nomad098

1 hour ago, Ourusualbeach said:

The cruise line is providing the required test to be able to return home. Nothing anyone needs to worry about. 

Unless your planning to have a few days post cruise at which point you need to organise and pay for your own test.

6 minutes ago, GOTTODOIT said:

I certainly won't be cruising with you or any others who have such negative attitudes to the well being of yourself and of fellow cruisers,  Good on NCL putting in such a policy,  you don't want to have the vaccine that is your prerogative and fortunately here in Australia we will not be seeing you here or any others who choose not to be vaccinated.  You won't be flying on any airline into Australia without a vaccination certificate,  Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas has said No Vaccination, No Flying, 

Trailfinders and other UK travel agents have already stated they will put their unvaccinated customers on other airlines if Qantas introduces this requirement without government mandated vaccination rules.

In the UK vaccination to fly is not seen as a big issue by the airlines but the requirement to have  expensive covid test flying out and back into the country adding about £1000 to your flights or holiday for a family of 4 is seen as a big issue.

33 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

Carried away?  Name one line of my post that was incorrect. 

OK

14 hours ago, SNJCruisers said:

Royal, Celebrity & Princess are requiring vaccines for all adults, and only negative testing for kids

1) Princess are not requiring vaccinations for adult crew members

2) Kids must be vaccinated to travel on Princess.

3) As per Princess announcement only UK only cruises require a vaccination.

9 hours ago, nomad098 said:

They are the only mass market line requiring 100% vaccinations

This all depends on the definition of "crew" is this everyone working on the ship or just those directly employed by NCL, do contractors and subcontractors count as crew? I don't know you could be right.

100% vaccination may not actually be the optimal approach with this disease and runs its own risks.

Measles jab should be scientifically and technically 100% effective in reality it's 99% and there is not a scientist on the planet who can explain why after decades of research, so what do you think the chances are that a disease we have known about for less than 18 months might circumvent having 100% of cruisers vaccinated. 

I do know that the UK and Israeli scientific community has concerns that if you have a group of fully vaccinated people in close confines but still being exposed to a virus that is still in general circulation you run the risk of a vaccine resistant variant, the example they used was a vaccinated nursing home having multiple visitors both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

We are constantly told by the government scientists we are at a precarious point in the vaccination process, the more you pressure the virus the higher the risk of a bad mutation and leaving an out for the virus might be the best approach according to some scientists.

This is why "HANDS, FACE, SPACE" will still be in effect when other restrictions are lifted and all adults are offered a vaccine.

I am not against having vaccines to cruise, I waiting for my second AZ jab and my wife has had both Pfizer jabs, I just don't think it is as 100% cut and dried solution as it appears on the surface.

3 minutes ago, Sailing12Away said:

I have to question the robustness of this study though. Are we talking pre-covid types of behavior in schools, or post-covid? Huge difference. Kids are behind plastic dividers now, teachers have to wipe and disinfect every surface multiple times throughout the day, lunch is sitting at your desk as opposed to eating in a big cafeteria, other 'normal' activities have been modified, etc.

 

Having family members currently working in the school, their day-to-day routine is not "normal" compared to pre-covid times. If the transmission rates are low between kids and their fellow students/teachers, it's because the endless precautions they're taking are working - not because kids aren't petri dish vectors of disease transmission. Trying to implement such cleaning routines and isolation on ships is certainly possible, but it's too early in the game for most of the cruise lines to take that risk.

From the sounds of it a lot different here in the UK and certainly not what is happening in my kids school, no plastic dividers, enhanced cleaning at the end of the day, kids are supposed to keep to their own bubbles of year groups about 250 kids and teachers, eating pack lunches in the canteens if wet or outside if dry, kids all mix on bus transportation going to or leaving school wearing masks and year group bubbles mix throughout the day and at home with siblings, school has never closed due to covid-19, other schools in my area have closed for as little as 1 suspected case.

The majority of schools in the UK never closed completely, still educating the children of key workers, vulnerable kids and economically disadvantaged kids. Some private schools never closed. As much as teachers were talking precautions so were other professions that saw a 3 fold increase above teachers

The study came from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) if you don't think it is robust enough take it up with them. If we don't believe or trust their information on this why should we believe them when they report excess mortality or other extremely important issues

Here is a BBC article on it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55795608

54 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

Here's a couple of good sources for what you are asking:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

You need to extremely careful when analysing the data.

