July start!!

[stellarose]

3 minutes ago, JMKreno said:

I think what confuses people who call out HIPAA "rights" and cruising either with "fake cards" or "unvaccinated" realize that with the majority of the passengers and crew vaccinated and the vaccines with their high efficacy rates any breakouts would be rather limited and contact tracing much easier to do. What would happen is that if a breakout were to occur those that end up testing positive while on the cruise would be investigated (which will likely happen if a small outbreak occurs so the cruise lines can understand where their protocols failed) and their medical history REGARDING THE COVID19 VACCINE will likely be determined as this information IS ALLOWED TO BE GATHERED AND SHARED under HIPAA while the pandemic is still considered a health emergency. So yes, most people that "fake" these cards or are willing to go unvaccinated would likely be discovered IF an outbreak occurs. Children under 12 (as the EUA for 12-15 is likely to pass soon) would not be investigated because they can't get vaccinated, so the adults would be looked into. So by "not getting" the vaccine and cruising or "faking" it you MAY get away with it (as most will), it goes back to the IF something happens, you will get discovered.  I see this like drunk driving, sure people do it all the time and don't get caught, but when someone drinks and slams their car into someone else or a tree that their lives get ruined. Remember, the CARD may be flimsy and reproducible, I KNOW FOR A FACT your covid-19 vaccine immunization IS recorded. 

 

Is it worth it? As for those who are not aware, here are the HIPAA regulations regarding use of PRIVATE HEALTH DATA to investigate breakouts, etc:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Public Health Activities The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for public health authorities and others responsible for ensuring public health and safety to have access to protected health information that is necessary to carry out their public health mission. Therefore, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose needed protected health information without individual authorization:

• To a public health authority, such as the CDC or a state or local health department, that is authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability. This would include, for example, the reporting of disease or injury; reporting vital events, such as births or deaths; and conducting public health surveillance, investigations, or interventions. A “public health authority” is an agency or authority of the United States government, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate, as well as a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from, or under a contract with, a public health agency. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i). For example, a covered entity may disclose to the CDC protected health information on an ongoing basis as needed to report all prior and prospective cases of patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

• At the direction of a public health authority, to a foreign government agency that is acting in collaboration with the public health authority. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i).

• To persons at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition if other law, such as state law, authorizes the covered entity to notify such persons as necessary to prevent or control the spread of the disease or otherwise to carry out public health interventions or investigations. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(iv).

 

Source: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hipaa-and-covid-19-limited-hipaa-waiver-bulletin-508.pdf

perfectly stated!!!!!  again, those who don't want to get vaccinated- we can agree to disagree. 

[SNJCruisers]

1 hour ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

  We paid for these cruises with gift cards so we are trapped.  My wife and I are not getting the vaccine and will likely not be going on our scheduled cruise in September.  If they require vaccines I believe they should allow a cash refund to us and not just to a gift card.

This situation is 100% on you.  You are not trapped.  It was your decision to pay with gift cards and once again it is your decision to not get the jab.  I would contact Carnival and see if you can flip your cruise to sometime in late 2022 or even 2023 if possible, especially if you have a non refundable deposit. 

Getting a cash refund has a zero chance of happening.  You're not entitled to a cash refund on a Carnival gift card just because it looks like vaccines will be required and you are against taking the jab for whatever reason.

[DCGuy64]

17 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

Time is ticking though. They still need to do the 60 day filing. Maybe they have, but it's already cutting it close to get in a 60 day filing and restart in July. If they decide to add in mock cruises, how much time will this add and for inspections? 

 

I'd sure like to hear from the cruiselines definite plans. 

What 60-day filing? I thought that was shortened to 5 days. Are you talking about something other than the response time from CDC regarding simulated sailings?

[firefly333]

12 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

What 60-day filing? I thought that was shortened to 5 days. Are you talking about something other than the response time from CDC regarding simulated sailings?

I've read the 60 day filing will still be needed from the cdc cso.

 

It says only mock cruises can be skipped. The rest still in force. Ask one of the experts. That's just what I read elsewhere. That they still need the 60 day filing. There is still time, but they need to do it now to sail in July 

Edited April 30, 2021 by firefly333

[SNJCruisers]

20 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

As an observation, I suspect if only a few cruise lines go the test cruise route instead of the 95% vaccinated route, those cruises would end up with a large percentage of the unvaccinated because that would be their only option. Similarly, some who are vaccinated might prefer not to take the chance on a cruise without the 95% vaccinated limit. So you could end up with some cruises at 95% vaccinated and others at only, say, 50% vaccinated.

 

A cruise line with my hypothetical only 50% vaccinated would really be taking a big chance on an outbreak and all the shutdowns and bad publicity that would result.

This is pure speculation on my part, but here are two slim possibilities, both of which would allow Carnival to have their cake and eat it too. 

