gatorskin76

Of course, but not sure this is that. Did she say it was unconstitutional, or just that she didn't like it?

I don't have the time or patience to know enough about this to make a truly informed opinion, but what a mess. It's hard to get legislators to get things done, and when they do get something done it's undone by one person's decision....

I originally was hesitant to expand on the complexity of the decision I was referring to because I didn't want to get into the "to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate" discussion on the board. I understand it's my job to make decisions for my children, didn't need it clarified. I didn't say it wasn't my job, but I will expand on the point I was trying to make. The vaccine decision for any parent, in my opinion, is a very complicated decision to make. As a parent, I view my responsibility from the lens of "do no harm" first and foremost. I am sure there are some that might say that I should put more weight on the well being of others, but I am not ashamed to admit that I will put my child's safety and well being over anyone else, including my own. I am vaccinated. I made that choice after weighing all of the factors. My 12 year old is not, and I have no current plans to have her vaccinated. The current calculus behind that is related to risk of the vaccine vs the risk of the virus. I personally believe there is enough uncertainty around the long term effects of the vaccine to not risk it with someone that is unlikely to have an adverse result in contracting the virus. That could change tomorrow with new information, and I am not telling anyone else what they should think about it, I understand there are other opinions and decisions made based on their calculus. I am not saying I would never have them get the vaccine, just that currently I don't think it makes sense to risk it. Given the fact that RCL is willing to take unvaccinated children 11 and younger, I personally believe they should have made it an 18 and up vaccine requirement. That is my opinion based on all I described about the complexity of the decision. That's my opinion, obviously they can do whatever they want and they will, and whether or not I can cruise with them or not will not impact my decision to vaccinate my child one bit.

I really can't see why the US Virgin Islands couldn't have simply said you can't leave the ship if you aren't vaccinated. To make it 12+ for sailing at all is bit over the top in my opinion. It's self serving, but they should make it 18+ in my opinion. Limit it to those that can make a personal choice about vaccination and don't put parents in a position of making that decision for anyone but themselves. So they will take a ship full of 11 year old children, but not those pesky 12 year old unvaccinated super spreaders. I have a cruise scheduled for November, so I guess we will see how this all plays out.

Would you agree that making him switch cabins seems a little silly? I mean it’s not likely they are selling the cabin. Seems a little like someone following a procedure that might make sense in general, but seems a little over the top in this situation.

It's not their money they are spending.

I too agree that people that are vaccinated don’t have an issue with a vaccine requirement….

I did. That is good news if true, but I couldn’t tell that for sure in the write up.

They better be offering full refunds for those opting out of these new requirements. Getting this insurance for my 13 year old is bit ridiculous. Hopefully the actuarial tables and premium reflect the actual risk of a 13 year old being evacuated due to Covid.

I can see July 2022 getting the policy is fluid response, but it shouldn't be limited to July 2021 in my opinion. If they want to set these protocols then they should be open to allowing guests booked within 3 months or so decide that they aren't good with the protocols. A "month by month" wait and see is a bit ridiculous. Since they are effectively trying to reduce unvaccinated passengers, give them their money back. They have had around 2 cruises worth of my money tied up since this time last year.

The 95% CDC rule only applied to sailing without test cruises. So that was really irrelevant for RCL cruises before the court ruling since RCL had elected to go with test cruises. Or at least that’s my understanding.

The 95% number keeps getting mentioned in various threads. If I understand the situation, the 95% really didn’t come into play for FL cruises for the most part, as it was only to sail without the test cruises. Once you do the test cruise doesn’t the 95% figure become irrelevant?

Curious on your take here. If the whole reason is for health reasons then why wouldn't they? If this is there way of forcing everyone who is eligible to get vaccinated or stay home, then I agree, but why is my 12 year old unvaccinated child any more of a risk than someone else's ineligible 11 year old unvaccinated child? I am not saying they should or shouldn't, but if you create a vaccinated only, well....

I could get onboard if you cut it at 18 instead of 12.

I can’t answer the why you would use them, but I would imagine the more important figure in this case would be false negatives.

Right, but it’s still a win for Desantis. I don’t think he probably cares to go to the mattresses on this one, he just wants to be able to say he fought the fight. It’s a win for both sides.

That’s my guess. It’s Thanksgiving. I’m booked on it, so I hope that’s what it is. I imagine they are at or above the capacity they want.

I am sure Royal will do the same without the 95% number, although I suspect they may have some threshold in mind. I wonder if that will be the same for children of adults that are fully vaccinated (12-17).

Freedom 7/26 is back, but it appears like only interior guarantees and nothing for 4 passengers in a single stateroom. They are filling up.

I am looking to cruises for my family vacation, so without my kids there is no cruise. We all have options and conditions that need to be met for us to be happy with the situation. It's different for everyone.

i guess they sold all the staterooms. I have been doing mock bookings the last few days and noticed most everything had gotten to a point where they were guarantee rooms. I was curious since I know they were going through the process of matching the existing bookings to the new ships, so I bet they got a point where they thought they would go over the capacity figure they were shooting for, whatever that is. it's possible they might come back online once they sort out all the transfers from prior ship bookings.

I’d venture to guess that there isn’t much they can change once they leave port. It seems some think they might lower a lifeboat and let anyone out that doesn’t meet their other than FL protocols.

It does seem strange. Is there any chance they struck some kind of compromise that would allow Celebrity to operate outside the ban given they have other options that don’t require it (RCI). Seems far fetched they would do that (Desantis), but he does need to get out the corner he is in.

"Talking point"....hmmmm....

Well that's good to hear. Why aren't they fully approved at this point and not just approved for emergency use? That would help with some concerns people have if it's that cut and dry.