New health guidelines for the future

[caribill]

9 hours ago, WAMarathoner said:

You've got it mixed up.  Some disabilities preclude the vaccination.  THAT'S what is covered under the ADA.  Not simply refusing, but having the disability that makes getting the shot unwise. 

 

Get it if you want.  Your decision.

 

I wonder if the vaccination rate would go up if insurance companies would not cover any medical expenses for anyone that refused the vaccine (other than for medical reason) if that person later needed to be treated for Covid-19.

[Daniel A]

6 hours ago, caribill said:

 

I wonder if the vaccination rate would go up if insurance companies would not cover any medical expenses for anyone that refused the vaccine (other than for medical reason) if that person later needed to be treated for Covid-19.

Sounds like an idea worth exploring and it would probably work but that can also be a slippery slope.  Will companies later on be able to refuse coverage to former smokers or people who have ingested alcoholic beverages?

Edited November 12, 2020 by Daniel A

[caribill]

51 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Sounds like an idea worth exploring and it would probably work but that can also be a slippery slope.  Will companies later on be able to refuse coverage to former smokers or people who have ingested alcoholic beverages?

 

I think a proposal once was made that motorcycle riders who refused to wear a helmet would not be covered by insurance for head injuries in case of an accident. Freedom to not wear a helmet would have meant the freedom to pay their own medical bills.

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I think a proposal once was made that motorcycle riders who refused to wear a helmet would not be covered by insurance for head injuries in case of an accident. Freedom to not wear a helmet would have meant the freedom to pay their own medical bills.

As I remember, that recommendation didn't float because if they were denied coverage by private insurance, they would end up as a public charge under Medicaid.

[caribill]

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

As I remember, that recommendation didn't float because if they were denied coverage by private insurance, they would end up as a public charge under Medicaid.

That is also the way I remember it.

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, caribill said:

That is also the way I remember it.

I apologize to others for this bit of thread drift.  🥺

 

The justification of those states that passed laws requiring helmets was that if one got a head injury and required lifetime care, that individual would eventually exhaust the limits of their health insurance and end up as a public charge on Medicaid.  After a while without a huge outcry from the public, the politicians then went to requiring the use of seatbelts in automobiles using the same justification.  Now, in most states if you're not wearing your seatbelt you are an offender.

 

That's kind of like what I referred to a slippery slope.

 

As far as requiring vaccines, I want that to be a requirement for a person to set foot on a cruise ship.  Those who cannot be vaccinated due to a health condition would also be allowed on board with the understanding that they may well contract the virus in the cruise ship environment.  In theory, if a non vaccinated PAX got sick they wouldn't be a threat to the rest of us, and the non vaccinated knew the risks before boarding.  I would think that a business could mandate a vaccine as opposed to a government mandate.

[nomad098]

Whether Princess or countries require you to be vaccinated before entry will primarily depend on what sort of 1st generation vaccines we have.

 

If the the vaccine breaks transmission meaning a person can not carry or spread the disease then it makes sense to have a policy of only vaccinated people being allowed to cruise or enter other countries.

 

If the vaccine has a severe or a varying reduction in harm but still allows people to carry and spread the disease this then makes the call a lot more difficult.

Do you exclude certain groups of people or individuals because the vaccine is not as effective for them? Would people need to have both a vaccination certificate and a negative test

 

Many questions to be answered for example the mRNA vaccine contains an edited piece of the virus does this mean it's possible for a quick lateral flow test to give a false positive or even a false negative

 

It's a personal choice to be vaccinated.

It's the cruiselines choice in regards to needing a vaccination to cruise

It's a countries choice in regards to needing a vaccination to move in and out of their borders.

 

I would draw the line on when it comes to mandatory vaccinations to live in your own country and vilifying those that choose not to.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I apologize to others for this bit of thread drift.  🥺

 

The justification of those states that passed laws requiring helmets was that if one got a head injury and required lifetime care, that individual would eventually exhaust the limits of their health insurance and end up as a public charge on Medicaid.  After a while without a huge outcry from the public, the politicians then went to requiring the use of seatbelts in automobiles using the same justification.  Now, in most states if you're not wearing your seatbelt you are an offender.

