Will vaccines now be required?

[morechances]

3 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

There is so much we don't know.  For example, once cruise lines begin to require vaccinations (which I suspect they will) perhaps there will no longer be a need to quarantine an entire ship, or group of close contacts just because one instance of the virus surfaces.  Ports may initially prevent ships from docking in these cases, but this virus will likely be with us for generations to come.  There is no way they will be able to continue to do that type of thing if they expect to survive - many of the Caribbean islands, for example, depend heavily on cruise ship income.  

Any place that relies on tourist dollars will probably ( not always) be willing to take a few risks, if it means the difference between survival or failure. 

That is human nature. That is reality. 

It all depends on how much of a risk you are willing to take. 

[Covepointcruiser]

Certainly didn’t look as though many were willing to take a risk for tourism when they left so many crew and passengers at sea or quarantined in port.   If everyone on board is vaccinated there would be no issue.    Just take a look at the hurdles to enter Hawaii even now and that’s part of the U.S.   You need a specific type of test before you board your flight.   You also need to set up a peculiar “Safe Hawaii” account and answer questions exactly 24 hours before you arrive.   Your test, $200 each in Denver, must be taken no more than 72 hours before you arrive and the silts have to be digitally sent to this Hawaii Safe page.   When you land, you will also take another test.   I would say a country can do pretty,I have what they want in spite of tourist $, just look at Hawaii.

[d9704011]

4 hours ago, morechances said:

It all depends on how much of a risk you are willing to take. 

I’d say the risk threshold for this virus is very low.

[edgee]

This thread is raising a dilemma for DW and me. We have the opportunity to participate in two phase 3 trials of either Astra Zeneca or Novavax vaccines. 2/3 chance we will get the vaccine; 1/3 chance we will get placebo. Both sites are within 25 minutes of our home. Likely we would pick Novavax  since stage two trials show it to have 95% effective rate. They will unblind us upon request when we are permitted to get one of the currently used vaccines in our state....if it turns out we got placebo we could then get publicly available vaccine. I am thrilled by possibility of getting earlier protection the trial might give us, but am concerned that if I did get the trial vaccine and could then not get the available to public one, whether vaccine received during trial could be documented sufficiently to appear on a card or whatever documentation is needed for international travel. Still thinking it over.

[Arizona Wildcat]

5 hours ago, d9704011 said:

I’d say the risk threshold for this virus is very low.

Explain please.  Are you saying that there is little risk of being infected with COVID?  Under what conditions?  Warring a mask?  Distancing?  Or resuming regular activities as before COVID?  Upon what are you basing your statement?

[d9704011]

7 hours ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Explain please.  Are you saying that there is little risk of being infected with COVID?  Under what conditions?  Warring a mask?  Distancing?  Or resuming regular activities as before COVID?  Upon what are you basing your statement?

You need to read post #660 for context to my comment.  In that post, it was inferred that countries largely dependant on tourism would be welcoming tourists back sooner rather than later as a matter of economic survival.  The poster then concluded that they’d make that decision based on risk tolerance with the suggestion they’d be willing to accept a substantial amount for the sake of the almighty dollar.  My post suggested that countries heavily dependant on tourism have already and continue to have a very low bar to get under (not over) as far as the amount of risk they will tolerate i.e.  don’t expect them to open their doors and welcome tourists anytime too soon just for the sake of filling up some hotel rooms; they’ve already made the decision to weather the COVID storm as best they can to preserve the health of their people.

Edited January 1, 2021 by d9704011

[morechances]

32 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

You need to read post #660 for context to my comment.  In that post, it was inferred that countries largely dependant on tourism would be welcoming tourists back sooner rather than later as a matter of economic survival.  The poster then concluded that they’d make that decision based on risk tolerance with the suggestion they’d be willing to accept a substantial amount for the sake of the almighty dollar.  My post suggested that countries heavily dependant on tourism have already and continue to have a very low bar to get under (not over) as far as the amount of risk they will tolerate i.e.  don’t expect them to open their doors and welcome tourists anytime too soon just for the sake of filling up some hotel rooms; they’ve already made the decision to weather the COVID storm as best they can to preserve the health of their people.