Out of the last 50 years 2020 ranks 35th for mortality in the UK

The links you posted covers the period 2014-2019 and there is no mention that for the UK we had 2 years where mortality in the UK was dramatically lower than the norm skewing the data lower for the 5 year average. 

The data is not wrong but should be taken with reference to wider data sets.   

3 hours ago, SNJCruisers said:

Have to applaud NCL for acting just like the fish going against the current on their carpeting onboard.  They are the only mass market line requiring 100% vaccinations.

 

Royal, Celebrity & Princess are requiring vaccines for all adults, and only negative testing for kids, while Carnival has not come out with a policy yet since they have not decided to embark from any non USA ports at this time.  NCL's policy is only in effect through the end of October, which just happens to coincide with the ending of the CSO  by the CDC.

 

Who knows what will happen come November 1, but a lot can and will change over the next 6.5 months.  Look at how much has changed in the past 6.5 months since October 1, 2020.

Before you get carried away applauding NCL lets put a few things into a different perspective and correct some oversights.

Royal & Celebrity - all staff, passengers over 18 vaccinated and tested, kids tested in the UK

Princess & P.O. part of Carnival Corp - All passengers vaccinated and tested, crew vaccination not required but crew must isolation for 2 weeks onboard. In the UK

MSC - testing required for all in the UK

NCL - All vaccinated and testing.

Looking at this it looks more like the CLIA have gotten together to put their own covid trials in place to see which works better. 

The perception is NCL are doing the best to protect it's passengers but what we understand now about the science and some basic logic would not agree.

From what is understood from this disease is:

A group full of vaccinated people is at a far greater risk than a group of unvaccinated kids. Protection with a vaccine at best 95%, kids natural protection 99.99947% based on UK figures.

Science and studies have shown us that teachers and those working with children risk factor is no higher than other professions not working with children, with those working with younger children being at a very slightly lower risk and the fact of the matter is that those at the highest risk are in adult facing roles.

This would suggest that though children may or may not transmit the disease amongst themselves. They are not actively passing the disease to adults even in casual close contact situations through airborne transmission.

The risk of mixing tested unvaccinated kids with vaccinated people is statistically miniscule. If NCL is not prepared to take this risk with covid-19 then the next logical step must be to require a influenza vaccination for all passengers as the risk to covid-19 vaccinated children from influenza far outweighs the risk of covid-19 to them by huge orders of magnitude. 

Based on health risk analysis there are huge swathes of risks that are far greater than the risk posed by tested unvaccinated kids and surely these should also be excluded from a cruise, alcohol, allergens, seafood and the list goes on.

Sociology and psychology studies show that adults in general behave better when kids are around and are more inhibited,  less inhibited adults with a unlimited supply of "free" alcohol sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

The effectiveness of the vaccines are also linked to age, if you have a cruise ship filled with people who would bring the average age up, that would statistically lower the effectiveness of the vaccine to below that of a cruise carrying a broad range of ages including tested unvaccinated kids.

NCL have made a business decision and quite possibly a political decision in regards to the CDC, but only time will tell if the decision is based in actual science and logic or just the perception of it.  

All depends on where you booked

If you booked in EU or UK your covered by the European Package Travel Directive or UK package holiday regulation, the EU one is just cloned from the UK one at the moment and vice a versa.

This quite clearly states that if a travel company alters it's terms and conditions including its own health policies and you are unwilling or unable to comply you are entitled to a full refund.

However if a country alters its health policy and you are unwilling or unable to comply you are not entitled to a full refund.

If you booked in the US sorry I have no idea.

7 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

@nomad098 thank you for such a detailed post. I appreciate it. I’m wondering your thoughts on the Johnson&Johnson since it doesn’t use mRNA.

Johnson & Johnson is a viral vector vaccine similar to the AZ vaccine. And looking at the reports it looks to have to be having similar issues with side effects.

In the same way people should not be putting mRNA vaccines on a pedestal and ignoring some of the issues people should be careful about casting aspersions at viral vector vaccines or other vaccines because they have issues. All vaccines have issues at an individual level but have benefits at a population level.

Would you take this medication with these side effects:

drowsiness
excitement or hyperactivity (especially in children)
headache
new or worsening dizziness
blurred vision
ringing in the ears
dry mouth, nose, or throat
problems with coordination
fainting
dizziness
nausea
fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat

Or if you accidently take the wrong dose 

large pupils (black circles in the centers of the eyes)

flushed face

drowsiness or sleepiness

excitation or hyperactivity

hallucinations (seeing things or hearing voices that do not exist)

difficulty understanding reality

confusion

difficulty speaking or swallowing

unsteadiness

seizures

unresponsiveness or coma (loss of consciousness for a period of time)

People do it's a common sea sickness medication

20 minutes ago, Laszlo said:

Funny you should mention HIV. My friend Katalin Karikó who was instrumental in developing mRNA and will most likely get Nobel Prize for it started out with HIV. She is now putting a lot of work into cancers

 

 

1 hour ago, Navis said:

As many have said, no one if forcing anyone to do anything ... the choice is up to each of us. But none of us are free from the consequences of the decisions we make.

