Jump to content

Royal Caribbean will require unvaccinated guests to get Covid covering travel insurance for Florida cruises:


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Loops said:

Do they ask you show them your proof of insurance card?   Do they assume that you’re a liar if you don’t present them with a proof of insurance card?  Do they tell you that you are considered uninsured and that they are going to subject you to a bunch of poo or do they take your word for it?  It certainly wouldn’t be smart business to start a business transaction saying that they distrust you.  They could ask you to sign a document stating that you’re insured… that would probably be OK and afford them the protection they are seeking.

They have asked to see on some of the occasions. Some ask to see the card then enter the info into the contract...  Same as asking and copying License info...

Charter/ Med flights are insane expensive. Are you suggesting that they just say "Sure we trust you to be able to cover $25 Grand on a handshake..."?  When that client doesn't have it , then what? Leave their sorry selves on the dock in some distant port? Its for the client protection as well...  How does it look when "Giant cruise line abandons poor passengers" hits the press? They have had the poo knocked out of them from every angle for last two years. Forced tp sail light they can't keep bleeding money... Its a business...

 Whats not smart business is to risk your company tens of thousands of potential loss dollars by asking the simple questions you seem t be offended by. No body forcing you to sail at all... We'll be sure to wave to those who don't want to cruise as we sail away... 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I spoke with another Allianz agent and he confirmed that the evacuation coverage IS covered by emergency evacuation section of the policy.  He also confirmed that the quarantine requirement would be considered part of the trip interruption coverage.

What I still do NOT know is whether I have enough coverage.  B/c of the way Royal stated the requirement, it is difficult to determine.  They lumped quarantine and evacuation into 1 $$ requirement and they are covered by 2 separate parts of the policy.  In total, I have $555,000 worth of coverage (from just 3 sections of the policy !)....so it would seem that I should have it all covered, BUT we only have $5K each under trip interruption, which would be where the quarantine would be.  Now, that's $10K worth of hotel and food money if we were to get quarantined, but it falls short of the $50K they are requiring for the combo of quarantine and medical evacuation.  My medical evacuation coverage alone is $500K.  I can't believe this wouldn't be enough !!  So, it's possible that I will have to purchase a rider to increase my trip interruption up to $50K.  I have no idea how much that would cost, but if it's reasonable, I will do it.  Still waiting on the sales agent to call me. But it seems that I have some breathing room because....

@michelle(God bless her) has confirmed that I have until 28 July to cancel my 21 August SY cruise for a cash refund.  So now I have nearly a month to figure out if (1) my insurance coverage is sufficient and (2) whether I can avoid the deep nasal swab testing.  Our Genie SHOULD have contacted us by then and I'm going to get him/her involved in vetting some of this, too.

This is what Allianz sent me today.  It is called an "Embassy Letter".

image.thumb.png.e12d54864ee2b4f7c53eec0015b98b5c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JSB_Z51 said:

Wow that is news to me.  I thought they basically assumed everyone was unvaccinated but if you showed proof you were, you had no restrictive protocols.  Interesting take.  I guess we will see for sure in time.

You are viewing it correctly. Just look at Celebrity, their process is solely based on this “voluntarily providing proof to eliminate restrictions” concept 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Loops said:

I think you are mistaken… there is no glaring loophole.  You can claim to be vaccinated without any requirement to show any form of proof and they have to accept your word for it.  I don’t disagree that they can set different conditions based on vaccination status but they cannot base that on your proving your status either voluntarily or involuntarily.  Don’t get me wrong, I am vaccinated and fully support people getting vaccinated but the Florida law is very clear and there isn’t the loophole you describe.  As I said that would constitute a feeble attempt to circumnavigate the law which would not withstand the most basic scrutiny.

Sorry, but I must disagree. Just look at what Celebrity has successfully did in Florida. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cruisellama said:

I thought St. Maarten was requiring "their" insurance for the Celebrity sailings originating from their country.  Thought it was a $30 adder.  (Was to cover costs if quarantine is required)

As does the Bahamas 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cruisellama said:

I thought St. Maarten was requiring "their" insurance for the Celebrity sailings originating from their country.  Thought it was a $30 adder.  (Was to cover costs if quarantine is required)

That's to cover entry to St. Maarten.  The cruise originated there but everyone did have to fly in.  Even flying in for a land vacation you have to purchase it.  The Bahamas had a similar one rolled in with their health visa.  Aruba had one when I went.  It covers you while you are in that country.  I believe it has an exclusion to cover you if you don't actually contract it there, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

So I spoke with another Allianz agent and he confirmed that the evacuation coverage IS covered by emergency evacuation section of the policy.  He also confirmed that the quarantine requirement would be considered part of the trip interruption coverage.

What I still do NOT know is whether I have enough coverage.  B/c of the way Royal stated the requirement, it is difficult to determine.  They lumped quarantine and evacuation into 1 $$ requirement and they are covered by 2 separate parts of the policy.  In total, I have $555,000 worth of coverage (from just 3 sections of the policy !)....so it would seem that I should have it all covered, BUT we only have $5K each under trip interruption, which would be where the quarantine would be.  Now, that's $10K worth of hotel and food money if we were to get quarantined, but it falls short of the $50K they are requiring for the combo of quarantine and medical evacuation.  My medical evacuation coverage alone is $500K.  I can't believe this wouldn't be enough !!  So, it's possible that I will have to purchase a rider to increase my trip interruption up to $50K.  I have no idea how much that would cost, but if it's reasonable, I will do it.  Still waiting on the sales agent to call me. But it seems that I have some breathing room because....

@michelle(God bless her) has confirmed that I have until 28 July to cancel my 21 August SY cruise for a cash refund.  So now I have nearly a month to figure out if (1) my insurance coverage is sufficient and (2) whether I can avoid the deep nasal swab testing.  Our Genie SHOULD have contacted us by then and I'm going to get him/her involved in vetting some of this, too.