Have you ever heard of a little place called Florida?

[morechances]

2 minutes ago, morechances said:

Have you ever heard of a little place called Florida?

Or Mexico?

Here is a quote from a travel website 

"Mexico is among a few select nations that have very few health protocols for entry.

Quarantines: There are currently no quarantine periods for travelers entering Mexico.

PCR & Rapid Covid-19 Testing: Mexico does not  require Covid-19 tests before or after arriving."

[morechances]

1 minute ago, morechances said:

Or Mexico?

Here is a quote from a travel website 

"Mexico is among a few select nations that have very few health protocols for entry.

Quarantines: There are currently no quarantine periods for travelers entering Mexico.

PCR & Rapid Covid-19 Testing: Mexico does not  require Covid-19 tests before or after arriving."

I could also mention Costa Rica,  and several other places,  but I am not sure what difference that makes......

[TeeRick]

11 hours ago, edgee said:

This thread is raising a dilemma for DW and me. We have the opportunity to participate in two phase 3 trials of either Astra Zeneca or Novavax vaccines. 2/3 chance we will get the vaccine; 1/3 chance we will get placebo. Both sites are within 25 minutes of our home. Likely we would pick Novavax  since stage two trials show it to have 95% effective rate. They will unblind us upon request when we are permitted to get one of the currently used vaccines in our state....if it turns out we got placebo we could then get publicly available vaccine. I am thrilled by possibility of getting earlier protection the trial might give us, but am concerned that if I did get the trial vaccine and could then not get the available to public one, whether vaccine received during trial could be documented sufficiently to appear on a card or whatever documentation is needed for international travel. Still thinking it over.

Not sure of your specifics (age and health) or your state.  But if you are healthy under 65 in most states you will be waiting quite some time in priority for a vaccine.  At least April - May timeframe or longer.  So the trial might be a better option.  If you get the placebo you will be no worse off than waiting 4 or 5 months for your turn in line.  But if you are over 65 and have underlying health factors the math might be different for your case.

[edgee]

42 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Not sure of your specifics (age and health) or your state.  But if you are healthy under 65 in most states you will be waiting quite some time in priority for a vaccine.  At least April - May timeframe or longer.  So the trial might be a better option.  If you get the placebo you will be no worse off than waiting 4 or 5 months for your turn in line.  But if you are over 65 and have underlying health factors the math might be different for your case.

I fall in 65 to 74 range. However I live in NY which is probably worst state for seniors wishing to get the vaccine. So many other categories are ahead of non institutionalized seniors, including prisons, drug rehab residential facilities..list goes on and on.

[TeeRick]

3 minutes ago, edgee said:

I fall in 65 to 74 range. However I live in NY which is probably worst state for seniors wishing to get the vaccine. So many other categories are ahead of non institutionalized seniors, including prisons, drug rehab residential facilities..list goes on and on.

Then I would probably decide to get in on the clinical trial to answer your original question.  If you get placebo, check if you have the option of resigning from the trial and getting vaccinated if your turn in the cue comes up.  Which trial? AZ or Novavax?  We know that the AZ vaccine has efficacy and has been approved in the UK.  We know nothing about efficacy of the Novavax vaccine.  Just antibody results reported.  Hope that helps.

[whirlybird3]

13 hours ago, edgee said:

This thread is raising a dilemma for DW and me. We have the opportunity to participate in two phase 3 trials of either Astra Zeneca or Novavax vaccines. 2/3 chance we will get the vaccine; 1/3 chance we will get placebo. Both sites are within 25 minutes of our home. Likely we would pick Novavax  since stage two trials show it to have 95% effective rate. They will unblind us upon request when we are permitted to get one of the currently used vaccines in our state....if it turns out we got placebo we could then get publicly available vaccine. I am thrilled by possibility of getting earlier protection the trial might give us, but am concerned that if I did get the trial vaccine and could then not get the available to public one, whether vaccine received during trial could be documented sufficiently to appear on a card or whatever documentation is needed for international travel. Still thinking it over.

