Saga Cruises now require a Vaccine to sail. Should Celebrity follow?

[shipshape sam]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:07 AM, hcat said:

From post  # 51 by Shipshape Sam:

 

"Surgeon General Jerome Adam recently stated that having the vaccine will not stop you from spreading the virus.  So..... what does that mean?  It means whether you have the vaccine or not, you should per (questionable standards/SCIENCE) still wear masks and practice social distancing.  It also means that they do NOT know if you can or cannot get the virus infection if you are vacinated, thus they advise to act as if "

 

So why are we all going nuts to get the vaccine??? Are we the  ongoing test group?

For sure they will learn more as time passes and more are vaccinated; good and bad.  Hoping there is no bad.

 

I  plan to get vaccine, just not right away. My current preference is to wait another 90-120 days.  That being said, I believe I am in  pretty good shape.    If I had some underlying health issue, I would  take my chances now and get vaccine, but that is me.  I am NOT a doctor nor am I advocating for anyone to get or not get vaccine.  That is a personal decision.

Edited January 26, 2021 by shipshape sam

[shipshape sam]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:19 AM, cruisemom42 said:

 

Source please?  I cannot believe the surgeon general would say something so reckless and incorrect, so I can only suggest it was bad reporting or that you misheard. 

 

The vaccines have NOT YET been proven to stop viral spread BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TRIAL. 

 

It is possible and indeed likely that they DO stop spread of the virus, at least somewhat -- however a scientist cannot say that without having gathered the proof first. (Unlike politicians.)

 

Easy for you to say.  I think it was cautionary, NOT reckless and incorrect.  Where are your sources as to any facts/science that contradicts his statement and that validates your opinion as fact?   Seems to me you are throwing out a lot of conjecture here.

 

You seem to forget that the Lancet or are not aware that, the premier medical journal in US,  recently had to retract a study they  printed and promoted due to it being a fraud.  Think about that, the Lancet did not do the peer review, the vetting of the study and put out a 'study' in order, IMHO, to sway public opinion.  They got called out and had to retract the study, but a lot of damage was done.

 

Just today, Dr. Thomas Russo, Chief of Infectious Disease  at University of Buffalo, NY in a web article (Market Watch) repeated basically the same thing attributed to Surgeon General.

 

Oh by the way, Biden canned Dr Jerome Adams and put in his own SG.

Edited January 26, 2021 by shipshape sam

[cruisemom42]

31 minutes ago, shipshape sam said:

Where are your sources as to any facts/science that contradicts his statement and that validates your opinion as fact?   Seems to me you are throwing out a lot of conjecture here.

 

You seem to forget that the Lancet or are not aware that, the premier medical journal in US,  recently had to retract a study they  printed and promoted due to it being a fraud.  Think about that, the Lancet did not do the peer review, the vetting of the study and put out a 'study' in order, IMHO, to sway public opinion.  They got called out and had to retract the study, but a lot of damage was done.

 

There are numerous sources that contradict what you say and some of them have already been quoted. Also, you haven't yet proved that the SG ACTUALLY said what you have attributed to him.

 

But to humor you:

 

From the actual FDA website:  https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions

 

• Key takeaway (actual quote):  "Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission."

 

From the Wall Street Journal:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-getting-the-covid-19-vaccine-stop-you-spreading-it-scientists-dont-know-yet-11610989882

 

• Key takeaway (actual quote):  "There is some indication that vaccination may reduce asymptomatic infection, resulting in reduced transmission. Preliminary evidence from Moderna showed that participants in a clinical trial who received the vaccine and were tested for Covid between their first and second doses had a roughly two-thirds reduction in asymptomatic infections. But experts note the data set was small and more results are needed. 

 

Key takeaway (from me): There is a big difference between saying "It does not protect" and "We don't have enough data yet to say definitively, but the vaccine MAY have a protective effect."

 

 

 

To your second point, The Lancet is not a US journal, it is published in the UK -- not that it matters, but it shows your grasp of facts is not exactly noteworthy.  JAMA and the NEJM are IMO the two premier US medical journals. 

 

It is rare but not unknown for a journal to retract a study. Journals depend on a robust peer-review process to determine both the significance AND the veracity of the data presented. In this case the peer-review failed in part because the company involved in gathering the data would not share the full data-set with the journal. Thus, the retraction. So the process works. No one at the journal itself was trying to perpetrate any fraud. 

 

In science, luckily, scientists are trained to admit when they are wrong and change course. If it were politics, the politicians involved would likely not only not "retract" the info but would be clinging to their original statement because of a fear of being called out as a "flip-flopper".  Heaven forbid that the actual truth should be more important than being right...

