your medical history. I'm getting tired of that ridiculous speech. Immunizations have been mandated for children to attend school and that has been going on for many years. It is nothing new to require vaccine status.

 

Vaccine status has been required for International travel to certain countries that require a yellow fever vaccine. So...stop with this ridiculous rhetoric of disclosing medical history. The cruise lines are not requesting you to disclose if you are diabetic, have heart disease, liver disease, renal failure, epilepsy, IBS, etc, etc, etc. You get the idea.

[coffeebean]

14 hours ago, molly361 said:

Like Pinnacles and Diamond (Plus)😇

There will always be different classes of people. That is what makes this world of our what it is. Saying there should not be two different classes of people when it comes to vaccines does not make it so. There ARE two classes of people and they are the vaxxed and the un-vaxxed. That is no debate about that. It is what it is.

[coffeebean]

14 hours ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Your analogy identifies two different types of crusiers that are both based on earnings of the same enjoyment and pleasures a company offers. Vax vs non Vax does not do this. The separation of these two classes is based strictly on the basis of one's personal choice(s). 

You are exactly correct. It is a choice.

[coffeebean]

14 hours ago, janazaz said:

So, just how does a cruise line treat (discriminate) a vaccinated vs a non-vaccinated guest by bracelet color/identity?  Perhaps you'd be able to walk the other way if one approached you?  Or, throw yourself up against a wall to steer clear?  How....honestly curious how people could even suggest such nonsense!  You people really do need to stay at home where it's safe and warm. 

Vaccinated people are out and about among un-vaxxed all the time. In fact, I have no doubt that there are many un-vaxxed people that are not masking even though they are not supposed to be maskless when in public. ONLY vaccinated people have the privilege of not having to mask in public but this "honor system" sucks so there is that.

 

Having said that, vaccinated people should not have to mask on a cruise ship as per CDC guidelines. Those guidelines were relaxed for vaccinated cruise ship passengers recently. Vaccinated people need to be identified on a cruise ship so they do  not have to abide by protocols that un-vaxxed people will have to adhere to.

 

Being vaccinated does have its privileges and those who are not vaxxed need to realize that. How else will the crew be able to quickly identify which passengers do not need to wear masks or distance themselves from others? An ID bracelet is just the way to do it. In fact, I made that suggestion a couple of weeks ago on one of these threads.

Edited June 8, 2021 by coffeebean

[Babr]

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that the unvaccinated are a risk to each other - not the vaccinated. The idea is to keep it from spreading on the ship or off. 
 

 

[coffeebean]

19 hours ago, CI66774 said:

I don't interpret it that way. Nobody would be mandating bracelets but if you want to go maskless, etc. It’s your choice to wear it, etc.

Now, that makes a LOT of sense. Vaccinated should not have to mask up so there should be some way to identify those people with a quick glance.

[boatseller]

10 hours ago, Jarmo said:

Have always had a package, never paid tax on a drink on a Royal ship, have sailed out of MD, TX, FL.

Ayayay...why is this so hard.  Different lines use different practices.  Believe me, you paid the tax, the Government isn't giving up a penny.

 

Whether or not the consumer sees the tax depends on how they're complying but you're still paying the tax in port.

[coffeebean]

18 hours ago, forgotmyCCname said:

For us it has ZERO to do with safety. I dont want to wear a mask on my vacation.

I agree totally. Why so many people can not grasp this concept? Over and over and over and over, they have that same mantra of "if you don't feel safe, stay home". For me, it has NOTHING to do with not feeling safe. I KNOW I'm safe with my mRNA vaccine. I just do not want to have to mask up because of un-vaxxed people on board.

 

When do you think it will sink in to these folks?