Will you cruise if vaccination is mandatory in order to board?

[Firepath]

I wouldn’t’ cruise unless it’s required and I would get it even if I didn’t want to cruise.

[Jplanetx]

9 minutes ago, Firepath said:

I wouldn’t’ cruise unless it’s required and I would get it even if I didn’t want to cruise.

Same

 

 

(with the exception of the cruise I already paid for. All my moral objections go out the port hole when my deposits at risk.)

 

😅

[electro]

22 minutes ago, Mike45LC said:

I am concerned about the rush to get these vaccines to market and the tremendous social pressure being brought to force people to get the shots.  I am told that many reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines have been suppressed -- I don't know if this is true or not, but it is certainly consistent with other (verified) reports of various discussions being suppressed by Big Tech.  These shots are serious medical procedures.  Is it wrong to want medical reports on possible adverse effects?

 

How many of us here are old enough to remember thalidomide?  A supposedly safe and non-addictive sedative (that was as popular as valium and Miltown --remember the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper"?)  in the late '50 and early '60s, until it was determined to cause "flipper babies".  How horrible to the mothers (and the rest of the families) to realize that the "safe drug" their doctors prescribed did that to their babies??  It was all about the science then too!

 

I am sure we all remember fen-phen, a very safe weight-loss regime that caused heart valve problems.  Again, where was the "science" for the millions of ladies who damaged their hearts from the "safe" weight-loss drugs?   

 

So the animosity and anger (misplaced fear?) towards people who want a longer history of use of these vaccines and who do not want to be part of the early-test trials, is not warranted.  Dial it back!  

How many vaccines have been pulled from the market because they were found not to be safe or had extreme side effects?

[Ride-The-Waves]

12 minutes ago, electro said:

How many vaccines have been pulled from the market because they were found not to be safe or had extreme side effects?

Started having blue mucus drip from my nose last night, seeing apparitions of Lady Gaga, and have lost 50 pounds since the 2nd Pfizer.  Other than that, I'm feeing fine /s/

[navybankerteacher]

46 minutes ago, Mike45LC said:

... 

I am told that many reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines have been suppressed -- 

By whom, and in what context?

Quote

...

 

So the animosity and anger (misplaced fear?) towards people who want a longer history of use of these vaccines and who do not want to be part of the early-test trials, is not warranted.  Dial it back!  

Does the word "EMERGENCY" mean anything to you -- as in "emergency approval" for use?

 

Do you feel that loss of over a half million of your fellow citizens strike you as routine - suggesting that routine, leisurely response is indicated?

 

No one is going to force you to take the vaccine - your standing back will let others not scared by hyped-up social media get theirs sooner.  Do not get the vaccine if you do not want to --- but do not then insist upon jeopardizing others as a result of your decision.

 

How many more hundreds of thousands of deaths (in the US alone) -- now nearing 500,000, will it take to make you think that perhaps something needs to be done --- right NOW?

 

Aside from slowing - hopefully stopping - the death toll,  fast distribution of vaccine needs to be done -- not slowly, which will give the virus a chance to mutate as it spreads.

Edited February 15, 2021 by navybankerteacher

[jocap]

35 minutes ago, Mike45LC said:

I am concerned about the rush to get these vaccines to market and the tremendous social pressure being brought to force people to get the shots.  I am told that many reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines have been suppressed -- I don't know if this is true or not, but it is certainly consistent with other (verified) reports of various discussions being suppressed by Big Tech.  These shots are serious medical procedures.  Is it wrong to want medical reports on possible adverse effects?

 

Mike- I keep reading about the adverse reactions being suppressed, on social media. Some of this seems to stem from the 23 deaths of recently vaccinated people in Norway- who, in fact, were very elderly, with underlying conditions and were a small part of the around 400 who also died in care homes at the same time.

It is a fact that in the UK, the first people to be vaccinated were already in hospital with other ailments. The 2nd person, with the memorable name of William Shakespeare appeared on TV... he was suffering from cancer. but received the vaccination on December 8th along with many other very vulnerable people.

I think the majority of UK people know staff in hospitals, care homes, surgeries, and on the whole they are trustworthy people, who would never suppress such stories. I have relatives who work on the front line, who are completely honest and open- how could they be coerced into hiding such data? 

Yes, people die after being vaccinated, but here the first ones to receive the jab were the most vulnerable because of age and illness, so some have died since that date.