I have volunteered for the J&J trial and so far had a great experience.  Reading up on the Novavax trial, it appears that it works the same as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine except it uses Baculoviruses.  (Please read up on this virus)

 

This is a comparison on the two vaccines.  J&J is currently testing a two injection and one injection dose; I received the one injection dose.  The Astra Zeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the J&J by using the Adenovirus. (J&J modified made the Adenovirus and Astra Zeneca also uses the Adenovirus from monkey poo)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/novavax-covid-19-vaccine.html

[edgee]

8 minutes ago, whirlybird3 said:

I have volunteered for the J&J trial and so far had a great experience.  Reading up on the Novavax trial, it appears that it works the same as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine except it uses Baculoviruses.  (Please read up on this virus)

 

This is a comparison on the two vaccines.  J&J is currently testing a two injection and one injection dose; I received the one injection dose.  The Astra Zeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the J&J by using the Adenovirus. (J&J modified made the Adenovirus and Astra Zeneca also uses the Adenovirus from monkey poo)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/novavax-covid-19-vaccine.html

Thanks. What is your situation in terms of when you can become unblinded? My concern boils down to (1)whether the researchers (for absolute certain) will unblind me when vaccine through regular channels become available, and (2) if it turns out I did get the real vaccine (2 thirds chance I will), will I be able to get proper documentation that I am vaccinated in case a cruise line or foreign country demands proof of vaccination.

[whirlybird3]

17 minutes ago, edgee said:

Thanks. What is your situation in terms of when you can become unblinded? My concern boils down to (1)whether the researchers (for absolute certain) will unblind me when vaccine through regular channels become available, and (2) if it turns out I did get the real vaccine (2 thirds chance I will), will I be able to get proper documentation that I am vaccinated in case a cruise line or foreign country demands proof of vaccination.

I asked three questions when I was called to be on the study at Stanford University.  

1.  Will I be contagious and give it to my husband if I did receive the vaccine.  Answer: No because it is not a live virus.

2.  Will I be able to receive a vaccine that is approved that is offered from my workplace; Meaning Pfizer or Moderna?  The answer is yes, because it is different technology.  

3.  Will I be harmed if I have received the real vaccine and received another vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna?  The answer is no and was informed from the medical director that I would be "more suppressed"

 

According to what was presented to me while signing paperwork:  I will not know if I received the vaccine or placebo until 2 years.  I will be followed and reporting back to the clinic for lab work for 2 years.  I can back out of the study at anytime.

I'm a frontline nurse and was offered the Pfizer vaccine and received the 1st dose AFTER my first set of lab work at the clinic.  My second dose is next week.  So far, I have not had ANY major side effects from either injections except for a sore arm.  

Edited January 1, 2021 by whirlybird3

[zanderblue]

1 hour ago, edgee said:

Thanks. What is your situation in terms of when you can become unblinded? My concern boils down to (1)whether the researchers (for absolute certain) will unblind me when vaccine through regular channels become available, and (2) if it turns out I did get the real vaccine (2 thirds chance I will), will I be able to get proper documentation that I am vaccinated in case a cruise line or foreign country demands proof of vaccination.

I am in the Novavax phase 3 trial in Scotland; started in November.

I have had both injections, don’t know if placebo or vaccine. I have had it confirmed that when I am called for approved vaccine, they will unblind me.

If I have had placebo I should go ahead and have the approved vaccine, if I have had the vaccine I have been told that they do not recommend I have the approved vaccine. The reason they give for this is that they have no evidence of how the two vaccines may react. 

