Canada Locks Down to Feb 28 2022

[Tkhalaska]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

As I've tried to explain the legalities of vaccination mandates are very much up in the air when the vaccines are being administered under an EUA as opposed to being FDA-approved vaccines.

 

I believe the Covid vaccines will move quickly from EUA into full FDA approval and licensing, probably rapidly enough that the argument about being required if EUA will not even have the chance to be challenged or litigated.  In the meantime, it can be mandated without being mandated.  If there are enough restrictions placed on what you can and cannot do, and difficult hoops you need to jump through to get exemptions, then most people will just go ahead and get the vaccine in order to go back to their usual lives.  This is especially true when Astrazeneca and J&J are available which are produced in traditional methods, differing very little from the usual flu shots.

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, Tkhalaska said:

 

I believe the Covid vaccines will move quickly from EUA into full FDA approval and licensing, probably rapidly enough that the argument about being required if EUA will not even have the chance to be challenged or litigated.  In the meantime, it can be mandated without being mandated.  If there are enough restrictions placed on what you can and cannot do, and difficult hoops you need to jump through to get exemptions, then most people will just go ahead and get the vaccine in order to go back to their usual lives.  This is especially true when Astrazeneca and J&J are available which are produced in traditional methods, differing very little from the usual flu shots.

Right now very little is actually known about the vaccines other than their efficacy and safety under trial conditions. We can't be surprised if efficacy and safety under real world conditions turn out to meaningfully differ from the trial results. For example it's not unheard of for even fully approved drugs to  have to be withdrawn from the market down the road when previously undetected safety issues occur.

 

We don't know how long they afford immunity, we don't know whether they reduce transmission of the disease as opposed to just preventing vaccinated persons from becoming ill or just lessening the severity of illness and we don't know with any certainty how effective they're going to be against variants.

 

There's still a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of public skepticism about vaccination in general and these vaccines in particular. That may prevent us from vaccinating a high enough percentage of the US population to give us the hope of achieving some reasonable facsimile of "herd immunity" ( In quotes because I dislike the term...we're not cattle).

 

All of this is a big part of why it normally takes years to get approval of a vaccine or almost any medication, so I don't see the FDA or regulators elsewhere being so fast to pull the trigger on full approval. If I'm wrong, fine, but that's how I see it right now.

[susiesan]

Alaska cruises are heavily booked by families with children. If everyone has to be vaccinated before boarding, and it's unlikely children or even people under 40 will be before the start of Alaska cruise season in May/June, these cruises would be filled with only older Americans who are the only ones who will have been vaccinated by then. I doubt the ships would be even 25% booked. I doubt Oceania or any other cruise line can afford to operate with such a low load.

[hamrag]

2 hours ago, LHT28 said:

Would  that not be against  one of  your amendments??

Americans have the  right to do whatever you want or something similar

 

Certainly many of them do whatever they want, whether it is for or against their (so called) constitutional rights! They also expect to be able to do same outwith the USofA! 🙄

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

You're failing to distinguish vaccines with an EUA from fully approved vaccines. Read the article carefully.  Here's what it says about mandating vaccines with EUA, which is the current status of the vaccines in use today in the US, and will be for some time:

 

"Mandating COVID-19 vaccines under an EUA is legally and ethically problematic "

 

It's only after vaccines are granted full Biologics License Application (BLA) that the issue of mandates comes into consideration :

 

"Once SARS-CoV-2 vaccines receive a BLA, policy makers must determine to which, if any, populations mandates should apply. Vaccine mandates could be imposed in multiple sectors, each with their own legal and ethical considerations."

 

So this article is saying exactly what I've been saying...mandates under EUA are problematic and vaccination mandates will be considered after full approval of the vaccines is granted.

 

I am fully cognizant of the differences and between Full FDA approval and EUA.  My point all along was contained in the next sentence which you left out from your quotes:

 

"The act authorizing the FDA to issue EUAs requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to specify whether individuals may refuse the vaccine and the consequences for refusal."