 

Some of what you say however is already being taken into consideration. About recovered COVID patients for example, in the countries that are requiring vaccines, they exempt anyone who has fully recovered within the last 90 days of the date of their departure.  Why is that, you might ask? Because of the actual detail in these reports and studies rather than just the headlines (none of which are as key catching as “6 month immunity with vaccination.”  
 

Actually read the whole studies across the world and see that they actually say ... the immune response generated by the vaccine is far to superior and has a lower decay rate than natural immunity. Tests run on blood samples of people with natural immunity and vaccine immunity (with roughly the same date of infection/injection) show that natural immunity wanes much faster and is much more narrow than the mRNA vaccines.

 

Here’s the other kicker ... studies have shown that natural immunity is also effected significantly with the introduction of variant strains! Look at the studies on the impact the vaccines on the UK and South African variant (haven’t seen any on the Brazilian variant yet). With respect to vaccines, they are for sure less effective (roughly 80% effective rather than 94%), but they still work at preventing all death and serious disease and at 80% are enough to maintain herd immunity (if and when reached).  Natural immunity has proven not to work that way ... they estimate at best 50% against variants and unknown impact on deaths and hospitalizations (they don’t have the data on prior infections yet).  So, unless you get reinfected with the same variant you are again rolling the dice.
 

As I mentioned in another thread I think, I went back and forth on whether I should get vaccinated ... I’m in my 40s and thankfully in good health so i’m it even eligible yet, but I have decided I will for many reasons, all of which my primary care physician brought to my attention:

 

1) mRNA vaccines are not really new ... they have been in development for over a decade now. They only difference here is the message. (The analogy he gave me was to think of it as the industry has been working on a proven safe envelope for years .. they are only modifying the paper inside the envelope for COVID). He emphasized to me that these are not in any way, shape or form, gene editing

 

2) mRNA is a fundamental aspect of human existence as our cells receive literally billions of them a day

 

3) The risk of actual infection from an mRNA vaccine is non existent while the risk for other forms of virus based vaccines is not high but it is not zero either

 

4) mRNA vaccines promote broad-based immunity that has shown to so far provide more than adequate protection against current variants and that such protection is far superior to strain specific natural immunity.

 

5) it is true that any possible long term side effects of mRNA vaccines remain unknown, but he cautioned me to weigh that against the emerging long term side effects for a meaningful portion of of those who have recovered. He has seen some very debilitating side effects that have lasted over 9 months now.

 

Also, he sent a link to a recent article that hasn’t received much attention that was really very exciting. It talks about how mRNA has been research for years as a possible cure for HIV (as we know, the issue with HIV has always been that it mutates at and astronomical rate and can’t be pinned down through traditional vaccine approaches). Anyway, these researchers began meeting with Moderna folks while they were working on their COVID vaccine. They worked together to modify the message and ran some tests and studies and it looks like this mRNA vaccine is very promising for HIV as well! My doc added at the end: “the way to think of traditional vaccines vs mRNA vaccines is when the body becomes infected the immune system ‘takes a picture’ and remembers that virus for future defense. Change the picture and you alter the impact the immune system has in the key period while the virus duplicates in your body. mRNA is more like ‘stem cell’ immunity. Rather than taking a picture or the virus, it recognizes all the colors in the picture and crates immunity against the colors.”

 

This is all a long-winded way of saying we each get to make our own choice,  it we should make it with all the facts available. Whatever everyone decides I hope we all remain safe and healthy and I look forward to reading all your trip reports from future cruises! Be they on NCL or another line.

Having had my first dose of AZ and my wife having had both doses Pfizer vaccine and the kids all up to date with theirs I understand and support the use of vaccines and the need to create new ones however some people seem to overlook some of the realities of the situation in the pursuit of getting back to normal.

Katalin Karikó according to her papers is well aware that synthetic mRNA can and does cause poor autoimmune response outcomes that can kill some people, this is why the synthetic mRNA is placed in a lipid envelope developed by Katalin Karikó, though she has found a way to make this safe it is totally reliant on correct storage, transportation and end administration and correct usage of the vaccine. Don't shake the vial as this can release the synthetic mRNA from the lipid.