 

That's kind of like what I referred to a slippery slope.

 

 

My state just mandated seat belts for the back seats as well as the front seats. Up until now only children were required to wear seat belts in the back seat. The slope got even more slippery.

 

Sorry, more thread drift.😒

[Daniel A]

23 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

My state just mandated seat belts for the back seats as well as the front seats. Up until now only children were required to wear seat belts in the back seat. The slope got even more slippery.

 

Sorry, more thread drift.😒

Originally, New York State said that enforcement of seat belts would only constitute a 'secondary offense' meaning you couldn't be stopped for that alone, you needed to commit another offence to have the seat belt law enforced.  In no time at all, the State starting issuing grants to Police Departments to conduct seatbelt checkpoints as the revenue from all those tickets could fund other wonderful State programs.  More lubrication for the slope...👎 

[Cruise Raider]

1 hour ago, nomad098 said:

Whether Princess or countries require you to be vaccinated before entry will primarily depend on what sort of 1st generation vaccines we have.

 

If the the vaccine breaks transmission meaning a person can not carry or spread the disease then it makes sense to have a policy of only vaccinated people being allowed to cruise or enter other countries.

 

If the vaccine has a severe or a varying reduction in harm but still allows people to carry and spread the disease this then makes the call a lot more difficult.

Do you exclude certain groups of people or individuals because the vaccine is not as effective for them? Would people need to have both a vaccination certificate and a negative test

 

Many questions to be answered for example the mRNA vaccine contains an edited piece of the virus does this mean it's possible for a quick lateral flow test to give a false positive or even a false negative

 

It's a personal choice to be vaccinated.

It's the cruiselines choice in regards to needing a vaccination to cruise

It's a countries choice in regards to needing a vaccination to move in and out of their borders.

 

I would draw the line on when it comes to mandatory vaccinations to live in your own country and vilifying those that choose not to.

 

Bravo!  Many key statements made here!  Thank you for posting. 

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Originally, New York State said that enforcement of seat belts would only constitute a 'secondary offense' meaning you couldn't be stopped for that alone, you needed to commit another offence to have the seat belt law enforced.  In no time at all, the State starting issuing grants to Police Departments to conduct seatbelt checkpoints as the revenue from all those tickets could fund other wonderful State programs.  More lubrication for the slope...👎 

And also for the slope, the driver gets the violation even if it is a passenger not wearing his or her seat belt.

 

I know I have driven into checkpoints where they look that your registration sticker and inspection sticker are up to date and also look into the car to see you are wearing your seat belt. As a friend with me once pointed out, you would have to be dumb to get the seat belt ticket knowing they are checking when you have time as the cars before you are stopped and checked. But people do somehow not think of that and get a ticket for no seat belt.

[Daniel A]

14 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And also for the slope, the driver gets the violation even if it is a passenger not wearing his or her seat belt.

As I remember it, that only applied if the unbelted passenger was a juvenile.  I recall being amazed that being a passenger in a car could get you a ticket.

 

Just before posting this, I double checked my post and it's correct.  Adult passenger gets the ticket, juvenile, the driver gets the ticket.

[ontheweb]

55 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

As I remember it, that only applied if the unbelted passenger was a juvenile.  I recall being amazed that being a passenger in a car could get you a ticket.

 

Just before posting this, I double checked my post and it's correct.  Adult passenger gets the ticket, juvenile, the driver gets the ticket.

Thanks, I think I may have been confusing it with the driver gets a ticket if a passenger has an open bottle or can of beer or any other liquor.

[nocl]

On 11/12/2020 at 9:20 AM, Daniel A said:

I apologize to others for this bit of thread drift.  🥺

 

The justification of those states that passed laws requiring helmets was that if one got a head injury and required lifetime care, that individual would eventually exhaust the limits of their health insurance and end up as a public charge on Medicaid.  After a while without a huge outcry from the public, the politicians then went to requiring the use of seatbelts in automobiles using the same justification.  Now, in most states if you're not wearing your seatbelt you are an offender.