And William Shakespeare, cancer sufferer was shown on TV tonight, with his son, another William- I can't remember why he appeared, but I'm sure others like him have passed away- because they were ill. 

 

[wowzz]

53 minutes ago, Mike45LC said:

How many of us here are old enough to remember thalidomide?  A supposedly safe and non-addictive sedative (that was as popular as valium and Miltown --remember the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper"?)  in the late '50 and early '60s, until it was determined to cause "flipper babies".  How horrible to the mothers (and the rest of the families) to realize that the "safe drug" their doctors prescribed did that to their babies??  It was all about the science then too!

Comparing a drug to an inert vaccine only serves to illustrate your lack of medical knowledge. 

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, Mike45LC said:

I am concerned about the rush to get these vaccines to market and the tremendous social pressure being brought to force people to get the shots.  I am told that many reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines have been suppressed -- I don't know if this is true or not, but it is certainly consistent with other (verified) reports of various discussions being suppressed by Big Tech.  These shots are serious medical procedures.  Is it wrong to want medical reports on possible adverse effects?

 

How many of us here are old enough to remember thalidomide?  A supposedly safe and non-addictive sedative (that was as popular as valium and Miltown --remember the Stones' "Mother's Little Helper"?)  in the late '50 and early '60s, until it was determined to cause "flipper babies".  How horrible to the mothers (and the rest of the families) to realize that the "safe drug" their doctors prescribed did that to their babies??  It was all about the science then too!

 

I am sure we all remember fen-phen, a very safe weight-loss regime that caused heart valve problems.  Again, where was the "science" for the millions of ladies who damaged their hearts from the "safe" weight-loss drugs?   

 

So the animosity and anger (misplaced fear?) towards people who want a longer history of use of these vaccines and who do not want to be part of the early-test trials, is not warranted.  Dial it back!  

 

The thalidomide horror is what led to much more stringent review requirements for new pharmaceutical products, including requirements to demonstrate both efficacy and safety, details on how clinical trials were to take place (with frequent updates to the agency) and detailed records. Because of these changes enacted in 1963 we are EXTREMELY unlikely to see the like of a thalidomide again.

 

Fen-phen is a mixed up story of promotion of off-market usage (e.g., never approved combinations), ineffective guidelines for "lifestyle" drugs intended to be taken over a long period of time, and yes, some bad actors. However there is little in that story that bears any resemblance to approval of a vaccine. 

 

I also want to nip in the bud this idea of "suppressed" side effects. Any adverse effects of any approved vaccine in the US are tracked through the The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which receives approximately 45,000 reports filed each year by health care professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and members of the public (and it is a requirement for the first two to do so). This safety surveillance program is continuously monitored by the FDA for unexpected patterns or changes in rates of adverse events associated with vaccines. This data is available to the public, minus any personal identifiers. 

 

There is no secret cabal, no lizard doctors perpetrating fraud. And PS, about 90% of all the reported adverse effects for all vaccines are mild ones like slight fever or soreness at injection site. Of the remainder, the majority are not found to be associated with vaccine administration.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by cruisemom42

[wowzz]

7 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

The thalidomide horror is what led to much more stringent review requirements for new pharmaceutical products, including requirements to demonstrate both efficacy and safety, details on how clinical trials were to take place (with frequent updates to the agency) and detailed records. Because of these changes enacted in 1963 we are EXTREMELY unlikely to see the like of a thalidomide again.

 

Fen-phen is a mixed up story of promotion of off-market usage (e.g., never approved combinations), ineffective guidelines for "lifestyle" drugs intended to be taken over a long period of time, and yes, some bad actors. However there is little in that story that bears any resemblance to approval of a vaccine. 

 

I also want to nip in the bud this idea of "suppressed" side effects. Any adverse effects of any approved vaccine in the US are tracked through the The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which receives approximately 45,000 reports filed each year by health care professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and members of the public (and it is a requirement for the first two to do so). This safety surveillance program is continuously monitored by the FDA for unexpected patterns or changes in rates of adverse events associated with vaccines. This data is available to the public, minus any personal identifiers. 

 

There is no secret cabal, no lizard doctors perpetrating fraud. And PS, about 90% of all the reported adverse effects for all vaccines are mild ones like slight fever or soreness at injection site. Of the remainder, the majority are not found to be associated with vaccine administration.

