Jump to content

Another vaccination thread


Recommended Posts

I'm surprised there has not (yet) been much comment or opinion expressed about this on the board.  I think the tendency has been (at least up to now) to just simply assume that the CDC was the "final word" on all things related to Covid, and that unelected bureaucrats and administrators could create and impose any rules they pleased, without allowing for other considerations and limitations along the way.

 

But it took a federal judge to step in and say, "not necessarily so"!  My preference would be for everyone on board (crew and passengers) to be vaccinated.  However, it seems that for the moment at least, that "rule" cannot be legally imposed or enforced.  Everyone in our travel group has been vaccinated and we're not overly worried about our own health.  I would also guess that most everyone else on a Regent Cruise will choose to be vaccinated, as well.  If they're not, that's more of a personal decision/burden for them, than it will be for me or everyone else who is vaccinated.

 

Yes, I'm aware of all the potential and ancillary "what if's" that can arise along the way.  As I've said in the past, I'm actually more concerned about the possibility (on our next cruise) of Norovirus or getting "Mugged" on a street in Cartagena  than I am about contracting Covid.  I also believe that Regent will do all it can, both responsibly and legally, to mitigate any problems that might arise, if they can't legally verify or impose a "vaccination requirement" on their upcoming cruises.   Best Regards to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they are all still trying to read through the entire ruling. Worth reading the whole thing if for nothing other than finding the Thomas Jefferson quote. The ruling is very informative. However, if you want just skip forward to about page 122 and just read the ruling. If you were worried about what happens when you are dumped off the ship in some foreign port when you test positive you should be even more concerned. 
 

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/SSWN-C44RE6/$file/Order+on+PI.pdf

 

I’m willing to take my chances and sail knowing that I had better have a credit card with sufficient limits to cover an extended stay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scuba diver said:

Perhaps they are all still trying to read through the entire ruling. Worth reading the whole thing if for nothing other than finding the Thomas Jefferson quote. The ruling is very informative. However, if you want just skip forward to about page 122 and just read the ruling. If you were worried about what happens when you are dumped off the ship in some foreign port when you test positive you should be even more concerned. 
 

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/SSWN-C44RE6/$file/Order+on+PI.pdf

 

I’m willing to take my chances and sail knowing that I had better have a credit card with sufficient limits to cover an extended stay. 

We’ll stated, people need to worry.  I’d rather have a ruling from the CDC than a Judge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 69 and have been double vaccinated for a few months already with Madurna and was happy to read that Regent was going to expect 100% vaccinations.

 

I am not worried about getting sick. I just don't want to get hassled with repetitive Covid tests that are unreliable. A false positive could end a luxury cruise by being quarantined in a 3rd world country when not even sick. 😞 Perhaps even just trying to get on the ship with a false positive.

 

Even trips to Europe & Thailand are complicated even for fully vaccinated. Just doesn't seem worth it for now. But as one gets older if you don't get out and enjoy life now you might never get too. 🙂

 

    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only could a false positive ruin your vacation, but the ship suddenly being closed to ports, re-routed, or having the cruise peremptorily cancelled mid-way because of someone contracting the virus, could all ruin same.  I can envision passengers suing Regent over this type of calamity.

 

It just seems to sensible for cruise lines to demand vaccinations.  It's the right thing to do.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is worrisome.  We are vaccinated and will get booster when recommended.  The stress of all this makes trip not worth it.  We have enough stress with some stuff that has happened to us In 2021. We have 2 booked in 2022.  We will not be booking anymore until this shakes out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the judge’s stupid ruling is binding only in FL for cruises embarking from FL.  What it means for us is that we won’t be able to cruise from FL, as we won’t board a ship that doesn’t require 100% of all on board to be fully vaccinated. I know the US has been backward in not establishing more secure proof of vaccination than we now have, but at least the cards we get are some level of proof. So, if a cruise line can’t (or won’t) at least require those, it is no go. 
 