 

[shipshape sam]

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

There are numerous sources that contradict what you say and some of them have already been quoted. Also, you haven't yet proved that the SG ACTUALLY said what you have attributed to him.

 

But to humor you:

 

From the actual FDA website:  https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions

 

• Key takeaway (actual quote):  "Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission."

 

From the Wall Street Journal:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-getting-the-covid-19-vaccine-stop-you-spreading-it-scientists-dont-know-yet-11610989882

 

• Key takeaway (actual quote):  "There is some indication that vaccination may reduce asymptomatic infection, resulting in reduced transmission. Preliminary evidence from Moderna showed that participants in a clinical trial who received the vaccine and were tested for Covid between their first and second doses had a roughly two-thirds reduction in asymptomatic infections. But experts note the data set was small and more results are needed. 

 

Key takeaway (from me): There is a big difference between saying "It does not protect" and "We don't have enough data yet to say definitively, but the vaccine MAY have a protective effect."

 

 

 

To your second point, The Lancet is not a US journal, it is published in the UK -- not that it matters, but it shows your grasp of facts is not exactly noteworthy.  JAMA and the NEJM are IMO the two premier US medical journals. 

 

It is rare but not unknown for a journal to retract a study. Journals depend on a robust peer-review process to determine both the significance AND the veracity of the data presented. In this case the peer-review failed in part because the company involved in gathering the data would not share the full data-set with the journal. Thus, the retraction. So the process works. No one at the journal itself was trying to perpetrate any fraud. 

 

In science, luckily, scientists are trained to admit when they are wrong and change course. If it were politics, the politicians involved would likely not only not "retract" the info but would be clinging to their original statement because of a fear of being called out as a "flip-flopper".  Heaven forbid that the actual truth should be more important than being right...

 

Not sure you have a deep understanding of the intent, nor do I, but I do think to have even released the study smacks of some agenda.  I can only assume you have personal contacts to be able to make a categorial statement that no one was trying to perpetuate a fraud.  I think, just as you have your opinion, that there was some motive to get the study out in the public arena.  Do people post studies and retract them.  Sure.  I think I will do some research to see what the history of etractions to studies after publication by Lancet has been.  My guess is there never has been a complete retraction like this, but you never know.

 

On the SG Adams making the statement that you can still get Covid19 after taking the vaccine, it was on January 4, 2021 by LeadingEdge Coronavirus Update call in an interview with Ruth Katz and call in callers. Remember it is only 95% effective per the respective companies claims.  Finally, that 95% effectiveness is for lessening of symptoms if you do contract covid 19 after taking the vaccine per my understanding. I am not aware of any company at this point touting a 95% effectiveness in preventing getting covid 19.  They are too early in the process to know that. We can only hope that will come soon. But if you can show me where they are making the claim at this point in time, let me know.  

 

Thanks too for humoring me.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by shipshape sam

[cruisemom42]

21 minutes ago, shipshape sam said:

Not sure you have a deep understanding of the intent, nor do I, but I do think to have even released the study smacks of some agenda.  I can only assume you have personal contacts to be able to make a categorial statement that no one was trying to perpetuate a fraud.  I think, just as you have your opinion, that there was some motive to get the study out in the public arena.  Do people post studies and retract them.  Sure.  I think I will do some research to see what the history of etractions to studies after publication by Lancet has been.  My guess is there never has been a complete retraction like this, but you never know.

 

On the SG Adams making the statement that you can still get Covid19 after taking the vaccine, it was on January 4, 2021 by LeadingEdge Coronavirus Update call in an interview with Ruth Katz and call in callers. Remember it is only 95% effective per the respective companies claims.  Finally, that 95% effectiveness is for lessening of symptoms if you do contract covid 19 after taking the vaccine per my understanding. I am not aware of any company at this point touting a 95% effectiveness in preventing getting covid 19.  They are too early in the process to know that. We can only hope that will come soon. But if you can show me where they are making the claim at this point in time, let me know.  

 

Thanks too for humoring me.

 

 

 

 

 

"But you never know."  Actually I do know.

 

I think I have more insight than most. I have served as editor of a medical journal, have participated in round-tables and discussions on peer review, and also have been on the other side, as an editor/reporter reporting on various publications in scientific/medical journals for lay audiences.

 

As I said initially, retraction is uncommon but it does occur. Wikipedia lists at least three other major retractions by The Lancet since 1998, one of which (a publication by Andrew Wakefield on the MMR vaccine that has been discredited) formed the basis of the "anti-vaxxer" movement.

