New CDC Guidelines for Vaccinated People

[coffeebean]

18 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

 

So no families. Adults only.  Teens allowed early next year. Children allowed sometime later in 2022.

I don't see the cruise lines doing this... 

I do. The bottom line is what counts in business.

[PelicanBill]

17 hours ago, Ashland said:

No one should feel cheated getting the J/J....take what is given. Our school districts are giving it at the main district offices.

Although this messaging has been overwhelming, there is a major difference in reported effectiveness for people with vulnerable medical conditions. J&J was only 42% effective for those with Diabetes - in the US, where the South Africa variant was not yet circulating. Compare to the others at 95% which included significant Diabetic populations.

 

Yes, I know the news is the first two vaccine aren't as affective against the South Africa variant.

 

But for someone with Asthma, Heart Disease, Diabetes and Type A blood... my risk of getting very sick is high and I want the highest available resistance.   Getting very sick means losing work, and going on disability if it lasts more than 5 days. I have experience with this: Despite getting a flu vaccine, I have gotten sick with the flu. Even with the vaccine, which should mitigate symptoms, I was terribly sick for 2 weeks and got bronchitis for two months.  I would expect Covid to be worse.

 

The messaging is all about this:  J&J protects you from severe disease and death.  It is much more limited about keeping you from getting sick at all. Pfizer and Moderna stop you from getting sick. There is no long term data for any vaccine yet. And there is a lot of talk that J&J could have been a two-dose vaccine and achieved the same level as the first two!  

 

I have read the FDA reports on all the vaccines relative to people with vulnerable health conditions.  So forgive me for wanting to get what appears to be more effective vaccines.  (I did succeed at getting Pfizer.)

 

[smokeybandit]

20 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I do. The bottom line is what counts in business.

Yes, and banning people scared of unvaccinated kids would hurt the bottom line a lot less than banning families.

[Ocean Boy]

13 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Yes, and banning people scared of unvaccinated kids would hurt the bottom line a lot less than banning families.

Plenty is going to depend on what ports of call require in order to accept ships. I don't think people are scared of unvaccinated kids. I think the concern is that restrictions will be in place both on the ship and in ports, that would otherwise not be needed, if any unvaccinated people are aboard the ships.

 

Remember, too, the ports have an interest in the people on those ships spending money in port but not so much having them either stay on the ship or being confined to ship sponsored tours where they are kept segregated. 

[smokeybandit]

3 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

I think the concern is that restrictions will be in place both on the ship and in ports, that would otherwise not be needed, if any unvaccinated people are aboard the ships.

 

The CDC still wants vaccinated people to follow all the rules for those unvaccinated except for small gatherings with like home units.

[Ocean Boy]

13 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

The CDC still wants vaccinated people to follow all the rules for those unvaccinated except for small gatherings with like home units.

You can't apply what is being said now to when cruising starts. The CDC is still advising against any international travel. The CDC will also have zero say in what ports of call require of the cruiselines.

 

The reason for restrictions in public still being in place is because there are still many unvaccinated people. As the number of vaccinated people increases, or it is shown that vaccinated people do not transmit the disease, restrictions will be relaxed further. It would certainly follow that in a controlled environment like a cruiseship where you can achieve a 100% vaccination rate restrictions should be able to be greatly reduced if needed at all.

 

 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

11 hours ago, lizzius said:

Most people that follow you won't be able to retire at the rates that your generation could, so cool story bro.

 

And yes... Kids and the younger working classes stayed home to slow the spread of a disease they're orders of magnitude less susceptible to for the sake of the older people we love. Thankful that the retired people in my life understand that sacrifice, and aren't out spouting some of this nonsense and demanding the ability to travel *without us* while we continue to wait for our vaccines. I'd link to a few old threads on this site (where dare I say some of the names may look awfully familliar) that were simply outraged cruise lines temporarily banned older travellers before shutting down. Irony is dead.

 

Thank you for your sacrifice. LOL...

 

But seriously... I really want to get this right and not misunderstand your post...

So if the CDC guidelines to the cruise industry states that cruising can begin as long as all passengers and crew have been vaxed... are you saying then that Royal or any cruiseline should not offer ANY cruises to ANYONE until a vax for kids has been developed?  