This is what Allianz sent me today.  It is called an "Embassy Letter".

image.thumb.png.e12d54864ee2b4f7c53eec0015b98b5c.png

 

I'm having the same question. I have a current policy for an upcoming cruise. The Trip delay is what would cover quarantine, and is listed as $2000. I wonder if RC is not giving the correct information. I have looked, and done other quotes, and nothing for quarantine/trip delay is that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading coverage for Royal Caribbean Travel Protection Program (RCTPP)

https://www.archinsurancesolutions.com/coverage/Royal

 

  • Trip Interruption: up to 150% of total trip cost if you can't start or finish your cruise vacation because you're sick or hurt, there's a death in the family or another covered reason
  • Trip Delay: up to $500 for catch-up expenses
  • Accident Medical: up to $25,000 if you get hurt on your cruise vacation
  • Sickness Medical: up to $25,000 if you get sick on your cruise vacation
  • Emergency Medical Evacuation: up to $50,000 if you need emergency medical transportation
  • Baggage Protection: up to $1,500 if your bags are lost, stolen, or damaged
  • Bag Delay: up to $500 to buy necessary personal items if your bags are delayed

 

Reading the terms for RCTPP I'm wondering if the policy provider will cover being quarantined as a medial expense vs trip interruption.

 “Medical Expenses” means expenses incurred only for the following: 

Hospital or ambulatory medical-surgical center services (including expenses for a cruise ship cabin or hotel room, not already included in the cost of Your Trip, if recommended by Your attending Physician and approved by Us as a substitute for a hospital room for recovery from Your Injury or Sickness;

 

Now adding more confusion to the mix is the FAQ does not even mention the policy needs to cover quarantine.

Ref: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/will-i-require-travel-insurance-for-my-cruise

For cruises departing from Florida homeports from August 1 through December 31, 2021, as a condition of boarding, each unvaccinated guest 12 or older must provide proof of a valid travel insurance policy that has a minimum of (a) $25,000 per person in medical expense coverage and (b) $50,000 coverage for emergency medical evacuation and no COVID-19 exclusions.

vs

Ref: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/the-healthy-sail-center/getting-ready-to-cruise?dPort=florida-august

For cruises departing from Florida homeports from August 1 through December 31, 2021, as a condition of boarding, each unvaccinated guest 12 and older must provide proof of a valid insurance policy that has a minimum of (a) $25,000 per person in medical expense coverage and (b) $50,000 per person for quarantine and medical evacuation related to a positive COVID-19 test result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CGTLH said:

Reading coverage for Royal Caribbean Travel Protection Program (RCTPP)

https://www.archinsurancesolutions.com/coverage/Royal

 

  • Trip Interruption: up to 150% of total trip cost if you can't start or finish your cruise vacation because you're sick or hurt, there's a death in the family or another covered reason
  • Trip Delay: up to $500 for catch-up expenses
  • Accident Medical: up to $25,000 if you get hurt on your cruise vacation
  • Sickness Medical: up to $25,000 if you get sick on your cruise vacation
  • Emergency Medical Evacuation: up to $50,000 if you need emergency medical transportation
  • Baggage Protection: up to $1,500 if your bags are lost, stolen, or damaged
  • Bag Delay: up to $500 to buy necessary personal items if your bags are delayed

 

Reading the terms for RCTPP I'm wondering if the policy provider will cover being quarantined as a medial expense vs trip interruption.

 “Medical Expenses” means expenses incurred only for the following: 

Hospital or ambulatory medical-surgical center services (including expenses for a cruise ship cabin or hotel room, not already included in the cost of Your Trip, if recommended by Your attending Physician and approved by Us as a substitute for a hospital room for recovery from Your Injury or Sickness;

 

Now adding more confusion to the mix is the FAQ does not even mention the policy needs to cover quarantine.

Ref: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/will-i-require-travel-insurance-for-my-cruise

For cruises departing from Florida homeports from August 1 through December 31, 2021, as a condition of boarding, each unvaccinated guest 12 or older must provide proof of a valid travel insurance policy that has a minimum of (a) $25,000 per person in medical expense coverage and (b) $50,000 coverage for emergency medical evacuation and no COVID-19 exclusions.

vs

Ref: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/the-healthy-sail-center/getting-ready-to-cruise?dPort=florida-august

For cruises departing from Florida homeports from August 1 through December 31, 2021, as a condition of boarding, each unvaccinated guest 12 and older must provide proof of a valid insurance policy that has a minimum of (a) $25,000 per person in medical expense coverage and (b) $50,000 per person for quarantine and medical evacuation related to a positive COVID-19 test result.

Royal told TA's on a call this week the CFAR included in their coverage has been raised from 75% to 90% FCC.

Keep an eye out for that change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

Sorry, but I must disagree. Just look at what Celebrity has successfully did in Florida. 

Please recognize that the Florida Law doesn’t go into effect until this month.  So while Celebrity has taken an approach of coercing passengers into showing proof that they have been vaccinated by declaring them unvaccinated without showing such doesn’t mean they will be able to do that going forward.  It’s really going to come down to how seriously Florida will enforce the new law.  We’ll have to wait and see.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m vaccinated and I really have no problem showing proof of such for any reasonable purpose to which I include cruising but I don’t make or enforce the laws.  Ron DeSantis has a deeply held concern about the “show me your papers” mentality that I respect.  We will know soon enough whether the cruise industry sailing from Florida can treat you differently if you state that you are vaccinated but provide no documented proof.

What’s really concerning is what I have read of the RCCL insurance requirement is that they have made no documented allowance for people who had COVID and now possess the antibodies.  Why should they have to get vaccinated to avoid the insurance requirement?  A recent Washington University Medical School study has concluded that those having the antibodies as a result of contracting COVID are protected as well as those who took the vaccine and it is likely for their lifetime.  RCCL needs to revise their position to address those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all reports the vaccinated on Celebrity were very eager and willing to share their vaccination status with the cruise line.

That's the crux it right there.  The vast majority, an overwhelming number of people who book cruises and are vaccinated don't have an issue with showing proof of vaccination.

This discussion is mostly fueled by individuals who are not vaccinated.  

For most vaccinated who book cruises there is no controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ConstantCruiser said:

From all reports the vaccinated on Celebrity were very eager and willing to share their vaccination status with the cruise line.

That's the crux it right there.  The vast majority, an overwhelming number of people who book cruises and are vaccinated don't have an issue with showing proof of vaccination.

This discussion is mostly fueled by individuals who are not vaccinated.  