 

And the issue is certainly not unique to The Lancet. Nature, Science, NEJM -- all have had retractions in the last two years.

 

 

[cruisemom42]

28 minutes ago, shipshape sam said:

 

On the SG Adams making the statement that you can still get Covid19 after taking the vaccine, it was on January 4, 2021 by LeadingEdge Coronavirus Update call in an interview with Ruth Katz and call in callers. Remember it is only 95% effective per the respective companies claims.  Finally, that 95% effectiveness is for lessening of symptoms if you do contract covid 19 after taking the vaccine per my understanding. I am not aware of any company at this point touting a 95% effectiveness in preventing getting covid 19.  They are too early in the process to know that. We can only hope that will come soon. But if you can show me where they are making the claim at this point in time, let me know.  

 

 

You do realize that what you are stating above is different than what you initially stated yes?  

 

Above you are saying that you can still get COVID after taking the vaccine, which is true. No one is saying that is not the case. 

 

Here is what the wording from the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer vaccine says about the vaccine: "FDA’s analysis of the available efficacy data from 36,523 participants 12 years of age and older without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after dose 2 confirm the vaccine was 95% effective (95% credible interval 90.3, 97.6) in preventing COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose (with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group)."

 

The CDC words it a little differently but the same meaning:  "Based on evidence from clinical trials, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people without evidence of previous infection."

 

So yes, the vaccine is not 100% effective -- but the clinical trials show it is 95% effective according to their study endpoints.

 

This is not at all the same thing as what you say below (highlighted). There is a big difference (I say for the third time) between saying that the vaccine WILL NOT stop you from spreading the virus and saying that we do not yet have the data to make that claim. 

 

By the way, your second paragraph below pretty much reads like the textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist.

 

On 1/24/2021 at 9:08 PM, shipshape sam said:

No, but that will not stop them.  Surgeon General Jerome Adam recently stated that having the vaccine will not stop you from spreading the virus.  So..... what does that mean?  It means whether you have the vaccine or not, you should per (questionable standards/SCIENCE) still wear masks and practice social distancing.  It also means that they do NOT know if you can or cannot get the virus infection if you are vacinated, thus they advise to act as if you have not been vaccinated.

 

I do not trust anyone in power about how to protect myself as they keep changing the advise and not for new knowledge.  They are flip flopping mostly, IMHO to control us.  

 

[UnorigionalName]

5 hours ago, shipshape sam said:

 Finally, that 95% effectiveness is for lessening of symptoms if you do contract covid 19 after taking the vaccine per my understanding. I am not aware of any company at this point touting a 95% effectiveness in preventing getting covid 19.  

 

That is incorrect.  Both pfizer and moderna trials showed ~95% efficacy in reducing symptomatic COVID infections.  The data on severity is not complete (in a sense it's because the vaccine's efficacy is too high).

 

Israel populational data is promising in that so far it is looking like it's at least that good if not better.

 

I do not believe there is any data yet on post-vaccine transmission.  If you think about it logically, it is a very difficult study to perform.

Edited January 27, 2021 by UnorigionalName

[laslomas]

Another thread completely taken over by facts and figures on vaccines. 

 

Back to the original question, Yes. Celebrity could follow a similar start up idea. Maybe not in May, but plans could be made for later in the year. No vaccine - no cruise. This could be problematic for their new desired customer who may not have reached the age to be vaccinated. But later in the year, who knows? At least a start could be made to getting the industry up and running in a small way. And keep the dream alive. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by laslomas

[wrk2cruise]

25 minutes ago, laslomas said:

This could be problematic for their new desired customer who may not have reached the age to be vaccinated.

 

But I think it's going to be very hard to convince people who haven't cruised before to take their first cruise in 2021/2022.   I think Celebrity is going to be very dependent on their old (vaccinated) customer base (pun intended) for survival.  Maybe they will figure that out before it's too late.

[york survey]

24 minutes ago, laslomas said:

Another thread completely taken over by facts and figures on vaccines. 

 

Back to the original question, Yes. Celebrity could follow a similar start up idea. Maybe not in May, but plans could be made for later in the year. No vaccine - no cruise. This could be problematic for their new desired customer who may not have reached the age to be vaccinated. But later in the year, who knows? At least a start could be made to getting the industry up and running in a small way. And keep the dream alive. 

Spot on 

 

I was OP with a simple question.  Nothing to do with if the vaccine works, if you will take it or if you will ever cruise again

 

So my view is YES ......get ready to have the jab or not as is everyone’s prerogative 

[yorky]

44 minutes ago, york survey said:

Spot on 

 

I was OP with a simple question.  Nothing to do with if the vaccine works, if you will take it or if you will ever cruise again

 

So my view is YES ......get ready to have the jab or not as is everyone’s prerogative 

I still question how it could be enforced. They can’t access your medical records and anything on paper could easily be forged. Letter from your doctor ? That not really going to happen on that scale. A stamp in your passport, nope don’t see that.