 

 

Excellent post. I must admit, I never realised that there were people that seem to believe all sorts of conspiracy theories,  until I started reading this thread.

What is worrying, is that these people have no actual medical or scientific background,  but still tout totally irrational theories as if they had some sort of credence. 

 

[tosteve1]

15 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

The thalidomide horror is what led to much more stringent review requirements for new pharmaceutical products, including requirements to demonstrate both efficacy and safety, details on how clinical trials were to take place (with frequent updates to the agency) and detailed records. Because of these changes enacted in 1963 we are EXTREMELY unlikely to see the like of a thalidomide again.

 

Fen-phen is a mixed up story of promotion of off-market usage (e.g., never approved combinations), ineffective guidelines for "lifestyle" drugs intended to be taken over a long period of time, and yes, some bad actors. However there is little in that story that bears any resemblance to approval of a vaccine. 

 

I also want to nip in the bud this idea of "suppressed" side effects. Any adverse effects of any approved vaccine in the US are tracked through the The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which receives approximately 45,000 reports filed each year by health care professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and members of the public (and it is a requirement for the first two to do so). This safety surveillance program is continuously monitored by the FDA for unexpected patterns or changes in rates of adverse events associated with vaccines. This data is available to the public, minus any personal identifiers. 

 

There is no secret cabal, no lizard doctors perpetrating fraud. And PS, about 90% of all the reported adverse effects for all vaccines are mild ones like slight fever or soreness at injection site. Of the remainder, the majority are not found to be associated with vaccine administration.

 

 

Can you prove there are no lizard doctors? I knew a guy who reported one but it was all suppressed. The fake media would never report it!🤞

[cruisemom42]

7 minutes ago, tosteve1 said:

Can you prove there are no lizard doctors? I knew a guy who reported one but it was all suppressed. The fake media would never report it!🤞

 

You must be referring to this guy:

[ldubs]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:19 PM, clo said:

What we don't know yet is how often we're going to be vaccinated. Four times a year perhaps?

 

4 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Why would you think it would be so frequent?

 

I'll bet the CDC's comments about vaccines, quarantines & 3 months probably got some to jump to the conclusion that a vaccine would be needed four times per year.  So you probably did read it somewhere.   

  

[lenquixote66]

1 hour ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Started having blue mucus drip from my nose last night, seeing apparitions of Lady Gaga, and have lost 50 pounds since the 2nd Pfizer.  Other than that, I'm feeing fine /s/

I had a bad reaction to the second Pfizer shot. For a 4 hour period I thought I had pneumonia.I had chills then felt hot,had a fever and the worst headache ever.It felt as though someone was pounding on my head with hammers.

[Joebucks]

6 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Why does it have to be like the flu? Coronavirus is not the same as influenza virus.

 

Vaccines that do not need to be taken annually:

• Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) -- given as 2 doses in infants/young children
• Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis -- given as 5 doses across childhood, booster in adolescents
• Chickenpox/varicella -- 2 doses, given in childhood 
• Polio -- 4 doses, given in childhood
• Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) -- 3-4 doses in infants/young children
• Meningococcal disease -- 1 or possibly 2 doses during teenage years
• Hepatitis A/B -- Depending on series can be 3 shots (2 HepA only; 3 for Hep A/B combo)
• Rotavirus -- 2 doses or 3 doses in infants
• Pneumococcal -- 4 doses in infancy or 1 in adults
• Shingles -- 2 doses in those 50+ years 

 

It's a shame we couldn't have eradicated COVID-19 by collective lockdowns in the early days, in which case it would be much less likely that we would be in this situation and dealing with variants. But many virologist are still hopeful that a) variants will continue to emerge slowly (unlike the seasonal flu) and that vaccines will, for the most part, be effective against them. 

 

Here, a couple of excerpts from an interview with an expert whose lab is involved in helping the state of California detect new variants:

 

SARS-CoV-2, like other coronaviruses, is generally slow to mutate thanks to built-in error-correcting proteins that fix most mistakes in replication. It generally accumulates one or two mutations per month, but the vast majority of mutations do not change the properties of the virus, such as its transmissibility.

 

Chiu said it’s very unlikely that the current vaccines will not be effective against the new variant. The two mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna produce the entire spike protein, meaning someone who is vaccinated will usually generate a variety of antibodies that target different locations on the spike. “So essentially you would need to have mutations everywhere along the protein for a variant to elude all potential neutralizing antibodies,” said Chiu.