For most vaccinated who book cruises there is no controversy.

Please reread my post… I have made some edits… that agree with your observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loops said:

A recent Washington University Medical School study has concluded that those having the antibodies as a result of contracting COVID are protected as well as those who took the vaccine and it is likely for their lifetime.  RCCL needs to revise their position to address those people

I don't believe the CDC has adopted this stance as they still recommend those with antibodies to be vaccinated.  As cruiselines are regulated by the CDC, I doubt you will see any of them accept proof of antibodies in lieu of vaccination unless the CDC changes their posture on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AshleyDillo said:

I don't believe the CDC has adopted this stance as they still recommend those with antibodies to be vaccinated.  As cruiselines are regulated by the CDC, I doubt you will see any of them accept proof of antibodies in lieu of vaccination unless the CDC changes their posture on this.

The CDC has demonstrated that it is highly politicized … it has been months if not longer behind in the science and statistics… and I would certainly challenge the statement that it regulates the cruise industry.  It has been acting in such a manner and is being challenged in the courts.  The reality is that it has very limited regulatory authority and has very likely overstepped its authority regarding the cruise industry.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AshleyDillo said:

I don't believe the CDC has adopted this stance as they still recommend those with antibodies to be vaccinated.

Immunity from SARS2 is immensely complex. My review of the literature on this subject indicates that there is plenty of disagreement among research scientists about how much and how long immunity is conferred by a previous infection.

Fundamentally, your body has two types of immunity: humeral and adaptive. You've all read about B Cells. A previous SARS2 infection resulting in even mild cases of COVID trigger a humeral, B Cell response. Your bone marrow produces these. Exposure to SARS2 also produces an adaptive T-Cell response. In both cases, it is not yet known with any certainty how effective your immune system will be in protecting you against reinfection if you've had COVID in the past or how long that immunity might last. 

It is also not conclusively known that any of the currently US FDA approved vaccines will produce better or worse protection against COVID. Research trends suggest that vaccines produce a more robust and complete immune response (humeral and adaptive) v. COVID than natural immunity from a previous infection. Research trends also suggest that people who have had COVID benefit from a further increase in immune response to SARS2 by getting vaccinated.

I am knee deep in the controversy over vaccination. I still believe in choice but as the pandemic plays out it is getting harder and harder for opponents of vaccination, those who are eligible and able, for any number of reasons, to justify that position. The CDC, even though they have made missteps, is still a solid collector and interpreter of available data.

Sure, they've lost the trust of many of us. I am not among those mainly because I follow the research literature on this closely. But, I'd call the position that the CDC has taken, opposite to that of the WHO on masks is solid and is better reflective of the SARS2 transmission situation in the US. The WHO has a more global perspective and where viral transmission is at high levels, it is generally believed masking helps reduce it ........ all the controversial aspects of human behavior and other factors that bear on how masks are worn, how effective they are, not withstanding.  

As far as the cruise lines are concerned @AshleyDillois correct. They are not going to allow those who have been previously infected by SARS2 with proof of antibodies be considered immune. Frankly, I don't think anyone should consider themselves immune from infection by SARS2 if one has had COVID. I would add that the current crop of AB tests have flaws - and there are a lot of them , including home tests that you can buy over the counter. Cruise line health and safety experts are also going to go with the most conservative approaches to all COIVD related practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Immunity from SARS2 is immensely complex. My review of the literature on this subject indicates that there is plenty of disagreement among research scientists about how much and how long immunity is conferred by a previous infection.

Fundamentally, your body has two types of immunity: humeral and adaptive. You've all read about B Cells. A previous SARS2 infection resulting in even mild cases of COVID trigger a humeral, B Cell response. Your bone marrow produces these. Exposure to SARS2 also produces an adaptive T-Cell response. In both cases, it is not yet known with any certainty how effective your immune system will be in protecting you against reinfection if you've had COVID in the past or how long that immunity might last. 

It is also not conclusively known that any of the currently US FDA approved vaccines will produce better or worse protection against COVID. Research trends suggest that vaccines produce a more robust and complete immune response (humeral and adaptive) v. COVID than natural immunity from a previous infection. Research trends also suggest that people who have had COVID benefit from a further increase in immune response to SARS2 by getting vaccinated.

I am knee deep in the controversy over vaccination. I still believe in choice but as the pandemic plays out it is getting harder and harder for opponents of vaccination, those who are eligible and able, for any number of reasons, to justify that position. The CDC, even though they have made missteps, is still a solid collector and interpreter of available data.

Sure, they've lost the trust of many of us. I am not among those mainly because I follow the research literature on this closely. But, I'd call the position that the CDC has taken, opposite to that of the WHO on masks is solid and is better reflective of the SARS2 transmission situation in the US. The WHO has a more global perspective and where viral transmission is at high levels, it is generally believed masking helps reduce it ........ all the controversial aspects of human behavior and other factors that bear on how masks are worn, how effective they are, not withstanding.  

As far as the cruise lines are concerned @AshleyDillois correct. They are not going to allow those who have been previously infected by SARS2 with proof of antibodies be considered immune. Frankly, I don't think anyone should consider themselves immune from infection by SARS2 if one has had COVID. I would add that the current crop of AB tests have flaws - and there are a lot of them , including home tests that you can buy over the counter. Cruise line health and safety experts are also going to go with the most conservative approaches to all COIVD related practices.

My read is that neither the vaccine or antibodies claim to provide immunity but simply limit the severity of any future contracted case.  The uncertainties associated with the antibodies are likely no more in question than those of the vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Science" is slow to respond because once a narrative and groupthink has set in, many scientists do not want to go against that for fear of losing their careers. A few months ago, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook would take down posts on the lab leak theory but now we are seeing the lab leak theory accepted in more circles and even see scientists that previously said lab leak was never possible to now changing their position. 

The CDC has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Even in last administration, the CDC director held up a mask and said it was better than a vaccination. The current CDC director ignored data on children and had teacher unions craft school reopening guidelines. Im sorry but you cant trust the CDC when they came out with those unscientific and harmful summer camp recommendations to mask children in 90+ temps. 