[TeeRick]

3 hours ago, laslomas said:

Another thread completely taken over by facts and figures on vaccines. 

 

Back to the original question, Yes. Celebrity could follow a similar start up idea. Maybe not in May, but plans could be made for later in the year. No vaccine - no cruise. This could be problematic for their new desired customer who may not have reached the age to be vaccinated. But later in the year, who knows? At least a start could be made to getting the industry up and running in a small way. And keep the dream alive. 

Agree completely with your point but the thread does have the word Vaccine in the title.  So you can see how it could go sideways.  But there are better threads to have detailed vaccine discussions like the "Light/Tunnel" thread.

[UnorigionalName]

5 hours ago, yorky said:

I still question how it could be enforced. They can’t access your medical records and anything on paper could easily be forged. Letter from your doctor ? That not really going to happen on that scale. A stamp in your passport, nope don’t see that.

 

why not?  Many places are giving vaccination cards. Many people will already have evidence.  It's not too difficult to make everyone else get some form of evidence.

 

Why is everyone so concerned about enforcement? It's pretty simple, like most other things in life, it's enforced by being illegal to lie about it.

 

The same way most things are enforced.  I mean do cars have some mechanism where you have to insert a valid license before you drive? Or show you have proof of insurance? No, it's enforced by being illegal.

 

edit: 

My own prediction. Enough people will get vaccinated that the cases will go down to a very low level.  The risk of death when you are vaccinated yourself will be low.  Given these, cruises will require vaccination at first.  Children will be exempt.  And the overall risk of hospitalization will be low enough they won't run into issues.

Edited January 27, 2021 by UnorigionalName

[hcat]

6 hours ago, yorky said:

I still question how it could be enforced. They can’t access your medical records and anything on paper could easily be forged. Letter from your doctor ? That not really going to happen on that scale. A stamp in your passport, nope don’t see that.

We have  vaccination cards from  the hosp  clinic where it was administered ..Date for our.next appt for 2nd shot is listed on the reverse.  Space  on front of card to note shot 1 and 2.  Folks cheat at many things...sad !

[hawkesbaynz]

I am surprised by the nurses (thery were probably Health Care Assistants) who were saying they did not need to social distance or wear masks in the Canadian Residential Home. Pure ignorance. I have had Covid, had two shots of the Pfizer vaccination but still need to continue social distancing etc. I still need to perform x 2 Covid tests a week to work in my healthcare setting. And I am not allowed to visit my aged mother.

 

Younger people do seem to have a flu like illness after the vaccination e.g headaches, body aches, fever, malaise. I did and the arm was pretty sore too. I have spoken to patients who have ben concerned about their side-efects but reviewing their notes they are typically the anxious worried well/hypochondriacal types. Sure beats being ventilated in ICU.

 

Those folk who chose not to get vaccinated will have plenty of time to stay at home as they will not be able to cruise or fly. They may find geneology interesting. Look at the families of their antecedents and count the number of siblings who died of small pox, dipheria, polio etc. In living memory my Uncle died of TB in the 50s, and it took my mother-in-laws life early through weakend lungs.

 

Apparently the UK will achieve Herd Immunity in July as we go forward. Interestingly Canada gets there before us. The USA in August. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/coronavirus-vaccine-supply-problems-could-see-dutch-violence-repeated-in-rest-of-eu

[Cruzmama]

Back to the original question - I think people will have to show proof of vaccination in order to cruise.  I'm not sure how they will enforce it, but I think a lot of other businesses will require this in the future.  After the first phases have been taken care of, perhaps there will be the opportunity for the crew to be vaccinated. I think that will be a necessity.  I look forward to cruising again perhaps next November, but at least by April, 2022.  I will continue to wear a mask as long as necessary.  My question is, do any of you WANT to get back on a ship if NOT vaccinated?  I don't understand why anyone would want to take that chance, but feel free to enlighten me.  I'm certainly not criticizing  anyone for their choice, I just think you might be limited if you don't.

[Fouremco]

 

28 minutes ago, hawkesbaynz said:

I am surprised by the nurses (thery were probably Health Care Assistants) who were saying they did not need to social distance or wear masks in the Canadian Residential Home.

I've not seen any mention of this in Canadian or international media. Could you please provide a source? It certainly runs contrary to medical advice being provided at all levels in Canada.