[orville99]

12 hours ago, lizzius said:

Most people that follow you won't be able to retire at the rates that your generation could, so cool story bro.

Probably because we grew up with a solid work ethic and an appreciation for the "sweat equity" that the generations before us instilled in us to give us the opportunity to work hard, plan ahead, and be responsible stewards of our lives and the lives of those around us. The "everyone gets a trophy" generation has no clue what "sweat equity" even means, let alone how to accomplish anything similar.

[boscobeans]

1 hour ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Thank you for your sacrifice. LOL...

 

But seriously... I really want to get this right and not misunderstand your post...

So if the CDC guidelines to the cruise industry states that cruising can begin as long as all passengers and crew have been vaxed... are you saying then that Royal or any cruiseline should not offer ANY cruises to ANYONE until a vax for kids has been developed?  

+1

 

Good question.

Am interested in an answer as well..

[coffeebean]

20 hours ago, Heymarco said:

Or science, kids are so low risk. Better to kick off smokers and 70+ first. 🤣

Those smokers and 70+ generate the more revenue than kids. I don't see kids bellying up to the bar.

Edited March 9, 2021 by coffeebean

[coffeebean]

20 hours ago, Heymarco said:

You do realize “fully vaccinated” with quotes as Royal describes it means the requirement is only for 16+ and children are still allowed to sail. You have to watch quotes and read fine print.

Royal should not be using the terminology "fully vaccinated". That is just not true. I'm surprised their lawyers allow that verbiage.

[boscobeans]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Those smokers and 70+ generate the more revenue than kids. I don't see kids bellying up to the bar.

WELL SAID.

 

I guess all those "KIDS SAIL FREE" offers make billions for RCCL. 

Kids are fine with me, but they, as you implied, do NOT dump loads of money at the shops, bars and the Casinos.. :LOL We sure do and I'M 75...

[davekathy]

4 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Royal should not be using the terminology "fully vaccinated". That is just not true. I'm surprised their lawyers allow that verbiage.

Sounds like something a lawyer wrote. 😉

[mek]

13 hours ago, lizzius said:

Most people that follow you won't be able to retire at the rates that your generation could, so cool story bro.

 

 

Don't know about that.  I just retired last March and worked until I was 70 because I liked my job and wanted to - I know lots of people who continue to work and don't retire early.

But then we also get a lot of flack about not vacating positions so younger people can move up.

[HBE4]

1 hour ago, orville99 said:

Probably because we grew up with a solid work ethic and an appreciation for the "sweat equity" that the generations before us instilled in us to give us the opportunity to work hard, plan ahead, and be responsible stewards of our lives and the lives of those around us. The "everyone gets a trophy" generation has no clue what "sweat equity" even means, let alone how to accomplish anything similar.

 

Nah, unlike previous generations that had a nice 40-work week for the same company their entire lives with a generous pension plan at the end of the rainbow, today people work longer hours (both in the workplace and at home) with little/no over time pay and no job security or no pension plan. How's that for some sweat? 

[broberts]

2 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

J&J was only 42% effective for those with Diabetes - in the US, where the South Africa variant was not yet circulating. Compare to the others at 95% which included significant Diabetic populations.

 

Would you provide a reference please.

[shipgeeks]

I still don't see how "fully vaccinated" =  "does not  apply to unvac minors".

Doesn't "fully" mean 100%?  All passengers, all crew, all officers?  Or, in maritime terminology, "all souls onboard"?

[PelicanBill]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

 

Would you provide a reference please.

There are plenty out there.

 

First, here is a 2 day old article that breaks the code:  All vaccines are NOT equal.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fhealth%2Farchive%2F2021%2F03%2Fpfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson-vaccines-compared%2F618226%2F&h=AT16x1NC0t4rL6uhc9IDekOKvEIcl8xIJIJhVsyxNqryJTUOi43pGXOLyZC5l-ZT57RirlPStpmm7ufEgzROQIex6byFJ3JCKdDvwX3Ax9qmnICtHYycFW0MXujo__ADeQELZZS84ghcFmI&s=1

 

Here is one of many that covers the diabetes low effectiveness for J&J. Unfortunately it is at NY Times and I have a subscription.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/science/johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine.html 

Here is a quote. And it means they did not include enough people with risk factors, while Pfizer and Moderna both had large populations of older people and risk factors.  