Now we have the CDC which has dragged their feet about heart inflammation among younger people while other countries have halted vaccinations among young people. J&J vaccine was stopped for less than this. AND that was a MAJOR misstep by the CDC and FDA which caused additional vaccine hesitancy and slowed down vaccination rates in the US

I am not an anti-vaxxer by any means. But I am more than hesitant to have my 13 year old step daughter to get a vaccine that has been shown to be linked to heart inflammation no matter how much the CDC wants to downplay it as being "mild" or temporary. Especially since she is in an age group that Covid risk is VERY low. There is every reason for parents to give pause to vaccinated their 12 year olds just because they have been approved to have vaccine. I am not in the just cause you are eligible, you should get vaccine camp at all because that thinking just ignores the current data we have that needs to be weighed. 

And its amazing if you watch side effects from vaccines written off as nothing to do with the vaccine by the same group of people that failed to distinguish that dying from Covid was different than dying WITH Covid. 

And speaking of testing, the PCR test were always run at too high a cycle rate which you now see has been lowered. 

Not only has the CDC and "science" been highly politicized, there is also the financial incentives now to have a never ending number of booster shots. 

The CDC is broken and has lost public trust. However, it is hard to divorce the CDC from politics and money. The CDC ignored years of accepted pandemic protocols in favor of widespread lockdowns that caused massive financial damage and collateral damage in other areas undiagnosed and delayed treatment for major illnesses. The data is in and the lockdown "cure" was truly worse than the disease. And how anyone can look at data from the last year and conclude that masks work is truly beyond me. One could even draw logical conclusions that masks gave people a false sense of security which led some people to engage in risky behavior where they got infected. Some still thing Zero Covid should be the goal. Crazy!

All this to say, that natural immunity gained through previous case of Covid should be shown to be the same as someone being vaccinated. Some cruise lines understand this and will accept natural immunity in lieu of vaccines. We are nearing herd immunity in the US. There are those in the society that do not want to lose control they gained in the last year and want to keep trying to scare the general populace with the latest variant that will wipe us all out. The UK variant, the South African variant, etc, etc, etc. 

I support the cruise lines with their stance on vaccines because I believe that businesses have a right to set their own terms of service. But I do not believe that every person who is eligible should get the vaccine especially children. Each family needs to decide for themselves and not be ostracized for it. Royal has setup its two tiered system of protocols and published them for customers to read for themselves. If families decide that they dont want to cruise under those protocols because they dont want to vaccinate 12 yr old Suzy because no cruise ship vacation should be the sole reason for vaccination then they would need to decide to cancel or not thus sending a message to Royal. For my 13 year old step daughter and a cruise planned in November, I am choosing to wait for more data to come in before vaccination and then wait and see what protocols on the ship will be in November

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CGTLH said:

Reading coverage for Royal Caribbean Travel Protection Program (RCTPP)

https://www.archinsurancesolutions.com/coverage/Royal

 

  • Trip Interruption: up to 150% of total trip cost if you can't start or finish your cruise vacation because you're sick or hurt, there's a death in the family or another covered reason
  • Trip Delay: up to $500 for catch-up expenses
  • Accident Medical: up to $25,000 if you get hurt on your cruise vacation
  • Sickness Medical: up to $25,000 if you get sick on your cruise vacation
  • Emergency Medical Evacuation: up to $50,000 if you need emergency medical transportation
  • Baggage Protection: up to $1,500 if your bags are lost, stolen, or damaged
  • Bag Delay: up to $500 to buy necessary personal items if your bags are delayed

 

Reading the terms for RCTPP I'm wondering if the policy provider will cover being quarantined as a medial expense vs trip interruption.

 “Medical Expenses” means expenses incurred only for the following: 

Hospital or ambulatory medical-surgical center services (including expenses for a cruise ship cabin or hotel room, not already included in the cost of Your Trip, if recommended by Your attending Physician and approved by Us as a substitute for a hospital room for recovery from Your Injury or Sickness;

 

Now adding more confusion to the mix is the FAQ does not even mention the policy needs to cover quarantine.

Ref: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/will-i-require-travel-insurance-for-my-cruise

For cruises departing from Florida homeports from August 1 through December 31, 2021, as a condition of boarding, each unvaccinated guest 12 or older must provide proof of a valid travel insurance policy that has a minimum of (a) $25,000 per person in medical expense coverage and (b) $50,000 coverage for emergency medical evacuation and no COVID-19 exclusions.

vs

Ref: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/the-healthy-sail-center/getting-ready-to-cruise?dPort=florida-august

For cruises departing from Florida homeports from August 1 through December 31, 2021, as a condition of boarding, each unvaccinated guest 12 and older must provide proof of a valid insurance policy that has a minimum of (a) $25,000 per person in medical expense coverage and (b) $50,000 per person for quarantine and medical evacuation related to a positive COVID-19 test result.

I think I will have to call RC, but dont think they will give an answer. I cant find any policy worded that way. Trip delay is what pays for quarantine, but it's not paid at 50,000 dollars. Sounds like they added medical expense coverage and trip delay together, but that's not how policies list that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UNCFanatik said:

"Science" is slow to respond because once a narrative and groupthink has set in, many scientists do not want to go against that for fear of losing their careers. A few months ago, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook would take down posts on the lab leak theory but now we are seeing the lab leak theory accepted in more circles and even see scientists that previously said lab leak was never possible to now changing their position. 

The CDC has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Even in last administration, the CDC director held up a mask and said it was better than a vaccination. The current CDC director ignored data on children and had teacher unions craft school reopening guidelines. Im sorry but you cant trust the CDC when they came out with those unscientific and harmful summer camp recommendations to mask children in 90+ temps. 

Now we have the CDC which has dragged their feet about heart inflammation among younger people while other countries have halted vaccinations among young people. J&J vaccine was stopped for less than this. AND that was a MAJOR misstep by the CDC and FDA which caused additional vaccine hesitancy and slowed down vaccination rates in the US

I am not an anti-vaxxer by any means. But I am more than hesitant to have my 13 year old step daughter to get a vaccine that has been shown to be linked to heart inflammation no matter how much the CDC wants to downplay it as being "mild" or temporary. Especially since she is in an age group that Covid risk is VERY low. There is every reason for parents to give pause to vaccinated their 12 year olds just because they have been approved to have vaccine. I am not in the just cause you are eligible, you should get vaccine camp at all because that thinking just ignores the current data we have that needs to be weighed. 