 

That sentence says a whole lot.  It indicates that the Secretary of HHS can authorize mandates under an EUA as well as authorizing consequences for refusing.  What this whole discussion comes down to is what did the Secretary have to say about mandates.  I can't seem to locate his position on it.

[GICNJC]

The decision by the Canadian Government decision to prohibit cruise ships with over 100 individuals was based on Covid science and a political retaliation decision by President Biden stopping the Keystone Pipeline from proceeding after the Canadian Government invested heavily into it.

[Shawnino]

32 minutes ago, GICNJC said:

The decision by the Canadian Government decision to prohibit cruise ships with over 100 individuals was based on Covid science and a political retaliation decision by President Biden stopping the Keystone Pipeline from proceeding after the Canadian Government invested heavily into it.

 

Retaliation over Keystone feels like an overbid.

The current government holds few seats (if any) i the areas affected by a Keystone go/no-go, and it's rather been the government's policy that those areas don't really matter. Like father, like son.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I am fully cognizant of the differences and between Full FDA approval and EUA.  My point all along was contained in the next sentence which you left out from your quotes:

 

"The act authorizing the FDA to issue EUAs requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to specify whether individuals may refuse the vaccine and the consequences for refusal."

 

That sentence says a whole lot.  It indicates that the Secretary of HHS can authorize mandates under an EUA as well as authorizing consequences for refusing.  What this whole discussion comes down to is what did the Secretary have to say about mandates.  I can't seem to locate his position on it.

I can tell you that when I got my first vaccine dose two weeks ago the FDA-mandated paperwork I received stated in bold print: "It is your choice whether to receive or not receive the vaccine". There was nothing further addressing any potential negative consequences for your employment, right to travel or or any other restrictions that might arise from refusing to be vaccinated. In fact that sentence was the last sentence of the section titled "Why are you being offered the option to receive the vaccine ?" That tells me at this time there is nothing that looks anything like a mandate or negative consequences in place. As required by the sentence you cited I was told I had the option to refuse vaccination, but was not advised of any consequences for refusal. 

 

From a common sense perspective, given the legal, ethical and medical issues surrounding the EUA process if there's half  a living brain cell still functioning anywhere in Washington I can't imagine any mandates or consequences for approval being imposed right now.

 

 

[clo]

3 hours ago, GICNJC said:

The decision by the Canadian Government decision to prohibit cruise ships with over 100 individuals was based on Covid science and a political retaliation decision by President Biden stopping the Keystone Pipeline from proceeding after the Canadian Government invested heavily into it.

Please provide proof of that since you didn't say this is what you think/feel/believe but rather "was based on." TIA.

[d9704011]

4 hours ago, GICNJC said:

Keystone Pipeline from proceeding after the Canadian Government invested heavily into it.

actually, it’s the government of Alberta that’s heavily invested.

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I can tell you that when I got my first vaccine dose two weeks ago the FDA-mandated paperwork I received stated in bold print: "It is your choice whether to receive or not receive the vaccine". There was nothing further addressing any potential negative consequences for your employment, right to travel or or any other restrictions that might arise from refusing to be vaccinated. In fact that sentence was the last sentence of the section titled "Why are you being offered the option to receive the vaccine ?" That tells me at this time there is nothing that looks anything like a mandate or negative consequences in place. As required by the sentence you cited I was told I had the option to refuse vaccination, but was not advised of any consequences for refusal. 

 

From a common sense perspective, given the legal, ethical and medical issues surrounding the EUA process if there's half  a living brain cell still functioning anywhere in Washington I can't imagine any mandates or consequences for approval being imposed right now.

 

According to the FDA:  

"Q: Is there a test for COVID-19?

A: Yes, the FDA has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for different types of COVID-19 tests. Some tests are used to diagnose the virus that causes COVID-19 infection whereas other tests are used to detect a recent or prior COVID-19 infection. There are 2 different types of COVID-19 diagnostic tests -- "

 

According to the CDC: 

"New Travel Requirements:

All air passengers coming to the United States, including U.S. citizens, are required to have a negative COVID-19 test result or documentation of recovery from COVID-19 before they board a flight to the United States."