The first would be that Carnival goes the test route and comes up with their own percentage, substantially lower than 95%, say 70 or 75%, giving the unvaccinated the opportunity to sail on Carnival.  This would also appease all of those that are unvaccinated that normally cruise on RCI or NCL is come to Carnival, which increases the number of Blue cards, that Carnival's marketing department is always striving for. 

The second, which I am not even sure is possible is that Carnival would have some ships in their fleet go with the 95% route in order to generate revenue as quickly as possible and then have other ships in the fleet follow my first proposal.  This would satisfy everyone, as those who wish to be on a 95% vaccinated ship with their 95% effective vaccines have ship options and the unvaccinated would have their options as well.  If this splitting of the fleet is indeed allowed, then I think this would be the path that Carnival takes.

[DCGuy64]

9 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

I've read the 60 day filing will still be needed from the cdc cso.

 

It says only mock cruises can be skipped. The rest still in force. Ask one of the experts. That's just what I read elsewhere. That they still need the 60 day filing. There is still time, but they need to do it now to sail in July 

OK, thank you, I was confused about that part. At this point, since we all thought it wouldn't be until November 1 before sailings took place, I don't care if it's July, August or September. I'm just glad it looks to be sooner than November!

[SNJCruisers]

19 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

What 60-day filing? I thought that was shortened to 5 days. Are you talking about something other than the response time from CDC regarding simulated sailings?

The 5 days is if the cruise line goes along with the 95% vaccinated cruisers option.  If the cruise line wishes to go with the test cruises to avoid the 95% requirement, then the 60 day filing thing is still in tact.  NCL and RCI will more than likely go with the 95% option, but who knows about Carnival.

[Buckeyefrank100]

6 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

This is pure speculation on my part, but here are two slim possibilities, both of which would allow Carnival to have their cake and eat it too. 

The first would be that Carnival goes the test route and comes up with their own percentage, substantially lower than 95%, say 70 or 75%, giving the unvaccinated the opportunity to sail on Carnival.  This would also appease all of those that are unvaccinated that normally cruise on RCI or NCL is come to Carnival, which increases the number of Blue cards, that Carnival's marketing department is always striving for. 

The second, which I am not even sure is possible is that Carnival would have some ships in their fleet go with the 95% route in order to generate revenue as quickly as possible and then have other ships in the fleet follow my first proposal.  This would satisfy everyone, as those who wish to be on a 95% vaccinated ship with their 95% effective vaccines have ship options and the unvaccinated would have their options as well.  If this splitting of the fleet is indeed allowed, then I think this would be the path that Carnival takes.

They could actually do both and probably will.  I imagine they would start with the vaccinated cruises, while planning and performing the test general population cruises.  Cover both bases at once.  

 

[DCGuy64]

1 minute ago, SNJCruisers said:

The 5 days is if the cruise line goes along with the 95% vaccinated cruisers option.  If the cruise line wishes to go with the test cruises to avoid the 95% requirement, then the 60 day filing thing is still in tact.  NCL and RCI will more than likely go with the 95% option, but who knows about Carnival.

While we're not likely to know what went on in those twice weekly meetings between CDC and industry officials, I can easily see a scenario in which the CDC says "if you want to go the simulated voyages route instead of requiring vaccinated guests, we'll get back to you in 5 days rather than 60, but you'll still have to file for those sailings and it'll take 60 days before revenue-generating ones. On the other hand, if you require vaccines, you're good to go pretty much right away." IOW encouraging the lines to go the vaccine route. Just my speculation, of course. And yes, we will have to see how Carnival responds.

[dallasdan]

It will be interesting to see what type of proof the cruise lines will require.  Vaccine card, which can be forged, but I think very few people would do this.  Or, sworn statement saying you received the vaccine.  Which I think many would lie on this form.  Just like in the old days, how many people lied when filling out the health forms because they didn't want to be screened prior to boarding.  Since there is not a federal database it will be impossible for the cruise lines to verify.  Even in Texas, cruise lines do not have access to ImmTrac.

[stellarose]

For Penn State I have to upload my son's vaccine records from his pediatrician prior to coming on campus in the fall. 

 

Same for my daughter's summer camp.

 

 

[DCGuy64]

Just now, dallasdan said:

Just like in the old days, how many people lied when filling out the health forms because they didn't want to be screened prior to boarding.

I've heard this suggested multiple times by others. I just think that after all this country, much less this world, has been through with Covid-19, this will be handled quite differently than the garden-variety "no, I'm fine, haven't had a cold recently" lying stuff that happened in the past. To the best of my knowledge, the cruise industry has never been sidelined this long because some passengers with the flu lied to cruise ship personnel at the gangway. I'm not saying none will try it, because some will. But the stakes are WAY higher this time. God help the person who tries to circumvent the rules and transmits Covid. The other passengers would throw him overboard!

[dallasdan]

What about a vaccinated individual who is exhibiting signs of sickness prior to boarding and when tested they test positive.  Should they be denied boarding or thrown overboard.