 

(For those who can't read double-negative, that means it is very likely that current vaccines will be effective, albeit there is a chance that they will be "slightly less effective" than against the original strains.)  👍 This seems especially true for the mRNA vaccines vs. traditional ones.

 

And for those who are in "wait and see" mode regarding vaccination, he also said:

 

"The longer the pandemic lasts, the more time the virus will have to acquire additional mutations. “The key question is can we control the pandemic in time to prevent the virus from becoming even more infectious, more deadly, or more resistant to existing therapies and vaccines,” said Chiu.

 

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419561/how-worried-should-you-be-about-new-coronavirus-variant

 

 

Why is this argument so common?: "COVID and the flu are nothing alike. So now we will compare COVID to diseases like polio."

 

Of course it is not the same as the flu. But it is closer than nearly anything else you posted in your laundry list of fear. The "science" has basically already confirmed that a COVID vaccine is not a lifetime protection. Hell, no one can even claim how long it is good for, amongst a list of other things we really don't know yet either.

 

5 hours ago, ldubs said:

  

I'm so tired of this argument primarily because it is not an argument for anything.  As a whole we are incredibly better off having the flu vaccines.  Thank god we have the science to respond to the changing flu strains annually.   Like most things in life, that they are not 100% effective does not mean they should be avoided.  It just doesn't make sense.    

 

I have yet to say that the COVID vaccine hasn't helped anything. Incredibly better off with the flu vaccine is quite a subjective claim though. Even the "data" out there of what it "prevented" is still subjective at best. We always forget that the flu vaccine has a effectiveness of roughly 40%. Sometimes less, sometimes more. If you mandated it, it would do nothing. If your first response to this is "the flu is different" then don't even bother responding. The reason it is so low is partially because of how contagious it is. You cannot copy anything millions of times and expect it to be the same as the original. Viruses mutate. Viruses adapt. 

 

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

By whom, and in what context?

Does the word "EMERGENCY" mean anything to you -- as in "emergency approval" for use?

 

Do you feel that loss of over a half million of your fellow citizens strike you as routine - suggesting that routine, leisurely response is indicated?

 

No one is going to force you to take the vaccine - your standing back will let others not scared by hyped-up social media get theirs sooner.  Do not get the vaccine if you do not want to --- but do not then insist upon jeopardizing others as a result of your decision.

 

How many more hundreds of thousands of deaths (in the US alone) -- now nearing 500,000, will it take to make you think that perhaps something needs to be done --- right NOW?

 

Aside from slowing - hopefully stopping - the death toll,  fast distribution of vaccine needs to be done -- not slowly, which will give the virus a chance to mutate as it spreads.

 

You can use as many fear tactics as you want. Next time, I recommend adding some of the personal touches like families torn apart from it for some extra effect. These tactics have no relation to how effective or safe the vaccine is. I haven't stated yet that the vaccine is worthless. It is just far too soon for me to rush to get it. 

 

How am I jeopardizing others if they want the vaccine, and I don't? Aren't I just jeopardizing myself? I have yet to have that one explained to me yet. No one can, because it's not part of the official script. 

[navybankerteacher]

12 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

...

 

How am I jeopardizing others if they want the vaccine, and I don't? Aren't I just jeopardizing myself? I have yet to have that one explained to me yet. No one can, because it's not part of the official script. 

 If you fail to be part of the critical mass required to achieve herd immunity, you can be seen as jeopardizing those people who, for genuine health reasons (not for ignorant luddite anti-vaxing superstition) are unable to accept vaccine.

 

If your reluctance to join in the effort to control Covid prolongs the pandemic you are jeopardizing a lot of peoples' return to normal. including cruising.

 

You do not need an "official script" --- just an ability to think beyond your own narrow perceived (probably misperceived) interests.

Edited February 16, 2021 by navybankerteacher

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

 

 

 

Have you any citations to prove the non-existence of lizard doctors? 

 

I'd like to believe you, but (sadly) I have seen far more posts showing how vaccine is part of a global conspiracy than, say, posts claiming that the sun rises in the east. 

 

It seems like the people have spoken.

[clo]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

How am I jeopardizing others if they want the vaccine, and I don't? Aren't I just jeopardizing myself? I have yet to have that one explained to me yet. No one can, because it's not part of the official script. 