In various studies for mRNA cancer treatment, death from an autoimmune response from experimental synthetic mRNA treatments was noted and reported in most studies.

Natural mRNA has been known since DNA was unravelled, synthetic mRNA  used in the last 10 to 15 years depending which papers you read, no vaccine has ever been created using this technology, Moderna tried to create a Zika vaccine and failed all other uses of synthetic mRNA have been for experimental treatments not vaccines.

Natural mRNA and synthetic mRNA can be used to help alter genetics and epigenetics, the covid vaccines are not designed to alter genetics but it is grossly misleading to suggest that natural mRNA or synthetic mRNA cannot have an effect on genetics especially when used in conjunction with CRISPR. or used to create a R LOOP in cancer treatments which alters a cancerous cells genetic functions. mRNA effect on epigenetics and epigenetics are not fully understood by the scientific community.

Using mRNA to mutate a fish to be bioluminescent alters the fishes DNA then having 50% of the progeny also carry the mutation shows how powerful mRNA technology can be.

According to the founder of Moderna his company was set up to use mRNA to intervene in genetic diseases, why use mRNA if it has no effect on genetics, yet people keep insisting mRNA cannot effect DNA.

The covid mRNA vaccines will not cause a person to develop covid-19 but that is little comfort to many families in countries like Norway who lost frail and elderly loved ones due to the side effects of the vaccine, people who may have never contracted the disease if good protocols where in place.

Pfizer studies have shown a strong response and efficacy but I would not say this is any better or worse than natural immunity as studies have shown SARS COV 1 survivors still have strong immunity nearly 20 years later, only time will tell which vaccines or natural immunity performs better. A lot of interesting studies coming out of Asia in regards to natural immunity brought on by exposure to other coronaviruses and 1 study in regards to the protective effect of the common cold when exposed to covid-19

A genuine and real concern that is being raised is the issue of storing autoimmune issues for the future if synthetic mRNA vaccines and treatments become widespread. In Pfizers submission to the regulatory authorities in the UK they admitted that do not know precisely where the synthetic strand goes they could only report where they have not found it, they suspect as the CDC has stated that it is broken down and absorbed by the body in it's constituent parts but they cannot prove this. 

As with any new technology it's not all sweetness and light and only time will tell if this is a door that should have been left shut.

So when someone says they are not interested in a experimental vaccine to cruise and think it's wrong to be excluded from parts of their previous life unless they take an experimental vaccine they do have a relevant point as the science of synthetic mRNA is not fully understood or set in stone.

NCL and the others will set whatever policy they think they need in the best interests of their business even if I don't think all the rules make logical or scientific sense in some areas.

Just out of curiosity if the CDC accepts NCL's proposal will NCL then immediately issue a refund for bookings and not a cruise credit to all those people that contact them who have bookings but cannot or will not have all their party vaccinated.

It took me nearly 100 days to get my NCL refund when they cancelled last March extremely unfair to make people wait that long again when the cruise company knowingly changes the requirement to cruise from the proposed date of 4th of July.

Before the NCL fanboys chime in 14 days is the maximum amount of time it should take to issue a refund, last year was unusual this year they should be prepared. I know the US is different but here in the UK and in the EU 14 days is the legal requirement to issue a refund.

If NCL changes the rules they have a moral and legal duty to make it right with affected customers.

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It sounds to me like rationing more than a pre-planned program of vaccination.

Not sure they do seem to be having enough deliveries of vaccine to run a 12 week schedule according to Canadian news sources.

In the UK the government has decided to give over 70's a third dose and for most that will be in the space of less than a year.

Why? no one seems to have a satisfactory answer, precautionary is what we are told but no scientific data or evidence to back the decision up, but it does make for good trial data.

2 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

 

 

@wowzz, I would appreciate you quoting a source or two for this "evidence".  I have failed to find any since several Canadian provinces saw a sliver of light and jumped to 16 week gap.  The mfr (Pfizer) does not recommend anything like 12 or 16 weeks.  The CDC, the EMA (Europe), our own PHAC (Canada) are all at 3-6 weeks max.  In Canada, a separate body of medical people - the NACI - came out with something to suggest up to 16 weeks okay.  But they provided no details as to what the decision was based on. 

 

As @dogmentioned, the NACI is already reviewing what they very recently published.  Seems like they jumped the gun and we may see a revision - at least for more vulnerable groups. 