 

That's kind of like what I referred to a slippery slope.

 

As far as requiring vaccines, I want that to be a requirement for a person to set foot on a cruise ship.  Those who cannot be vaccinated due to a health condition would also be allowed on board with the understanding that they may well contract the virus in the cruise ship environment.  In theory, if a non vaccinated PAX got sick they wouldn't be a threat to the rest of us, and the non vaccinated knew the risks before boarding.  I would think that a business could mandate a vaccine as opposed to a government mandate.

they would be a threat to those 10% for which the vaccine was not efficacous.

 

[Daniel A]

14 hours ago, nocl said:

they would be a threat to those 10% for which the vaccine was not efficacous.

 

Understood, but then those <10% will always have that risk whether on a cruise ship or working in an office, supermarket, riding on a train or a bus etc...

 

Would some type of antibodies test uncover those whose vaccinations didn't take?

[nocl]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Understood, but then those <10% will always have that risk whether on a cruise ship or working in an office, supermarket, riding on a train or a bus etc...

 

Would some type of antibodies test uncover those whose vaccinations didn't take?

I have not heard of any such method for any other vaccine. Might be able to do an antibody titer. But with so little known about the immune response probably would not tell much.

 

 

[KirkNC]

7 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Understood, but then those <10% will always have that risk whether on a cruise ship or working in an office, supermarket, riding on a train or a bus etc...

 

Would some type of antibodies test uncover those whose vaccinations didn't take?

Maybe but until the virus is gone, there is virtually nothing other then draconian actions a cruise line can take too 100% eliminate the risk.

[KirkNC]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

I have not heard of any such method for any other vaccine. Might be able to do an antibody titer. But with so little known about the immune response probably would not tell much.

 

 

That’s the other fly in the ointment, they don’t yet know how long the vaccine will work.

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, KirkNC said:

That’s the other fly in the ointment, they don’t yet know how long the vaccine will work.

I thought that I heard a few times that Pfizer thinks the vaccine will be good for at least a year but I don't have supporting citations for that.

[KirkNC]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

I thought that I heard a few times that Pfizer thinks the vaccine will be good for at least a year but I don't have supporting citations for that.

I heard that as well but right now that’s a best guess.

[Daniel A]

7 minutes ago, nocl said:

I have not heard of any such method for any other vaccine. Might be able to do an antibody titer. But with so little known about the immune response probably would not tell much.

According to NIH:

 

A positive hepatitis B surface antibody screening test means the person has lifetime immunity from hepatitis B (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009).  These antibodies appear in people who have been vaccinated against HBV, or who had been infected and cleared the virus from their bodies. 

[KirkNC]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

According to NIH:

 

A positive hepatitis B surface antibody screening test means the person has lifetime immunity from hepatitis B (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009).  These antibodies appear in people who have been vaccinated against HBV, or who had been infected and cleared the virus from their bodies. 

But coronavirus is a different animal, I don’t think anyone expects lifetime immunity.  It would be great if it happened.

[nocl]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

According to NIH:

 

A positive hepatitis B surface antibody screening test means the person has lifetime immunity from hepatitis B (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009).  These antibodies appear in people who have been vaccinated against HBV, or who had been infected and cleared the virus from their bodies. 

there are tests to detect antibodies, what I was getting at was tests to detect vaccine failures. the exceptions where even though they might show antibodies, may still catch the disease.

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

But coronavirus is a different animal, I don’t think anyone expects lifetime immunity.  It would be great if it happened.

if it is like other Corona viruses 12 months would be norm. but only time will tell

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, nocl said:

there are tests to detect antibodies, what I was getting at was tests to detect vaccine failures. the exceptions where even though they might show antibodies, may still catch the disease.

But wouldn't a negative result from an antibody screening test indicate a Covid-19 vaccine failure?  

 

P.S.  I'm not disagreeing, I'm questioning to learn more about it.  😐

Edited November 14, 2020 by Daniel A