They also indicated that anyone who has only had a single injection of the Novavax vaccine should go ahead and have the approved one. As far as I know everyone in the Phase 3 trial here should have had the second injection before Christmas.

[TeeRick]

1 hour ago, whirlybird3 said:

I have volunteered for the J&J trial and so far had a great experience.  Reading up on the Novavax trial, it appears that it works the same as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine except it uses Baculoviruses.  (Please read up on this virus)

 

This is a comparison on the two vaccines.  J&J is currently testing a two injection and one injection dose; I received the one injection dose.  The Astra Zeneca vaccine uses the same technology as the J&J by using the Adenovirus. (J&J modified made the Adenovirus and Astra Zeneca also uses the Adenovirus from monkey poo)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/novavax-covid-19-vaccine.html

 

The J&J vaccine uses a human adenovirus vector to deliver the gene for the SPIKE protein which it makes inside your cells once you are vaccinated.  

The AZ/Oxford vaccine uses chimpanzee adenovirus vector to deliver the gene for SPIKE. So yes- very similar to the J&J approach.  

 

However, the Novavax vaccine is a purified SPIKE protein antigen mixed in a formulation.  There is no vector or other virus components.  The confusion perhaps is that this protein is manufactured using a baculovirus production method, then purified from it and then formulated into the final vaccine.  So this vaccine approach is more "traditional" and is quite different actually from the adenovector vaccines or the mRNA vaccines that have been approved.

Edited January 1, 2021 by TeeRick

[Arizona Wildcat]

6 hours ago, d9704011 said:

You need to read post #660 for context to my comment.  In that post, it was inferred that countries largely dependant on tourism would be welcoming tourists back sooner rather than later as a matter of economic survival.  The poster then concluded that they’d make that decision based on risk tolerance with the suggestion they’d be willing to accept a substantial amount for the sake of the almighty dollar.  My post suggested that countries heavily dependant on tourism have already and continue to have a very low bar to get under (not over) as far as the amount of risk they will tolerate i.e.  don’t expect them to open their doors and welcome tourists anytime too soon just for the sake of filling up some hotel rooms; they’ve already made the decision to weather the COVID storm as best they can to preserve the health of their people.

Thank you.  Absolutely agree.  Victoria Canada is full of Canadian tourists.  RV parks are 100% booked for the season.  COVID cases sadly are rising significantly and hospital beds in some areas are full.  They have gone this far and are quite loud in saying STAY HOME to tourism until this is over.  If a couple thousand tourists visited there would likely be some dozens infected - testing or not - what would be the result of that?  Vancouver Island is allowing virtually no gatherings amidst low virus numbers.  Why would they open up now?

Your Hawaii example comes to the same conclusion.

In the coming months vaccination or testing combined with quaranteen is likely to be required if travel is not banned entirely.

[whirlybird3]

49 minutes ago, zanderblue said:

I am in the Novavax phase 3 trial in Scotland; started in November.

I have had both injections, don’t know if placebo or vaccine. I have had it confirmed that when I am called for approved vaccine, they will unblind me.

If I have had placebo I should go ahead and have the approved vaccine, if I have had the vaccine I have been told that they do not recommend I have the approved vaccine. The reason they give for this is that they have no evidence of how the two vaccines may react. 

They also indicated that anyone who has only had a single injection of the Novavax vaccine should go ahead and have the approved one. As far as I know everyone in the Phase 3 trial here should have had the second injection before Christmas.

I was informed that after the study was complete, I would be offered the J&J vaccine if I have received the placebo.  However, I think they originally planned that would not have happened until the end of the two year study.  Since the pandemic is so devastating, the vaccines are submitting for emergent approval.  

 

Since, I'm currently working in caring for patients in the COVID ICU, I accepted the Pfizer vaccine with gratitude.  I have been working as a RN for 25+ years and never seen anything like this in my entire career.  It is exhausting and heartbreaking.  I can't help thinking that every patient I see are connected to a family who is worried about them. 