After a year of having this explained ad nauseum I'm just going to say N. O. You aren't "just jeopardizing" yourself.  Even THIS site has explained this over and over and over. Closed mind or not a critical thinker. I'm done with you.

[navybankerteacher]

51 minutes ago, clo said:

After a year of having this explained ad nauseum I'm just going to say N. O. You aren't "just jeopardizing" yourself.  Even THIS site has explained this over and over and over. Closed mind or not a critical thinker. I'm done with you.

As the old saying has it:  "There is none so blind as he who will not see".

 

It is probably best to leave these fellows alone.  I recall my father warning me against getting into a discussion with someone used to living with ignorance  -- he will wear you down and will then try to beat you with experience.

[clo]

11 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

It is probably best to leave these fellows alone.

Already hit the "ignore" button.

[sverigecruiser]

6 hours ago, clo said:

So have you decided that you'll cruise if masks are required? I seem to remember your being quite adamant about that. Since all the current advice is, even with vaccination, continue with masks and social distancing.

 

I decided a long time ago that I will defenitely NOT cruise if masks are required.

 

I see no reason to pay for an experience I won't enjoy.

 

Not all current advice is that masks shall be worn when social distancing is possible. 

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

I have yet to say that the COVID vaccine hasn't helped anything. Incredibly better off with the flu vaccine is quite a subjective claim though. Even the "data" out there of what it "prevented" is still subjective at best. We always forget that the flu vaccine has a effectiveness of roughly 40%. Sometimes less, sometimes more. If you mandated it, it would do nothing. If your first response to this is "the flu is different" then don't even bother responding. The reason it is so low is partially because of how contagious it is. You cannot copy anything millions of times and expect it to be the same as the original. Viruses mutate. Viruses adapt. 

 

 

 

I responded to your comment about the flu vaccine.   You seem to think it is some kind of dramatic revelation that the flu vaccine is less than 100% effective and that it is modified to be responsive to the seasonal strain.  And now you seem to be saying that if everyone had the flu vaccine it would do nothing.   I am so sorry, but there is nothing subjective about the benefits of the flu vaccines.   Reality is against you on that one.   Anyway, if this drama is supposed to convince me to avoid the Covid vaccine --   No thanks.  

 

 

 

 

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Not all current advice is that masks shall be worn when social distancing is possible. 

 

I think that is particularly true when outdoors.  Indoors at public places, at least here, masks are worn.  Of course, no one is saying masks should be worn at home around people who live in your household.  

 

I should also add, I am one of those who would be hesitant to take a cruise that required masks be worn.  I question that I would enjoy that experience.   

Edited February 16, 2021 by ldubs

[Toofarfromthesea]

9 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Since I will have to wait for some more months before I will be offered the shot I don't have to decide now but as it looks now I see no reason not to get the shot when it's offered. No signs of any major risks yet, as I said.  

 

How is the vaccine roll-out going in Sweden as compared to the EU issues?

[sverigecruiser]

5 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

How is the vaccine roll-out going in Sweden as compared to the EU issues?

 

The EU issues are, of course, issues in Sweden too.

 

From the beginning it was said that everyone in Sweden should have been offered the vaccine before end of June but now some regions say middle of July. There are some delays but it's too early to say how delayed it will be in the end.

 

I don't expect to be offered the vaccine before the summer.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

 If you fail to be part of the critical mass required to achieve herd immunity, you can be seen as jeopardizing those people who, for genuine health reasons (not for ignorant luddite anti-vaxing superstition) are unable to accept vaccine.

 

If your reluctance to join in the effort to control Covid prolongs the pandemic you are jeopardizing a lot of peoples' return to normal. including cruising.

 

You do not need an "official script" --- just an ability to think beyond your own narrow perceived (probably misperceived) interests.

The same arguments apply to measles and the measles vaccine. There was an outbreak of measles in parts of NY state due to a lack of herd immunity because of those claiming a religious exemption. The governor and the legislature had to do away with that loophole (while still allowing of course medical exemptions) for school children. This was upheld by the courts as a necessary measure for public health and safety.

 

There is a youngster who is our son's Godson in all but official name. He has a compromised immunity system and is eligible to be exempted from the measles vaccine. However, without herd immunity at the time before the state acted, his parents had him get the measles vaccine as they saw it as the lesser risk than actually contracting measles.

 

So, yes, you are absolutely correct in your statement about jeopardizing those with actual valid reasons for avoiding vaccines.