 

I think it is legitimate to question the continued efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine (and, BTW, what you stated above, @wowzz, is not a panacea across all vaccines).  I am addressing the Pfizer in this posting and its efficacy long term may be compromised by implementing such a long gap.  There have not been studies done with such a gap AFAIK. 

 

I have submitted formal inquiries to our Federal and Provincial authorities to explain the science or medical rationale for the decision.  When I received my second appointment notice, I wrote them back requesting an earlier date per known guidelines (not NACI).  It was recent, so I don't have a reply yet, but not very hopeful.  Just forcing them to address the issue.

 

Since the 16-week gap idea came out, the chorus of questions has grown.  Ontario jumped on it as a political move, thinking to vaccinate more people once was better than vaccinating less people properly.

 

1 hour ago, dog said:

I wrote my local health department and got an answer to why 16 week delay between shots. Answer : we are doing what we were told to do by the government. 

According to the MHRA in the UK apparently Moderna did run trials of 12 weeks between doses and it made no difference to efficacy, Moderna seem to have done a good job of keeping that quiet, the rational according to the MHRA was if it works for Moderna's mRNA vaccine the same should apply to Pfizer's mRNA vaccine whether they are right or not I have no idea. 

I had the AstraZeneca vaccine but when all said and done we all just part of a global "Phase IV Clinical Trial" maybe Canada's part is to trial 16 week dosing regime.  

40 minutes ago, nocl said:

More likely for those places where they actually might sail they are setting the requirements based upon what the country they are sailing out of requires them to do.

 

For those that have little likely hood of sailing why list more restrictions when it is unclear if they will sail or what those restrictions might be.

You are probably right,

but a strange situation for someone from the UK, they cannot book a UK only cruise today for August because they cannot have the vaccination for medical reasons or they will only have had 1 dose because of their age but they can book an August Med cruise today which according to Princess does not have a vaccination policy. Surely a better statement at the end would have been "All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated. This is subject to change due to local restrictions"

"All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated." This statement will now form part of the cruise contract in the UK from the moment it was published until it is altered.

If Princess alters the T&C's in the future in regards to vaccinations they will be required by law to either obtain agreement from the customer who booked under the old terms to adhere to the new policy or issue a full refund within 14 days.

Last year cruiselines and holiday companies were given leeway in returning customers money after the legal 14 day period, this year the authorities are cracking down with one large company in the UK being given a deadline to return it's customers money, if owed for more than 14 days or face financial penalties.

Strange times we are living in and it must be difficult for cruiselines with an ever evolving situations, just heard Denmark will lift all mandatory restrictions once over 50's are vaccinated.

4 hours ago, wowzz said:

No, it's because no one knows at present how long any of the vaccines will keep you protected. The possibility of a top up vaccine in September is, if you like, a belt and braces measure,  to prevent any possible increased demand on the NHS next winter. 

2 hours ago, beg3yrs said:

Nobody is fully protected after the vaccine, just mostly protected to the tune of around 95% in some cases. The studies to see just how long the vaccine protection lasts are on-going so a booster jab is simply being extra careful.

The problem with vaccinating large numbers of people quickly is that you can force a virus to mutate in unexpected ways to survive, UK and US scientists have been talking about this for a while now.

Studies out of the US are showing yearly influenza vaccines are blunting the effectiveness of the vaccines

Booster jabs may sound like a good idea but until you have authoritative scientific information you could be making a rod for your own back.

On 3/25/2021 at 2:09 PM, Syracusefan44 said:

Received this from a friend who was inquiring about the Princess cruises in the UK. 
 

 

Funny thing is UK government just announced that over 70's will be offered a booster jab come September to help fully vaccinate against covid and it's variants, so would this mean that over 70's are not fully protected until they have had their booster shot in September?

Another strange one Princess require people to be vaccinated based upon their own definition for cruises out of the UK for cruises around the UK, where the vaccine uptake will be around 70%+ but according to their own information there is no vaccination requirement for all the other cruises they presently have on sale in areas where uptake looks to be a lot lower

 **Vaccine policy Given the advanced progress of the UK vaccination programme and strong expressed preference on the part of our guests for this limited series of UK coastal cruises, these UK sailings on Regal Princess and Sky Princess (running from July 31 through to September 28) will be for UK resident, COVID-19 vaccinated guests only. For these cruises the definition of “vaccinated” is a minimum of seven days following the second dose of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines being administered. Proof of vaccination and the dates given will be required (approved forms of evidence will be confirmed closer to time of departure) and this will be required to be shown at the terminal prior to boarding. Failure to provide this evidence will result in denial of boarding. There is no age restriction on this series of UK coastal cruises but all guests of all ages must meet the requirements of the COVID-19 vaccination policy. All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated. 