And its amazing if you watch side effects from vaccines written off as nothing to do with the vaccine by the same group of people that failed to distinguish that dying from Covid was different than dying WITH Covid. 

And speaking of testing, the PCR test were always run at too high a cycle rate which you now see has been lowered. 

Not only has the CDC and "science" been highly politicized, there is also the financial incentives now to have a never ending number of booster shots. 

The CDC is broken and has lost public trust. However, it is hard to divorce the CDC from politics and money. The CDC ignored years of accepted pandemic protocols in favor of widespread lockdowns that caused massive financial damage and collateral damage in other areas undiagnosed and delayed treatment for major illnesses. The data is in and the lockdown "cure" was truly worse than the disease. And how anyone can look at data from the last year and conclude that masks work is truly beyond me. One could even draw logical conclusions that masks gave people a false sense of security which led some people to engage in risky behavior where they got infected. Some still thing Zero Covid should be the goal. Crazy!

All this to say, that natural immunity gained through previous case of Covid should be shown to be the same as someone being vaccinated. Some cruise lines understand this and will accept natural immunity in lieu of vaccines. We are nearing herd immunity in the US. There are those in the society that do not want to lose control they gained in the last year and want to keep trying to scare the general populace with the latest variant that will wipe us all out. The UK variant, the South African variant, etc, etc, etc. 

I support the cruise lines with their stance on vaccines because I believe that businesses have a right to set their own terms of service. But I do not believe that every person who is eligible should get the vaccine especially children. Each family needs to decide for themselves and not be ostracized for it. Royal has setup its two tiered system of protocols and published them for customers to read for themselves. If families decide that they dont want to cruise under those protocols because they dont want to vaccinate 12 yr old Suzy because no cruise ship vacation should be the sole reason for vaccination then they would need to decide to cancel or not thus sending a message to Royal. For my 13 year old step daughter and a cruise planned in November, I am choosing to wait for more data to come in before vaccination and then wait and see what protocols on the ship will be in November

 

 


A++++++++ The only thing you forgot to mention is that almost the entire leadership of the CDC is made up of former Pharmaceutical Company Executives who still have very strong ties to their former companies. That gives them a very strong incentive to say and do what will benefit their former employers.  My opinion is anybody who ever worked for a pharmaceutical company, even as a janitor, should be barred for life from a role at the CDC.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I never get asked if I have insurance when I rent a car. Both Budget and Enterprise

We’ve rented a lot of vehicles over the years and have always been asked if we want their insurance.  When we tell them we are covered by our automobile insurance they’ve always had us initial the box next to the statement declining their insurance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ConstantCruiser said:

The vast majority, an overwhelming number of people who book cruises and are vaccinated don't have an issue with showing proof of vaccination.

This discussion is mostly fueled by individuals who are not vaccinated.  

For most vaccinated who book cruises there is no controversy.

agree on these points.

I think those of us that are vaccinated just want to cruise without all the drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Loops said:

The CDC has demonstrated that it is highly politicized

Its an unpopular position to articulate support for the CDC. Their public messaging hasn't been good. They have themselves to blame for that. However it is the politicians and the press that "politicize" their recommendations and public statements that come from the CDC.

I'm not a fan of Anthony Fauci either and the reasons for that go beyond his credentials as a virologist - those are solid. He is always very careful - hedging is the operative term - not to get pinned down. Listeners don't like that but he's a scientis and few things are certain in science, especially emerging science on SRAS2 and COVID. 

The CDC, in most circumstances that do not involve regulatory authority (I'll get to that), provide recommendations for PH matters. They don't direct anything and since the mask debacle in February 2020 and the Trump administration telling CDC folks to go sit in the back of the room and shut-up, CDC spokespersons have been very careful to make that clear.

The most recent clarifying statements wrt that involve the position they took on masking when their recommendations (no masks for vax'ed) differed from the WHO's recommendations (masks indoors regardless of vax status....... Walenski's response when asked about this (paraphrased) "we are recommending no masks for the vaccinated in the US but leave decisions in that regard to local PH authorities." I think the CDC is spot on regarding no mask wearing required for vaccinated people in the US. I'm pretty sure you would not disagree with that.

The CDC does, in fact, have regulatory authority over the cruise lines through the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP). The authority I am most familiar with is what is granted under 42 U.S.C, Section 264. Regulations pertaining to preventing the interstate spread of communicable diseases are contained in 21 CFR parts 1240 and 1250 and 42 CFR part 70.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/71.1

When Merryday ruled in FL v. Bacerra, he did not say the CDC doesn't have regulatory authority. They do. What he said is that aspects of the CDC specifically directed at the cruise industry were, for all-intent-and-purpose, new laws that the CDC does not have the power to write.  Most of the legal arguments presented by FL's attorneys revolved around the limited time frame that free pratique can be denied via the VSP. That argument carried the day and the details of why it did, including pages of citing case law going back hundreds of years is in his written ruling. The link below describes the CDC's regulatory authority for the cruise line.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/default.htm

4 hours ago, Loops said:

The uncertainties associated with the antibodies are likely no more in question than those of the vaccines.

I can't agree with this generalized statement. There is some uncertainty about responses to vaccines v. natural immunity with certain T-Cell types. With others there is no uncertainty - for example, CD4 and CD8 T-Cells showed a marked decrease following infection with SARS2 that are not seen with vaccines. In fact, the T-Cell response with the mRNA vaccines is robust (confounding factors in several studies were not isolated. The article linked below pertains.

https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-are-T-Cells.aspx

WARNING: we can easily both get in over our heads in this area. 

What I try hard to do within this forum when I post about COVID is to eliminate my biases or admit them and not make generalized statements that may not be supported by the facts. Nevertheless, in social media platform like this is authoritative statements frequently become gospel when the statements conform with a particular readers biases and preconceived beliefs.  It's not easy to remove biases from posts. Admission of a bias and links to facts supporting a viewpoint are helpful. I really have a problem with sweeping generalizations intended to support a POV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of a vaccine passport where any business in day to day life can have access to my vaccination status on a whim.