 

Since the Covid-19 tests are permitted by an EUA, how can the Government require (mandate) proof of having taken the test and provide the results of said test or deny boarding an aircraft?  There are quite a few states that require negative Covid-19 tests prior to entry to the state.  Again, it's a mandate and if you choose not to get such a test then you don't fly into the US or you don't get into some states.  Wouldn't those be consequences?  

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Daniel A

[jagoffee]

11 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

According to the FDA:  

"Q: Is there a test for COVID-19?

A: Yes, the FDA has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for different types of COVID-19 tests. Some tests are used to diagnose the virus that causes COVID-19 infection whereas other tests are used to detect a recent or prior COVID-19 infection. There are 2 different types of COVID-19 diagnostic tests -- "

 

According to the CDC: 

"New Travel Requirements:

All air passengers coming to the United States, including U.S. citizens, are required to have a negative COVID-19 test result or documentation of recovery from COVID-19 before they board a flight to the United States."

 

Since the Covid-19 tests are permitted by an EUA, how can the Government require (mandate) proof of having taken the test and provide the results of said test or deny boarding an aircraft?  There are quite a few states that require negative Covid-19 tests prior to entry to the state.  Again, it's a mandate and if you choose not to get such a test then you don't fly into the US or you don't get into some states.  Wouldn't those be consequences?  

 

I am fairly certain that you are incorrect with the statement that you cannot get into some states without a negative test result.   Perhaps you meant to say that you need a negative test results to avoid a required quarantine when entering from another state.

  Even in Hawaii, you do not need a negative test to travel there, just to bypass the required quarantine.

 

Are any Covid tests Fully approved by the FDA?  It has been a year for some of them.

Edited February 7, 2021 by jagoffee

[njhorseman]

24 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

According to the FDA:  

"Q: Is there a test for COVID-19?

A: Yes, the FDA has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for different types of COVID-19 tests. Some tests are used to diagnose the virus that causes COVID-19 infection whereas other tests are used to detect a recent or prior COVID-19 infection. There are 2 different types of COVID-19 diagnostic tests -- "

 

According to the CDC: 

"New Travel Requirements:

All air passengers coming to the United States, including U.S. citizens, are required to have a negative COVID-19 test result or documentation of recovery from COVID-19 before they board a flight to the United States."

 

Since the Covid-19 tests are permitted by an EUA, how can the Government require (mandate) proof of having taken the test and provide the results of said test or deny boarding an aircraft?  There are quite a few states that require negative Covid-19 tests prior to entry to the state.  Again, it's a mandate and if you choose not to get such a test then you don't fly into the US or you don't get into some states.  Wouldn't those be consequences?  

 

And none of that has anything to do with the vaccines. 

 

Requiring one (a negative test) under certain circumstances doesn't in any way imply they're going to require the other (vaccination) in other circumstances.

 

The consequences of being vaccinated with an unapproved vaccine are potentially life threatening. That's a far cry from saying "Sorry, you can't enter the country unless you take a test". 

 

Further the tests have been in use for close to a year so there's a lot more known about them than there is about the vaccines that have just been in use for a few weeks. Check back in a year...maybe they'll be confident enough then about the real world safety and efficacy of the vaccines to permit vaccination mandates. Vaccination mandates today would be the height of insanity legally, ethically, and medically. 

 

 

[pinotlover]

Debate the legalese all night. Legalese vs personal choice. Purely, imo, if the cruise ships don’t mandate the vaccines, they’ll be swamped with cancellations . Anti-vaxers make their choice, vaxers make theirs. We’ll see which side wins or loses. Perhaps FDR believes he can make a fortune running niche cruises for antivaxers. 

[GICNJC]

8 hours ago, clo said:

Please provide proof of that since you didn't say this is what you think/feel/believe but rather "was based on." TIA.

It is my appraisal of the situation based on satement of anger over Keystone cancellation by Federal and some provincial Government  Leaders.  I am linking them based on my analysis of political titl for tat history between Canada an other countries. 

[Empehi]

What are the Canadians on the CC Board hearing about current the slow down of the Vaccine availability in Canada? 