I just can’t understand why there are still unvaccinated people in the US. Very early this year, I could understand when I saw news reports of long lines at vaccination sites. But just a few weeks later, it was a walk in matter. And in our state, getting vaccinated at any time enters one in a lottery for $1M! One person has won it, and there are four more to come. And we have sites that give one a free beer!  And the US has a huge surplus of vaccinations. I can’t understand why we gave a problem with unvaccinated people, except for the small percentage who have documented medical reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dolebludger said:

I can’t understand why we gave a problem with unvaccinated people, except for the small percentage who have documented medical reasons.

I tried to convince two people in my neighborhood (55+) to get vaccinated. They said "vaccine is not tested enough", "don't trust the pharma industry".  It is frustrating to see this attitude. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the ruling say  cruise lines cannot require vaccinations? My understanding is the ruling did not say that.

We haven't cruised in the Caribbean since 2007. I believe the countries we expect to visit will require vaccinations and most likely test too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rervousneck said:

Did the ruling say  cruise lines cannot require vaccinations? My understanding is the ruling did not say that.

We haven't cruised in the Caribbean since 2007. I believe the countries we expect to visit will require vaccinations and most likely test too.

My "reading" of the judge's ruling was that he mainly focused on the relationship between the working relationship of the CDC and the cruise lines with respect to the "rules" and the "conditional sailing orders" that the CDC had early mandated on the cruise lines to follow.  The ruling did not specifically address the "conflict" between Florida's law that said businesses (including cruise lines) could not mandate vaccines and NCLH's new "operating policy" that all passengers/crew must be vaccinated (and therefore the mechanism that NCLH would have to use in order to "verify/enforce" that policy).  You are correct that that all still has to be "settled".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Case 8:21-cv-00839-SDM-AAS, STATE OF FLORIDA vs. XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROCHELLE WALENSKY, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in her official capacity; CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF".  The complaint has nothing to do with Florida's law dealing with outlawing proof of vaccination.  

 

The complaint asks for the following:

a) Hold unlawful and set aside the Conditional Sailing Order.

b) Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining

Defendants from enforcing the Conditional Sailing Order.

c) Postpone the effective date of the Conditional Sailing Order.

d) Declare unlawful the Conditional Sailing Order.

e) Declare that the cruise industry may open with reasonable safety

protocols.

f) Award Florida costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

g) Award such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

 

The ruling is a preliminary injunction pending trial on the issues set forth in the complaint.  Neither the preliminary injunction nor the trial on the complaint, as far as I can see, will deal with proof of vaccination.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding, also, is that the court case has nothing to do with required vaccinations. It's about the CDC's authority to issue a broad no sail order.

 

It is a federal case so the judge's decision would affect more than Florida.

 

Whether a cruise line would violate the law by requiring vaccinations from Florida ports is a separate issue and remains undecided.

 

Tom.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very aware that the Florida law regarding businesses not requiring proof of vaccination is not an issue in the case in question here. What I don’t know is whether NCLH/Regent’s vaccination requirement is driven by the CDC requirements (which are at issue in the case) or a safety/business decision.  If it is the former, they could have an incentive to drop their vaccination requirement. If it is the latter, then I would think they would stick to their guns.  But I don’t know which it is. I only know that, even though I feel pretty safe with my vaccination in place, I don’t want to be on a ship with an outbreak that blows up the itinerary or, worse, brings disease to a vulnerable place. A full vaccine requirement reduces this risk to a more acceptable range.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wishIweretravelling said:

I am very aware that the Florida law regarding businesses not requiring proof of vaccination is not an issue in the case in question here. What I don’t know is whether NCLH/Regent’s vaccination requirement is driven by the CDC requirements (which are at issue in the case) or a safety/business decision.  If it is the former, they could have an incentive to drop their vaccination requirement. If it is the latter, then I would think they would stick to their guns.  But I don’t know which it is. I only know that, even though I feel pretty safe with my vaccination in place, I don’t want to be on a ship with an outbreak that blows up the itinerary or, worse, brings disease to a vulnerable place. A full vaccine requirement reduces this risk to a more acceptable range.

I agree with you, my hope is they stick to the vaccination policy—I’m not sure I want to be on a ship without knowing………I’d hate to get stuck in a country half way around nether world.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • 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...