But for truly optional leisure activities, I don't mind it to be a requirement. Just as long as kids aren't punished for not having the vaccine (and they are right now, unfortunately)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

can have access to my vaccination status on a whim.

On a whim? (1) we're talking about a public health crisis involving a pandemic that has caused the death of 1/2M people in the US. There are medical therapies that can be used to subdue it's impact that include vaccines. (2) There are laws that allow businesses to fulfil their moral and ethical responsibility to  create a save environment to do business.

Taken together I can argue we have a civic duty as Americans to follow the law and be ethically and morally responsible. YMMV, JMO, I am heavily biased as a medical professional toward vaccination ....... I am also stepping over the lines that Matt has established for discussions like this. I'll read but that's the last of my post on this thread on vaccinations, whether or not they work and whether or not those able ought to get them.  that's reared its head again and I'm guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I’m vaccinated, so is my spouse.  We will not allow our minor (9yo) son to be vaccinated with a vaccine that hasn’t had YEARS of study ….  PERIOD.  ….. we’ve all also already had Covid and it was very mild. 

”My Body, My Choice” has been a mantra for decades  ….. and supposedly protected by the Constitution ….. I’m not in favor of anybody being forced to do anything they don’t want to do to their body ……. My body, my choice either applies in all situations or none ….. you can’t pick and choose 

Nothing annoys me more than when people say that others have to take a drug into their bodies or or they are “immoral” and “unethical” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a parent, my my ethical and moral responsibility to my children overrides that to the community as a whole.  Part of that responsibility included my husband and I being vaccinated but it also includes a risk/benefit analysis of the COVID vaccine vs. getting COVID for our teenage boys.  Right now, with cases averaging 22 per day on a population of 1.4 million and multiple cases of myocarditis locally, that decision is a no brainer.  I support Royal Caribbean making whatever policy they want, so long as it’s clear and transparent and they don’t give me a hassle if I decide that I don’t like their rules and cancel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

On a whim? (1) we're talking about a public health crisis involving a pandemic that has caused the death of 1/2M people in the US. There are medical therapies that can be used to subdue it's impact that include vaccines. (2) There are laws that allow businesses to fulfil their moral and ethical responsibility to  create a save environment to do business.

Taken together I can argue we have a civic duty as Americans to follow the law and be ethically and morally responsible. YMMV, JMO, I am heavily biased as a medical professional toward vaccination ....... I am also stepping over the lines that Matt has established for discussions like this. I'll read but that's the last of my post on this thread on vaccinations, whether or not they work and whether or not those able ought to get them.  that's reared its head again and I'm guilty.

Jeff please continue giving us your expertise!

A quick word on research. As holding a post graduate degree from a major research university (I am not bragging, no really I not), although I am not a researcher, I was taught by a few profs that the first thing to look for in a research paper was who was paying for the research, then who are the researchers and do they have skin in the game or will they profit from said research other than being paid to do the work. One of the most upfront faces in this ongoing discussion in this country allegedly profits from one of the major drug company's that have produced one of the vaccines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:

”My Body, My Choice” has been a mantra for decades  ….. and supposedly protected by the Constitution ….. I’m not in favor of anybody being forced to do anything they don’t want to do to their body ……. My body, my choice either applies in all situations or none ….. you can’t pick and choose 

At the request of @cruisinghawgI'll reluctantly respond to this and a few other comments:

Not really ........American Citizens have no Constitutional protection from being told by a state vaccinations are required. 

Nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,33 upholding the right of states to compel vaccination. The Court held that a health regulation requiring smallpox vaccination was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power that did not violate the liberty rights of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The police power is the authority reserved to the states by the Constitution and embraces “such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety” (197 U.S. at 25, 25 S.Ct. at 361).

It is good to understand the history of how the requirement for vaccinations emerged in the US. I's all right here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf

Look, I get the concern about children being vaccinated and putting thier safety above any sense of duty to the public health. This is true especially given the short history of the COVID vaccines approved in the US. One needs to be on point when they take that position.

In a that was then, this is now sort of dialogue, distrust of the state has increased dramatically since Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. But the FDA has remained as apolitical and balanced as any government agency in this pandemic - the rigorous testing protocols that pharma has to comply with in brining a drug to market, even under EUA, and with the exhaustive review process the FDA conducts, all the US approved vaccines are very safe. Yet misinformation about their effectiveness and safety flood social media platforms as in, "that decision (not to vaccinate a child) is a no brainer." It is? Really, based on, "Right now, with cases averaging 22 per day on a population of 1.4 million and multiple cases of myocarditis locally."  I doubt both the validity of the numbers and how these are being presented. These are the facts:

CDC numbers through late May estimated that 16 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis would be reported for every million second doses given to people ages 16 to 39. That works out to 0.0016%, or roughly 1 in 62,000.

By contrast, de Lemos said the best studies on college athletes put the chances of a young person getting myocarditis after COVID-19 at between 1% and 3%. That's roughly 1 in 50.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/06/21/should-rare-cases-of-heart-inflammation-put-your-covid-19-vaccine-plans-on-hold

There's more:

Though fewer children contract COVID-19, and fewer kids and young adults experience serious illness, there’s still some risk of contracting the virus. Since the beginning of the pandemic, at least 7.7 million COVID-19 cases have been reported among people ages 12 to 29. In May, that age group represented 33% of COVID-19 cases. Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2,767 coronavirus deaths have been reported among this age gr

https://whyy.org/articles/myocarditis-and-the-covid-19-vaccine-what-to-know-about-rare-heart-inflammation/

And then there is this:

Benefits and risks.

All of the foregoing facts seem to indicate that it is a no-brainer to not get your kids vaccinated. 