[K.T.B.]

Getting back to the question of the thread:  Will vaccines now be required?

 

Here's what Dr. Fauci says about it:

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anthony-fauci-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-quite-possible_n_5fef5542c5b6ec8ae0b2aa1f

 

So take that for what it's worth. He also says it's, and I quote, "unlikely to be required from a federal-government perspective".  But if he thinks it's possible to be required for travelling, we better get prepared for it to happen. 

[ipeeinthepool]

4 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

Getting back to the question of the thread:  Will vaccines now be required?

 

Here's what Dr. Fauci says about it:

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anthony-fauci-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-quite-possible_n_5fef5542c5b6ec8ae0b2aa1f

 

So take that for what it's worth. He also says it's, and I quote, "unlikely to be required from a federal-government perspective".  But if he thinks it's possible to be required for travelling, we better get prepared for it to happen. 

 

Perhaps you should check with Dr Fauci every couple of weeks because he seems to change his mind every couple of weeks.

[d9704011]

15 hours ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Thank you.  Absolutely agree.  Victoria Canada is full of Canadian tourists.  RV parks are 100% booked for the season.  COVID cases sadly are rising significantly and hospital beds in some areas are full.  They have gone this far and are quite loud in saying STAY HOME to tourism until this is over.  If a couple thousand tourists visited there would likely be some dozens infected - testing or not - what would be the result of that?  Vancouver Island is allowing virtually no gatherings amidst low virus numbers.  Why would they open up now?

Last May/June we decided to cancel all out of country travel for 2021 and plan on staying in Canada.   For mid-May, 2021 I booked air to Edmonton, train from Jasper to Vancouver and a host of hotels in Victoria, Vancouver Island, the interior and a flight home from Kelowna (also rental car as necessary).  I’m contemplating unwinding all that now although I’ll probably wait until April to see what the situation is in British Columbia. I guess we’ll just have to see how things develop over the winter.

[nomad098]

5 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

Getting back to the question of the thread:  Will vaccines now be required?

 

Here's what Dr. Fauci says about it:

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anthony-fauci-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-quite-possible_n_5fef5542c5b6ec8ae0b2aa1f

 

So take that for what it's worth. He also says it's, and I quote, "unlikely to be required from a federal-government perspective".  But if he thinks it's possible to be required for travelling, we better get prepared for it to happen. 

 

Even if the US were to follow Dr Fauci's thoughts there is absolutely no evidence that the rest of the world will follow

 

If governments around the world do not make a covid vaccination a mandatory requirement to travel then IMO it will come down to market forces to decide if a vaccination will be required. 

 

Even if a vaccination to travel becomes mandatory for cruises out of the US this does not automatically mean that it can or will be adopted elsewhere.

 

The EU would have to rewrite one of its most important parts of its constitution to introduce vaccination to travel within the EU for its citizens and with the EU commission and most countries in the EU are against this and I can not see it happening.

 

I can quite easily see in the future different vaccination rules for cruising in different areas of the world. Not a one size suits all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fouremco]

4 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Perhaps you should check with Dr Fauci every couple of weeks because he seems to change his mind every couple of weeks.

It's a good thing too that he remains current and adjusts his position as new information becomes available. Some pseudo scientists won't budge from previously held positions long after they are proven wrong.

[palamoh]

There are so many varied opinions on this subject, hard to decipher what will really happen regarding the vaccine and Cruise Lines enforcement.  But I do believe getting the vaccine is the correct step toward future. Cruising.  My wife is 84 and I am 86, both of us in very good health, we will be first in line when Arizona gives us the call.  Unfortunately Arizona has put Seniors pretty close to the end of the Line.  They have thrown the “Greatest Generation” under the Bus.  With that said I encourage everyone to get this Vaccine when it becomes available to you.  I believe the Cruise Lines will make it mandatory as part of its contract.