Will U.S. Passengers Comply with the Covid Requirements On Board?

[slidergirl]

The county I live in has had a mask mandate all summer and until at least Jan. 6.  We were doing OK, hanging at the "light red" status, while 2 of the 3 counties were at "dark red" (the worst).  Demographics of those 2 counties have alot to do with that.  Unfortunately, our county got moved to "dark red" last week, due to school issues and more people coming up from other counties to view the fall foliage.  In the state, we are running out of ICU beds, in my town's hospital we are out.  The state medical board had to go to the Governor Friday to present the Triage Protocols that will have to be used.  The Governor has to approve them by law.  Right now, if you have a heart attack, you're not going to get an ICU bed.  If they to go Triage, if a 40 year old and a 60 year old both come down with a serious case of the flu and need an ICU bed, the 40 year old will get it.  

 

You do NOT want to get in this situation, folks.  #WEARTHEDAMNMASK

[jtwind]

On 10/24/2020 at 3:05 PM, ontheweb said:

There are people who cannot wear a mask for medical reasons. I know early on in this whole mess, I ran across a former neighbor who immediately apologized for not wearing a mask. I knew she had medical problems that precluded her from wearing a mask so I had no problem with it. We stood apart as we spoke to each other.

 

So folks are going to want to put other people at risk because they have a medical reason not to wear a mask?  Seems pretty selfish.

[d9704011]

56 minutes ago, jtwind said:

 

So folks are going to want to put other people at risk because they have a medical reason not to wear a mask?  Seems pretty selfish.

This is misrepresenting what @ontheweb posted (#107j.  It was not suggested that people having difficulty wearing masks would choose to cruise or be able to cruise if there are certain mask requirements in place.

[jtwind]

But that's coming.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, jtwind said:

 

So folks are going to want to put other people at risk because they have a medical reason not to wear a mask?  Seems pretty selfish.

That is a total misrepresentation of what I said. I was saying that there are people who cannot for medical reasons wear masks, and we should not be so judgmental of them. Note the first thing she said to me was an apology for not wearing a mask, and then we had a conversation keeping some distance. And this was near the beginning of all this when mask wearing was less common.

[navybankerteacher]

The ADA does acknowledge that the individual rights protected by the Act are not iron-clad - that they do not support actions harmful to others.   This thread is about wearing masks on cruises - which are not essential activities,  so even if a person might have a legitimate health reason for not wearing a mask - he does not have a right to cruise without wearing a mask. 

 

There are are some times when a person’s obligations might trump his rights.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

That is a total misrepresentation of what I said. I was saying that there are people who cannot for medical reasons wear masks, and we should not be so judgmental of them. Note the first thing she said to me was an apology for not wearing a mask, and then we had a conversation keeping some distance. And this was near the beginning of all this when mask wearing was less common.

I would be curious to hear what the medical conditions are that prevent wearing a mask. 

[jtwind]

'It says I don't have to wear one right here on this fake card'

[ontheweb]

5 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

I would be curious to hear what the medical conditions are that prevent wearing a mask. 

I would say any disease that interferes with one's breathing.

[ontheweb]

6 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

The ADA does acknowledge that the individual rights protected by the Act are not iron-clad - that they do not support actions harmful to others.   This thread is about wearing masks on cruises - which are not essential activities,  so even if a person might have a legitimate health reason for not wearing a mask - he does not have a right to cruise without wearing a mask. 

 

There are are some times when a person’s obligations might trump his rights.

I'm sure you would find some lawyer who would litigate that.

 

Before I was a Board of Education member, I used to attend meetings. I remember one when it was announced that there was a new federal law making expelling a student bringing a firearm into school mandatory. Except there was one exception, and that was if bringing that weapon into the school was related to his special education condition. All of us listening were aghast at the idea that you could not expel someone bringing in a gun to a school because he or she had a severe emotional problem. (I think that was later amended where you could do an emergency temporary expulsion.)

 

The ADA is tricky. I believe it used to be called the lawyer's full employment act.😃

[sail7seas]

18 hours ago, jtwind said:

 

So folks are going to want to put other people at risk because they have a medical reason not to wear a mask?  Seems pretty selfish.

 

 

I agree

 

If she   cares about anyone else's health, quarantine[/u\ is the safest choice  for the neighborhood And herself

 

 

IMO

Edited October 26, 2020 by sail7seas

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I would say any disease that interferes with one's breathing.

Odd...because common treatment for difficulty breathing is to use what is called a "non-rebreather mask"...plastic, and not at all comfortable like a cloth mask.

[klfrodo]

There are "Karens" in all walks of life, so, Yes, there are people who will not want to comply.

[jtwind]

For every one person who has a legitimate reason not to wear a mask, there will be 20 with trumped up reasons to not wear one, and they'll claim it is their right to cruise, and as has been said, there will be lawyers ready to make money.

[cruisemom42]

11 minutes ago, jtwind said:

For every one person who has a legitimate reason not to wear a mask, there will be 20 with trumped up reasons to not wear one, and they'll claim it is their right to cruise, and as has been said, there will be lawyers ready to make money.

 

It is up to cruise lines themselves to hold the line. They are perfectly entitled to make mask-wearing mandatory in public spaces aboard. Just as they have rules about wearing shirts and shoes in dining venues.

 

 

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I would say any disease that interferes with one's breathing.

 

Those same people are probably the highest risk to be out and about... the logic of this is so laughable.