[msn123]

I realize there are some exceptions, but generally children cannot be enrolled in schools unless they are current on their vaccinations. I would think cruise ships would be able to mandate a covid vaccination as a condition of sailing.

[LHT28]

2 hours ago, Empehi said:

What are the Canadians on the CC Board hearing about current the slow down of the Vaccine availability in Canada? 

We are hearing  that Pfizer  have reduced shipments to Canada  I think last week  it was zero vaccines  shipped  this coming week it is less than 50 % of what it was supposed to be

 Moderna has reduced shipments also

 We have still not vaccinated all the long term care people or  the healthcare & front line workers

It may be fall before  they get to the regular folk

 You can google the news stories on  the situation

 

Here we are in lockdown for the foreseeable 😷

[Daniel A]

11 hours ago, jagoffee said:

I am fairly certain that you are incorrect with the statement that you cannot get into some states without a negative test result.   Perhaps you meant to say that you need a negative test results to avoid a required quarantine when entering from another state.

  Even in Hawaii, you do not need a negative test to travel there, just to bypass the required quarantine.

 

Are any Covid tests Fully approved by the FDA?  It has been a year for some of them.

I'm not aware of any Covid-19 medical products that have authorization beyond EUA.  Yes, you are correct that you are not kept out.  My point (poorly articulated for brevity) was if I wanted to fly into Hawaii for 4 or 5 days to see Pearl Harbor and a volcano or to attend a wedding, I can't do it without submitting to a Covid-19 test.  Failure to comply with that order is a crime in Hawaii.  As I see it, that would constitute a consequence for not submitting to a medical procedure authorized by an EUA.

 

10 hours ago, njhorseman said:

And none of that has anything to do with the vaccines. 

 

Requiring one (a negative test) under certain circumstances doesn't in any way imply they're going to require the other (vaccination) in other circumstances.

They're both "medical products" authorized under an EUA.  If one can have a mandate with consequences (not boarding aircraft or not having the freedom to travel at will in many states) then it shows that mandates are, in fact, legally permissible with potential consequences.

 

As much as I am enjoying this discussion (which, by the way, I have been enjoying 🙂), I fear we have pushed a thread drift too far for those who wanted a discussion of Canada prohibiting cruising for 13 months.

 

Thank you for a very good discussion, it's made me see another point of view and stretched my gray matter a bit.  I hope someday we can meet up on a ship and enjoy a good discussion over a cup of coffee or better yet, a couple of beers.  Until then please stay safe.

[PaulMCO]

Back to topic.   The Canadian ban of cruise ships using Canadian waters also effects the port of Seattle.  Big ships sail into the port via US water and leave via Canadian waters if they go to Alaska via the Outside Passage and Inside Passage is all Canadian.

[clo]

2 hours ago, msn123 said:

I realize there are some exceptions, but generally children cannot be enrolled in schools unless they are current on their vaccinations. I would think cruise ships would be able to mandate a covid vaccination as a condition of sailing.

But not a COVID vaccination.

[Shawnino]

O is still selling Canada cruises for 2021.

That, friends, is fishing for interest-free loans from the ignorant.

[clo]

3 minutes ago, Shawnino said:

O is still selling  cruises for 2021.

That, friends, is fishing for interest-free loans from the ignorant.

And that is annoying.

[GICNJC]

3 hours ago, Shawnino said:

O is still selling Canada cruises for 2021.

That, friends, is fishing for interest-free loans from the ignorant.

Oceania committed several months ago to releasing updates by the end of the month.  Their December end of month release was on January 19.  As ongoing Oceania customer,  I hope they release their end of January one tomorrow.   Odds are they won't and continue to string us along.

[billf0401]

18 hours ago, Shawnino said:

O is still selling Canada cruises for 2021.

That, friends, is fishing for interest-free loans from the ignorant.

Yes, as of this morning cruises from NYC/Montreal are listed as for sale....this is a bad look for Oceania...we are booked on the 10/31/21 Montreal/Miami cruise...It certainly will be cancelled but is for sale today.