Seems to me that Princess are setting their policy by social media posts and the personal beliefs of their executives rather than sound scientific advice or advice from the UK government.

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

Seriously? I don't think so. I'm not about to research the actual science behind the vaccines. I've tried and those abstracts are enough to give me a headache. There are more qualified scientists such as virologists, immunologists and such that dissect the research. Let them have at it then I'll look at their results.

 

From where I'm sitting, the FDA has granted emergency authorization for the mRNA vaccines. That is good enough for me. The MHRA gave a Condition of Authorization for the Pfizer vaccine. Also, good enough for me although I had the Moderna vaccine. 

Unlike you I do not have the same blind faith and trust in scientists and Governments as I am aware of the very poor behaviour of both of these groups in the past all of which is a matter of public record, I am also aware that the FDA and MHRA have licenced treatments in the past in good faith only to have to rescind and recall treatments/drugs, so I research and verify and do not take things at face value.

From the CDC website you are pointing people to

Facts about COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

They cannot give someone COVID-19.

• mRNA vaccines do not use the live virus that causes COVID-19.

They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.

• mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.
• The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.

First bullet point absolutely true

Second bullet point only partially true, mRNA does not enter the nucleus but this is very misleading statement, numerous studies have shown the coding of mRNA can and does have have an effect on DNA. To make a Zebrafish bio luminescent you code mRNA to alter the fishes DNA in vitro. You can also use mRNA to close off parts of the DNA structure altering the function of the DNA, this is used effectively with end stage cancer patients with 27% of end stage patients showing significant delays in the progress of the cancer. The whole point of the mRNA vaccine is to create the spike protein of a virus without creating the whole virus manipulating the viruses genetic makeup. 

Third bullet point is a completely untrue as Pfizer has stated they do not know what happens to the synthetic mRNA in their submission to the MHRA, they can only confirm where they have not found it. So how would the CDC know something that neither the scientists who developed the vaccine or the manufacturers who produced and studied it are unaware of.

5 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I don't know what sites you are getting your information from but I would much prefer to believe the CDC. I'm not and have never been into conspiracy theories so will stick with what our government has put out there.

 

 

US Government

CDC reporting system

UK Government

UK yellow card system

FDA, MHRA and EMA

Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca submissions to the medical authorities

Biochemist Katalin Kariko responsible for synthetic mRNA development which created the covid-19 vaccine for Pfizer and the numerous papers she has published, including her papers on the server adverse reaction of the immune system caused by synthetic mRNA which lead to her breakthrough discovery of placing the synthetic mRNA in a lipid envelope.

Numerous scientist developing mRNA treatments and vaccines with published peer reviewed papers

Taking information from a website  even a government one and declaring it to be the truth without  evidence, confirmation or verification by definition would make you a conspiracy theorist. 

Again Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and the other vaccine companies have produced amazing feats of science but that does not mean people should subjectively ignore the actual research behind the science. 

11 hours ago, coffeebean said:

Do you realize that the messenger leaves the body quickly after it has given the "instructions". Gone, finito, dissipated, no more, donesville.

 

That means that if someone does not have a reaction to these mRNA vaccines within a couple of weeks, there is no long term effect that can possibly happen. Read up on these vaccines. Read the part under FACTS ABOUT COVID-19 mRNA VACCINES

 

Understanding mRNA Vaccines

 

The information posted on the CDC link is at best misleading and at worst factually incorrect.

FACTS

1) According to the submission by Pfizer to the MHRA they do not know what happens to the synthetic RNA as laboratory tests showed it was not expelled in the urine,fecal matter, saliva or sweat of the lab animals, neither was it detected in the bloodstream. It is suspected that the body breaks down the synthetic RNA into its constituent parts but where it goes is unknown, it may well be expelled or it may be absorbed into the body. It was also shown that part of the chemical makeup of the vaccine not the synthetic mRNA settled in the liver of the animals and the livers were slightly larger than the control animals.

2) Experiments have been underway for years using synthetic mRNA to alter the DNA of Zebrafish as it was initially believed that mRNA cannot alter DNA because it does not enter into the nucleus. The experiments confirmed synthetic mRNA and natural mRNA can and do alter DNA. In Zebrafish when synthetic mRNA was inserted in vitro into the fish causing them to fluoresce altering their DNA. The experiment also proved that synthetic mRNA was transgenic as 50% of the offspring also fluoresed. This does not mean the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine will alter a person's DNA, this would only happen if it was designed to. But it it could be used as a tool in the future to alter the genetics of a person to help control or stop the development of genetic diseases.