[ORV]

8 hours ago, Fouremco said:

 

I've not seen any mention of this in Canadian or international media. Could you please provide a source? It certainly runs contrary to medical advice being provided at all levels in Canada.

I believe it was in a post on this thread which was 3rd hand scuttlebutt related by a less than reliable poster that is known for twisting situations to support his point of view. Generally long on sensationalism and short of source and facts. FWIW, this poster has at least 2,  if not 3 accts here where they agree with themselves. Some of us are not fooled. 

 

PS, weren't you in the middle of the conversation?

Edited January 28, 2021 by ORV

[yorky]

13 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

why not?  Many places are giving vaccination cards. Many people will already have evidence.  It's not too difficult to make everyone else get some form of evidence.

 

Why is everyone so concerned about enforcement? It's pretty simple, like most other things in life, it's enforced by being illegal to lie about it.

 

The same way most things are enforced.  I mean do cars have some mechanism where you have to insert a valid license before you drive? Or show you have proof of insurance? No, it's enforced by being illegal.

 

edit: 

My own prediction. Enough people will get vaccinated that the cases will go down to a very low level.  The risk of death when you are vaccinated yourself will be low.  Given these, cruises will require vaccination at first.  Children will be exempt.  And the overall risk of hospitalization will be low enough they won't run into issues.

But we all know some people will lie.

[yorky]

12 hours ago, hcat said:

We have  vaccination cards from  the hosp  clinic where it was administered ..Date for our.next appt for 2nd shot is listed on the reverse.  Space  on front of card to note shot 1 and 2.  Folks cheat at many things...sad !

I’ve had my first shot but Scotland is not giving out appointment cards, and that’s all these cards really are.

[wrk2cruise]

The one given here is "COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card" and has the CDC logo on it and says "Please keep this record card which includes medical information about the vaccines you have received"

 

DW had them put an entry on her yellow card and will do the same for second dose.

[GerScot]

Seems the idea of Global Vaccine Passport is already being touted:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55838180?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6012b9cc54a69202e80de012%26Vaccine passport system 'likely in future'%2C says Scottish health chief%262021-01-28T13%3A55%3A03.552Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:7790de55-8b2d-47ef-a00c-7c5b68b026d4&pinned_post_asset_id=6012b9cc54a69202e80de012&pinned_post_type=share

[TeeRick]

These are mostly appointment cards reminding of the second dose.  Can they be used as official records for anything like travel or getting on a ship?  My initial reaction is no, but who really knows? Different for different countries?   In the day when my kids here in the USA needed vaccine records to attend public school, and then later college, they had to have official signed versions from some type of health authority or doctor's office.  They did not need to be signed by a notary or anything like that.  These days perhaps this type of vaccine record could be electronically added to a passport or driver's license or even a school ID for the younger crowd.  Just speculating.  

[middlehaitch]

Here is what BC, Canada is  doing. This will provided various means of providing proof and, because the card is digitally linked, would be harder to fake the card as it can be computer verified.

Our drivers license is also our service card so will hold access to the vaccination record by the holder but could become a scannable feature in the future. 

Because it is digitally stored by the gov it should also be possible to link it to a passport if that kind of requirement is needed (much like I no longer need a paper copy of my ESTA for entering the USA it now being liked to my passport).

 

Cheers, h 

 

Proof of immunization

You will have the option to receive a paper and digital copy of your immunization record card. We recommend registering for Health Gateway, where you will be able to access your digital immunization record card.

Your immunization record will be also be stored in the online provincial database, accessible to you, public health and your doctor.

Example of a paper immunization record card:

 

[Fouremco]

10 minutes ago, middlehaitch said:

Here is what BC, Canada is  doing. This will provided various means of providing proof and, because the card is digitally linked, would be harder to fake the card as it can be computer verified.

Our drivers license is also our service card so will hold access to the vaccination record by the holder but could become a scannable feature in the future. 

Because it is digitally stored by the gov it should also be possible to link it to a passport if that kind of requirement is needed (much like I no longer need a paper copy of my ESTA for entering the USA it now being liked to my passport).

 

Cheers, h 

 

Proof of immunization

You will have the option to receive a paper and digital copy of your immunization record card. We recommend registering for Health Gateway, where you will be able to access your digital immunization record card.

Your immunization record will be also be stored in the online provincial database, accessible to you, public health and your doctor.

Example of a paper immunization record card:

 

It seems to me that BC has done an admirable job dealing with most aspects of the pandemic, and to the best of my knowledge, it is the only province offering a digital immunization record of this nature. Ontario could learn a lot from your province.