"The trial indicated a lower efficacy, of 42.3 percent, for people over 60 who had risk factors like heart disease or diabetes. But this figure came with a large amount of statistical uncertainty, the F.D.A. noted."

 

The amount of SPIN in media has been overwhelming. The intensity with which we were suddenly bombarded with the message "Take any vaccine they are all good"  was too suspicious. That is why I dug deeper. And it is slow in coming, but the article from The Atlantic essentially says the same thing - it's messaging designed to move the sheeple through the vaccine corrals. We don't have the time or resources to figure out the details, like maybe we should help people with risk factors get Pfizer and Moderna, and the average healthy person can take J&J.  

 

By the way, these are the risks in the rush to get these vaccines out in 1/5 the normal time. I guarantee you there are experts sitting there saying we have to sacrifice the at risk population for the good of the total population. All because it's too hard to handle the details.  There is a precedent. In New York, we were initially expected to provide proof of risk conditions when they opened up vaccines to us.  It's too hard. No system in place for uniform proof.  Overload on doctors offices. So *poof* the requirement is gone and you just have to check off a box on a form saying you have a risk condition. Yay.

 

[coffeebean]

3 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Yes, and banning people scared of unvaccinated kids would hurt the bottom line a lot less than banning families.

I don't agree. I think folks would love to have the opportunity to cruise with all adults. It would be like vacationing at Sandals only on the water. All adult cruises would be quite appealing to me and I would bet to others too. It won't be forever so don't worry about that. It would only be until the cruise lines can get their ships sailing as safely as possible. All (100%) vaccinated on board sounds like a very viable plan for the start up of cruising again. I will jump on that so fast your head would spin. I only hope the cruise lines agree with this plan.

[coffeebean]

31 minutes ago, shipgeeks said:

I still don't see how "fully vaccinated" =  "does not  apply to unvac minors".

Doesn't "fully" mean 100%?  All passengers, all crew, all officers?  Or, in maritime terminology, "all souls onboard"?

That's what 100% means to me. I would hope is Royal does include un-vaccinated children, their verbiage will state that.

[boscobeans]

9 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

That's what 100% means to me. I would hope is Royal does include un-vaccinated children, their verbiage will state that.

I can see an 8 day cruise with ALL crew and ALL passengers EXCEPT FOR A DOZEN under age un-vaccinated children on board.  

 

Three days into the cruise several of the unvaccinated children begin getting sick and test positive for Covid-19.?????????????????????????????

 

Will the cruise have to end and return to port ?  Will a port accept the returning ship without a 12-14 day quarantine ?  

 

ps. We love kids but the cruise industry has to start somewhere and to start half cocked might be a bit premature and foolish.

 

Both fully vaccinated and by November we will be more than ready to take a break from the vaccination tables and get on a ship, even if it just to CoCo Cay for a week .

..

Edited March 9, 2021 by boscobeans

[shipgeeks]

2 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

Why not simply pick another cruise line rather than forcing your preferences on a family cruise line?

That is certainly what we will be doing.  We'll choose the line for which 100% means 100%.

[boscobeans]

5 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

Why not simply pick another cruise line rather than forcing your preferences on a family cruise line?

 

It won't be any kind of cruise line at all if it doesn't start sailing and generating income.

 

This of course is only a start and soon IF things go well, there will be less and less restrictions, 

but they have to start somewhere...

 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

8 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

Why not simply pick another cruise line rather than forcing your preferences on a family cruise line?

 

or.... we can all just go cruising w/ RCL when the CDC comes out with their standards for the cruiselines to return to operational business. 

[boscobeans]

2 minutes ago, Heymarco said:

Some cruise lines are already offering this. They also said that their target demographic is generally around 70. 
 

I don’t understand the fear. if you were vaccinated, why worry about an unvaccinated person? Even the CDC says it’s no big deal for those that are vaccinated, it’s more of a risk for those that aren’t. In this case, children aren’t at risk to begin with. Sorry, my brain is very logical.

No big deal ?

 

So if even a few passengers be they 17 or 70 break out with Covid-19 will the cruise have to end? Will the ship be allowed in a port without a quarantine period of 12-14 days ?