3) mRNA was also designed to alter the DNA of cancer cells by creating a "R-Loop" this was designed to stop cancer cells reproducing, this was only ever studied in stage 4, end stage cancer patients as one of the side effects was an autoimmune reaction which sometimes killed the patient.

This was specifically pointed out in the studies and it was recommended that any future studies would need to have the candidates screened extensively.

4) It was known from the very beginning of synthetic mRNA research that it can and does cause an autoimmune response which can prove fatal. This is why it needs to put in a lipid/hydro gel envelope and needs to be stored and handled with great care.

5) No one knows what the long term implications on health are with synthetic mRNA because no one before this vaccine has lived long term after treatment. The body may well expel or absorb the synthetic mRNA to no detriment to the individual or it may cause autoimmune issues in the future, there is real concern in the scientific community into finding the answer.

mRNA vaccines and treatments have shown and are showing a very promising future for modern medicine but this does not mean that the risks and potential problems should be hidden or misreported by organisations like the CDC.

My wife received the Pfizer vaccine and will have her second dose on Sunday we were well aware of the history and risks involved with the mRNA technology before deciding to accept the vaccine but the risk to my wife from covid-19 is and was far greater due to her cancer diagnosis.

I have received my first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine the day the EU announced suspension due to worries over blood clots, I was not worried simply because I had read the research and already understood the risks and benefits. 

The EU and news media failed to report that those that had received the Pfizer vaccine were reporting more blood clots than AstraZeneca vaccine but this was and is still lower than the number reported in an unvaccinated population.  

But it is very concerning when organisations are not transparent with the public, when important research into mRNA treatments that laid the foundations for the mRNA vaccines is dismissed by internet fact checking organisations as fake news and when Governments and other bodies use misinformation concerning vaccines as a political, economic tool and for financial gain.

31 minutes ago, busymumofthree said:

I am really really hoping to book for the Regal Princess when the bookings open on Wednesday this week BUT it seems a real risk that we wouldn't actually be able to go.  

 

(Apologies to non UK cruisers, this will be of no interest to you.)

 

My reasoning is this - we are a family of 6 and its my 60th in mid August so we had booked the Regal to Scandinavia for the occasion (well, it was the Grand, then switched to the Regal).  So the possibility of a quick break instead is so exciting.  BUT although my husband and I will have been fully vaccinated, and so will my priority group 6 daughters in their 20s, my 30 year old son and his fiancé are only 50:50 likely to have had their second vaccination, by my reckoning.  With the April vaccine delays already signposted, age 40+ are looking at May, so I'm guessing age 30+ will be June..... which is touch and go for the standard 11 week gap to have had a second dose by the time we would sail.

 

Thing is, do I book and hope for the best and then accept we may have to cancel (and we've had 4 cruises cancelled in the last year so our luck's not that good!) or do I wait to see when their first vaccine is and count the weeks forward to see if we could go and then book....? (And hearing how fast P&O have sold today, the ship could easily be full anyway by then.)

 

I know no-one can really advise me, and this couldn't be more of a first world problem, I'm just thinking our loud really ..... but if my logic is right, its not just children who are excluded this summer, but also the under 40s.....

 

 

I agree no way they can advertise themselves as a family cruise line this year when they have set themselves up as selective adult only cruise line based on the science of facebook, tik tok, whatsapp and cruisecritic.

More worryingly this only applies to this new batch of UK only cruises according to Princess

" All other Princess Cruises holidays currently on sale do not require guests to be vaccinated."

As it stands it looks like because the UK have done well with it's vaccination program they can afford to discriminate based on age, comorbidities or profession, but in areas not doing well with the vaccination like Europe anyone is welcome 

Was looking at Princess UK cruise this year as we expect our RCL cruise in the Med to be cancelled.

Will be fully vaccinated by the end of May but with the rules they have in place they quite obviously do not want or need my families holiday £££'s. 

1 hour ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Basing the spacing of Moderna or Pfizer vaccines based in experience with Astra Zeneca is laughable. They aren’t the same type

of vaccine. 
having everyone’s records back to 1940, means absolutely NOTHING 

"Basing the spacing of Moderna or Pfizer vaccines based in experience" really what experience do they have for an entirely new method of creating a vaccine. The only real practical use for this type of technology before covid-19 was an experimental rabies treatment and experimental end stage cancer treatments. And this was only allowed because the treatment was slightly less risky than not treating the diseases.