Profiteering by big pharma as an underlying cause of distrust of vaccines is also a frequently held parental concern. IMO, that denigrates the work of 100s of dedicated scientists that worked on these vaccines and deployed them in record time. I don't think that circumstance is fully understood by critics of big pharma. That pharma developed these in a public private enterprise is perfectly good reason for these companies to be rewarded and the public to benefit from the miracle drug the mRNA vaccines are. I reject that concern as largely baseless. Now of course you could argue that the Chinese and the Russians who deployed Sinovac and Sputnik through government nationalized production did just fine. But they didn't and countries that received these vaccines in a form of vaccine diplomacy are battling reinfections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/economy/china-vaccines-covid-outbreak.html   

One final comment on another set of stats that are floating around on social media platforms that vaccine nay-sayers grab on to without checking them out. The conflations and missuses of absolute and relative risk along with vaccine efficacy abound in social media platforms then trickle down to casual conversations. The  link will take you to a great article that describes these misuses, how believable they appear and how utterly dangerous they are to rational, well informed thought on getting vaccinated or not.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction/fact-check-why-relative-risk-reduction-not-absolute-risk-reduction-is-most-often-used-in-calculating-vaccine-efficacy-idUSL2N2NK1XA

All of this sounds like lecturing and badgering those who aren't vaccinated or don't want their kids vaccinated. I apologize for that because it is the least effective way to change people's minds on any number of COVID and Pandemic related views and especially in the hotly debated arena of vaccinations. Generally it's hard to do. But judgements based on inaccurate or misleading information are dangerous. What I encourage is not blindly rejecting or accepting, even being moved by what I've posted here but rather keeping an open mind to views contrary to your own. Become convincible. Join legitimate focus groups led by doctors and scientists. Ask questions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JeffB said:

At the request of @cruisinghawgI'll reluctantly respond to this and a few other comments:

Not really ........American Citizens have no Constitutional protection from being told by a state vaccinations are required. 

Nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,33 upholding the right of states to compel vaccination. The Court held that a health regulation requiring smallpox vaccination was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power that did not violate the liberty rights of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The police power is the authority reserved to the states by the Constitution and embraces “such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety” (197 U.S. at 25, 25 S.Ct. at 361).

It is good to understand the history of how the requirement for vaccinations iemerged in the US. I's all right here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf

Look, I get the concern about children being vaccinated and putting thier safety above any sense of duty to the public health. This is true especially given the short history of the COVID vaccines approved in the US. One needs to be on point when they take that position.

In a that was then, this is now sort of dialogue, distrust of the state has increased dramatically since Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. But the FDA has remained as apolitical and balanced as any government agency in this pandemic - the rigorous testing protocols that pharma has to comply with in brining a drug to market, even under EUA, and with the exhaustive review process the FDA conducts, all the US approved vaccines are very safe. Yet misinformation about their effectiveness and safety flood social media platforms as in, "that decision (not to vaccinate a child) is a no brainer." It is? Really, based on, "Right now, with cases averaging 22 per day on a population of 1.4 million and multiple cases of myocarditis locally."  I doubt both the validity of the numbers and how these are being presented. These are the facts:

CDC numbers through late May estimated that 16 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis would be reported for every million second doses given to people ages 16 to 39. That works out to 0.0016%, or roughly 1 in 62,000.

By contrast, de Lemos said the best studies on college athletes put the chances of a young person getting myocarditis after COVID-19 at between 1% and 3%. That's roughly 1 in 50.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/06/21/should-rare-cases-of-heart-inflammation-put-your-covid-19-vaccine-plans-on-hold

There's more:

Though fewer children contract COVID-19, and fewer kids and young adults experience serious illness, there’s still some risk of contracting the virus. Since the beginning of the pandemic, at least 7.7 million COVID-19 cases have been reported among people ages 12 to 29. In May, that age group represented 33% of COVID-19 cases. Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2,767 coronavirus deaths have been reported among this age gr

https://whyy.org/articles/myocarditis-and-the-covid-19-vaccine-what-to-know-about-rare-heart-inflammation/

And then there is this:

Benefits and risks.

All of the foregoing facts seem to indicate that it is a no-brainer to not get your kids vaccinated. 

Profiteering by big pharma as an underlying cause of distrust of vaccines is also a frequently held parental concern. IMO, that denigrates the work of 100s of dedicated scientists that worked on these vaccines and deployed them in record time. I don't think that circumstance is fully understood by critics of big pharma. That pharma developed these in a public private enterprise is perfectly good reason for these companies to be rewarded and the public to benefit from the miracle drug the mRNA vaccines are. I reject that concern as largely baseless. Now of course you could argue that the Chinese and the Russians who deployed Sinovac and Sputnik through government nationalized production did just fine. But they didn't and countries that received these vaccines in a form of vaccine diplomacy are battling reinfections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/economy/china-vaccines-covid-outbreak.html   

One final comment on another set of stats that are floating around on social media platforms that vaccine nay-sayers grab on to without checking them out. The conflations and missuses of absolute and relative risk along with vaccine efficacy abound in social media platforms then trickle down to casual conversations. The  link will take you to a great article that describes these misuses, how believable they appear and how utterly dangerous they are to rational, well informed thought on getting vaccinated or not.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction/fact-check-why-relative-risk-reduction-not-absolute-risk-reduction-is-most-often-used-in-calculating-vaccine-efficacy-idUSL2N2NK1XA

All of this sounds like lecturing and badgering those who aren't vaccinated or don't want their kids vaccinated. I apologize for that because it is the least effective way to change people's minds on any number of COVID and Pandemic related views and especially in the hotly debated arena of vaccinations. Generally it's hard to do. But judgements based on inaccurate or misleading information are dangerous. What I encourage is not blindly rejecting or accepting, even being moved by what I've posted here but rather keeping an open mind to views contrary to your own. Become convincible. Join legitimate focus groups led by doctors and scientists. Ask questions.  

While I appreciate your skepticism,  here is the link to the COVID info for my state.  Cases are indeed averaging 22 per day on our population of 1.4 million  

https://www.covid19.nh.gov/

My husband is a very well respected physician and is aware of multiple cases of myocarditis locally. CMO of the hospital is also holding off vaccinating his teenager. I, quite frankly, have more faith and trust in them and their 20 plus years of experience each.
 

Interestingly, my 13 year old had his physical today.  We vaccinate for everything (except flu) on schedule and the pediatrician never even asked if he was vaccinated for covid  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JeffB said:

At the request of @cruisinghawgI'll reluctantly respond to this and a few other comments:

Not really ........American Citizens have no Constitutional protection from being told by a state vaccinations are required. 

Nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,33 upholding the right of states to compel vaccination. The Court held that a health regulation requiring smallpox vaccination was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power that did not violate the liberty rights of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The police power is the authority reserved to the states by the Constitution and embraces “such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety” (197 U.S. at 25, 25 S.Ct. at 361).

It is good to understand the history of how the requirement for vaccinations emerged in the US. I's all right here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf

Look, I get the concern about children being vaccinated and putting thier safety above any sense of duty to the public health. This is true especially given the short history of the COVID vaccines approved in the US. One needs to be on point when they take that position.

In a that was then, this is now sort of dialogue, distrust of the state has increased dramatically since Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. But the FDA has remained as apolitical and balanced as any government agency in this pandemic - the rigorous testing protocols that pharma has to comply with in brining a drug to market, even under EUA, and with the exhaustive review process the FDA conducts, all the US approved vaccines are very safe. Yet misinformation about their effectiveness and safety flood social media platforms as in, "that decision (not to vaccinate a child) is a no brainer." It is? Really, based on, "Right now, with cases averaging 22 per day on a population of 1.4 million and multiple cases of myocarditis locally."  I doubt both the validity of the numbers and how these are being presented. These are the facts:

CDC numbers through late May estimated that 16 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis would be reported for every million second doses given to people ages 16 to 39. That works out to 0.0016%, or roughly 1 in 62,000.

By contrast, de Lemos said the best studies on college athletes put the chances of a young person getting myocarditis after COVID-19 at between 1% and 3%. That's roughly 1 in 50.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/06/21/should-rare-cases-of-heart-inflammation-put-your-covid-19-vaccine-plans-on-hold

There's more:

Though fewer children contract COVID-19, and fewer kids and young adults experience serious illness, there’s still some risk of contracting the virus. Since the beginning of the pandemic, at least 7.7 million COVID-19 cases have been reported among people ages 12 to 29. In May, that age group represented 33% of COVID-19 cases. Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2,767 coronavirus deaths have been reported among this age gr

https://whyy.org/articles/myocarditis-and-the-covid-19-vaccine-what-to-know-about-rare-heart-inflammation/

And then there is this:

Benefits and risks.

All of the foregoing facts seem to indicate that it is a no-brainer to not get your kids vaccinated. 

Profiteering by big pharma as an underlying cause of distrust of vaccines is also a frequently held parental concern. IMO, that denigrates the work of 100s of dedicated scientists that worked on these vaccines and deployed them in record time. I don't think that circumstance is fully understood by critics of big pharma. That pharma developed these in a public private enterprise is perfectly good reason for these companies to be rewarded and the public to benefit from the miracle drug the mRNA vaccines are. I reject that concern as largely baseless. Now of course you could argue that the Chinese and the Russians who deployed Sinovac and Sputnik through government nationalized production did just fine. But they didn't and countries that received these vaccines in a form of vaccine diplomacy are battling reinfections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/economy/china-vaccines-covid-outbreak.html   

One final comment on another set of stats that are floating around on social media platforms that vaccine nay-sayers grab on to without checking them out. The conflations and missuses of absolute and relative risk along with vaccine efficacy abound in social media platforms then trickle down to casual conversations. The  link will take you to a great article that describes these misuses, how believable they appear and how utterly dangerous they are to rational, well informed thought on getting vaccinated or not.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction/fact-check-why-relative-risk-reduction-not-absolute-risk-reduction-is-most-often-used-in-calculating-vaccine-efficacy-idUSL2N2NK1XA

All of this sounds like lecturing and badgering those who aren't vaccinated or don't want their kids vaccinated. I apologize for that because it is the least effective way to change people's minds on any number of COVID and Pandemic related views and especially in the hotly debated arena of vaccinations. Generally it's hard to do. But judgements based on inaccurate or misleading information are dangerous. What I encourage is not blindly rejecting or accepting, even being moved by what I've posted here but rather keeping an open mind to views contrary to your own. Become convincible. Join legitimate focus groups led by doctors and scientists. Ask questions.  

I will get into more later but once again you present CDC modeling as established science and yet again the CDC used outdated data. 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93340?trw=no

more articles later but just wanted to present this because there is still concern for children being vaccinated. To present this as anyone that disagrees with your assessment is an uneducated rube that spreads disinformation is not only arrogant but very insulting to the 1000s of doctors out there voicing their concerns and putting in the same kind of work you described above. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response @Jkaczano

New Hampshire has been recognized as a leading state in managing the SARS2 pandemic. The low seroprevalence does mitigate toward the rationality of your viewpoint on vaccinating your children. I've always held that COVID and it's impact is regional and generalizations that consider the entire US can, themselves, be misleading.

Having said that, the level of regional transmission in your state is still considered high (see the link below). So, to me, that would seem to mitigate toward vaccinating them. This statement, also at the link, seems to indicate a low occurrence rate of myocarditis such that, as the chart I posted above shows, the risks of Myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines are exceedingly low while the risk of COVID infections inthe cohort we are talking about is still fairly high:

There was not a safety signal identified at time of last VaST report (May 17th): reports of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination did not differ from expected baseline rates – Multiple causes of myocarditis, including: viral infections (cold viruses, COVID-19), bacterial infections (Lyme disease), etc.

https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/cdcs/covid19/documents/hcp-call-presentation-052721.pdf

I respect your position though vis-vis your children not getting vaccinated. Just keep an open mind and be convincible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was posted on the main page of this site today Royal Caribbean will offer full refunds to all passengers who at this time for personal reason don't wish to comply with their current health protocols and requirements. 

Some times these things take time but I'm glad to see RCC do the right thing by offering passengers who don't wish to get vaccinated or buy travel insurance all their money back and not Future Cruise Credits.  In fact according to the article on this site RCC will cash out your FCC's as long as they were issued as a result of the pandemic and not as a result of a hurricane. Meaning if you have an FCC from 2019 and you booked a nonrefundable ticket Royal will not refund your money on that cruise but any cruise impacted by COVID you will be able to received a FULL REFUND.

Although I'm fully vaccinated with this news my faith in Royal has been restored, better late than never.  I've always said fair is fair now this is a fair deal for everyone involved because now unvaccinated individuals truly have an option and they are not stuck with FCC's that they can't use as a result of their personal choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...