 

 

[chipmaster]

38 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is up to cruise lines themselves to hold the line. They are perfectly entitled to make mask-wearing mandatory in public spaces aboard. Just as they have rules about wearing shirts and shoes in dining venues.

 

 

 

And we know how that goes, but this is different!

 

Recalled those protocols like on airplanes that were a matter of "taste" were often not often enforced.

 

You can see airlines, even Uber when life and business continuity / survival are at hand, you are more strict.     The people resisting in the name of freedom and choice is so sad, like the 60' double talk of a couple people.  Dang if we need leaders to stand up everywhere instead of cowering back to the default petty positions.

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I would say any disease that interferes with one's breathing.

If someone has a disease which interferes with his/her breathing, I have great sympathy.   But it would not give him/her any right to risk the health of others. 

 

If it determined that masks are necessary for the health for everyone present - then everyone present should wear masks. Of course, there may have to be exceptions:  someone with a LIGITIMATE inability to safely wear a mask needs to be accommodated — when it comes to necessary activities: getting medical assistance, for example.

 

But when it comes to a voluntary, absolutely unnecessary activity like cruising - which is what we are discussing here  - no accommodation makes sense.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, sail7seas said:

 

 

I agree

 

If she   cares about anyone else's health, quarantine[/u\ is the safest choice  for the neighborhood And herself

 

 

IMO

So you would make a person with a handicap quarantine for the rest of her life? The aim of the Americans with Disabilities Act is the exact opposite. It is to encourage them to a lead a full life and not be discriminated against.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, jtwind said:

For every one person who has a legitimate reason not to wear a mask, there will be 20 with trumped up reasons to not wear one, and they'll claim it is their right to cruise, and as has been said, there will be lawyers ready to make money.

I agree that that is a problem. Those not wishing to wear a mask for their own selfish reasons will see that person and make the unfounded assumption that they too should be exempt. But that is not the problem the person with a disability should have to deal with. Rather it is one that in this instance the cruise line should deal with. Again the purpose of the ADA is to allow a person with a disability to participate in all society has to offer without being discriminated against.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is up to cruise lines themselves to hold the line. They are perfectly entitled to make mask-wearing mandatory in public spaces aboard. Just as they have rules about wearing shirts and shoes in dining venues.

 

 

They are not entitled to discriminate due to someone being disabled. If I do not wear shoes because my legs have been amputated should I be not allowed in the dining room because I am not wearing shoes? If I cannot breathe with a cloth mask covering my mouth an nose should you be able to ban me from your activities? Not according to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

[ontheweb]

56 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

If someone has a disease which interferes with his/her breathing, I have great sympathy.   But it would not give him/her any right to risk the health of others. 

 

If it determined that masks are necessary for the health for everyone present - then everyone present should wear masks. Of course, there may have to be exceptions:  someone with a LIGITIMATE inability to safely wear a mask needs to be accommodated — when it comes to necessary activities: getting medical assistance, for example.

 

But when it comes to a voluntary, absolutely unnecessary activity like cruising - which is what we are discussing here  - no accommodation makes sense.

The Americans With Disabilities Act was passed to ensure there would not be discrimination towards those with disabilities. It does not say that an activity you would consider unnecessary should be able to discriminate against those with disabilities. If you do not like the law, lobby those who represent you in Congress to amend or eliminate it. You cannot make it go away by making your interpretations of it and act like that is now the law of the land.

[donaldsc]

26 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

So you would make a person with a handicap quarantine for the rest of her life? The aim of the Americans with Disabilities Act is the exact opposite. It is to encourage them to a lead a full life and not be discriminated against.

 

If ignoring their handicap will impact mine and many other's health, I say that the answer is a qualified "yes".  They obviously have some things that they have to do to live.  Cruising is not one of them.

 

DON

[ontheweb]

11 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

 

If ignoring their handicap will impact mine and many other's health, I say that the answer is a qualified "yes".  They obviously have some things that they have to do to live.  Cruising is not one of them.

 

DON

Again that is not what the law says. It is not just for what you would not be inconvenienced for the handicap can to do.

 

Can it lead to ridiculous situations in which changes have to be made? Yes, see my original post in this topic where originally when the federal government passed a law that bringing a gun into a school mandated an immediate suspension except when the person bringing in the weapon was related to their handicap (their emotional problems that led them into being classified special ed.)

 

But that is not the same as not allowing the handicapped to enjoy a pleasurable activity.

[cruisemom42]

51 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

They are not entitled to discriminate due to someone being disabled. If I do not wear shoes because my legs have been amputated should I be not allowed in the dining room because I am not wearing shoes? If I cannot breathe with a cloth mask covering my mouth an nose should you be able to ban me from your activities? Not according to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

 

I refer you to the following links, some quotes from which are below:

 

"The ADA does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities from complying with legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operations."

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-warns-inaccurate-flyers-and-postings-regarding-use-face-masks-and

 

"Even if a person could identify their disability and prove that not wearing a mask without any other precaution was a reasonable request, “the business could still turn that person away based on the direct threat” that they posed to others, according to Roberts (Director of the Health Law & Policy Institute and the Leonard Childs Professor in Law at the University of Houston, who specializes in genetics and the law, health law, and disability law.)

 

A “direct threat” under the ADA is any substantial risk to the health and safety a disabled person poses to others, which cannot be countered with reasonable accommodations.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/15/fact-check-ada-disability-rights-and-face-mask-requirements/5391830002/