Having records for the last 70+ years provide a knowledge base to look at the effects and outcomes of immunisations and other medical procedures, this also includes experimental treatments like mRNA. Having this knowledge base enabled doctors to look at existing drug profiles to aid treatment.

According to this pre print in the Lancet AstraZeneca vaccine is certainly in the top league, with evidence showing that spacing of the dosage being 2 fold better

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268

Latest non peer reviewed data from scientists in the UK shows that both Pfizer and AZ both providing substantial protection, an interesting read in regards to spacing of the doses.

https://www.gponline.com/know-effectiveness-covid-19-vaccines/article/1708986

58 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

No one knows because it was not studied that way. There is a chance of that. There is also a chance (more likely) that 12 weeks later, the T cell response to the second dose will be FAR less robust, because the affects of the first dose have long been degraded.  “Stacking” the T cell response in a well defined, short timeframe creates a greater response and subsequently stronger antibody response. This  I must assume is the reason the American CDC declined to allow this type of scheduling here. 

Pfizer and Moderna dosing protocols are arbitrary they chose a dosing protocol and stuck with it according to both Pfizer and Moderna. 

Spacing the dosing in the UK is partly based on the effectiveness of the Astrazeneca/Oxford based upon dosing protocols set up in the trials

And is also based upon very robust historical scientific evidence carried out over many decades into immunisation carried out by the national health service. Holding and having access to records going back to the 1940's of everyone's immunisations provides a wealth of knowledge. 

Because Pfizer and Moderna chose 1 single dosing protocol and stated they would not advise changing this. If the CDC or US Government did alter the dosing and something went wrong who would be legally liable? Certainly not Pfizer or Moderna

Right or wrong the UK have chosen to listen and believe their scientific advisers and experts not the manufacturers of the mRNA vaccines and only time will tell which course was correct.

No problem with 100% vaccinated ship the problem comes from the wording "threshold"

100% vaccinated ship

0% ill

5% positive tests

Quite possible given the effectiveness of the vaccines, the unknown factor of spread between vaccinated individuals, the inability to have accurate testing, the PCR test can come back positive months after exposure and the infectiousness of the disease given tight quarters.

All these reasons and more could lead to the quarantine of a ship of healthy people because of the wording "threshold" 

9 hours ago, nocl said:

The primary issue is that AZ made a mess of their clinical trials and combined a number of trials with different protocols with a meta analysis.  They did not have a good mix of demographics across all of their trials.  For example the half dose data that indicated very high efficacy was in a small group in Brazil and included no one over 55.

 

If the trials had been designed and executed well they would not be having these issues. It may work just fine in the different groups, unfortunately the trial is lacking in some details.

You have quite obviously been reading internet conspiracy theories and poor research.

Try something a little more authoritative.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

A little insight into how and why decisions were made with the full knowledge and consent of the MHRA.

3 minutes ago, 4774Papa said:

I read that there was to be an online site that would allow one to pull up who had the vaccine.  That is likely still in the planning stage.

UK governments over the years have spent 100's of millions pounds trying to develop an integrated NHS system and we are still nowhere near having one.

6 minutes ago, gizfish said:

I believe you are confusing the antibody test with the actual Covid test.  Antibodies will be positive during and following having been infected with Covid (whether symptomatic or not) for some time.  (The amount of time is not yet known.)  The actual covid test will be positive as long as you have enough viral load for it to register.  In some cases, positives continue after the more common 14 possible days of infectiousness due to the test picking up fragments of Covid RNA.  In those cases, which are not the norm, the person is no longer infective.

Unfortunately there has been many documented cases where a person has recovered from covid and tested positive months later.

We had 1 poor lad from Wales who went out to Italy to help out in there fight with the virus, contracted covid-19 and was required to isolate in a converted hotel until he had 2 negative results it took him 3 months of weekly tests. Whilst in isolation he was talking to an Italian man whilst out on separate balconies and the man told him he had been there for 4 months waiting for a negative test.

The PCR has been shown to produce up to 97% false positives in those who have recovered from covid-19 due how many amplification cycles it goes through, this was proven in a court case in Portugal.

More worryingly is the fact that the quick lateral flow test used in the UK and around the world was shown to produce a higher number of false negatives around 20-25% this increased when the individual was not experienced in administering the test to around 45-50%