Edited April 30, 2021 by dallasdan

[Saint Greg]

1 minute ago, dallasdan said:

What about a vaccinated individual who is exhibiting signs of sickness prior to boarding and when tested they test positive.  Should they be denied boarding or thrown overboard.

 

If it's before the cruise, denied boarding. If it's during the cruise thrown overboard.

[Buckeyefrank100]

1 hour ago, firefly333 said:

I think that's wishful thinking.

 

Idk why you dont want the vaccine, but I'd suggest booking out as far as you can if you decide to move the booking because carnival requires the vaccine closer in. Idk but sounds like they might have to require the vaccine in order to resume. Carnival also didnt know about covid in 2019 as you didnt. They need to do what is necessary to survive. If theh dont survive your gift cards wouldn't be good either. 

 

I agree... that's all it is is wishful thinking.  As far as the vaccine, I have the first dose in me, but won't take the 2nd.  My daughter is an ICU nurse and has seen nasty side effects from the vaccine, we know 2 healthy people who received the vaccine and ended up dying within less than a week.  We also know a person who lost their pregnancy right after they received the vaccine.  While I can't specifically tie each of these situations to directly blame the vaccine, there's enough there for me to warrant pausing and letting this play out.

 

There's a couple of things that don't make sense.  First, the 1st dose of the pfizer vaccine has been shown to be about 75% effective....   That's roughly the same effectiveness as the J&J vaccine which only requires 1 shot.  I don't understand why 2 people with the same immunity levels would be treated differently.  Secondly, I'm actually MORE protected than those who are fully vaccinated and did not get the virus because I've had the 1st shot and the virus.  Studies have shown that those having the virus have more immunity to the mutated strains than those who just received the vaccination as well as those having 1 shot who have had the virus have 7x the protection than 1 shot alone.

 

All in all, I'm taking my chances on re-infection as opposed to the vaccine.  There's reports of several other vaccines being developed right now as well as theraputics that expect to be available by the end of the year, including a pill.  Not to mention several medicines that are cheap and widely available and work but aren't being allowed to be used.  There's also a nasal spray that's been developed that I believe is going through trials right now.

[firefly333]

10 minutes ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

I agree... that's all it is is wishful thinking.  As far as the vaccine, I have the first dose in me, but won't take the 2nd.  My daughter is an ICU nurse and has seen nasty side effects from the vaccine, we know 2 healthy people who received the vaccine and ended up dying within less than a week.  We also know a person who lost their pregnancy right after they received the vaccine.  While I can't specifically tie each of these situations to directly blame the vaccine, there's enough there for me to warrant pausing and letting this play out.

 

There's a couple of things that don't make sense.  First, the 1st dose of the pfizer vaccine has been shown to be about 75% effective....   That's roughly the same effectiveness as the J&J vaccine which only requires 1 shot.  I don't understand why 2 people with the same immunity levels would be treated differently.  Secondly, I'm actually MORE protected than those who are fully vaccinated and did not get the virus because I've had the 1st shot and the virus.  Studies have shown that those having the virus have more immunity to the mutated strains than those who just received the vaccination as well as those having 1 shot who have had the virus have 7x the protection than 1 shot alone.

 

All in all, I'm taking my chances on re-infection as opposed to the vaccine.  There's reports of several other vaccines being developed right now as well as theraputics that expect to be available by the end of the year, including a pill.  Not to mention several medicines that are cheap and widely available and work but aren't being allowed to be used.  There's also a nasal spray that's been developed that I believe is going through trials right now.

That's what my bil said about getting the vaccine, he would take his chances. Hes 82 with diabetes and got covid. I had the moderna, and had side effects both shots, my mom only the 2nd shot. 

 

I got it so I wouldnt give to my parents. My mom turns 95 in may and my dad 103 in sept. It took a lot of stress off me to get the vaccine, so I'd do it again.

 

My contractor got covid and says he never had high bp or high sugar until covid and hes still not back to normal. So i wouldnt take the chance on giving it to my parents. I was glad to get vaccinated. They are too old to put at risk.

[Buckeyefrank100]

4 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

That's what my bil said about getting the vaccine, he would take his chances. Hes 82 with diabetes and got covid. I had the moderna, and had side effects both shots, my mom only the 2nd shot. 

 

I got it so I wouldnt give to my parents. My mom turns 95 in may and my dad 103 in sept. It took a lot of stress off me to get the vaccine, so I'd do it again.

 

My contractor got covid and says he never had high bp or high sugar until covid and hes still not back to normal. So i wouldnt take the chance on giving it to my parents. I was glad to get vaccinated. They are too old to put at risk.

I respect your decision and it sounds like you respect mine.  We all have our reasons.

[TNcruising02]

22 minutes ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

I agree... that's all it is is wishful thinking.  As far as the vaccine, I have the first dose in me, but won't take the 2nd.  My daughter is an ICU nurse and has seen nasty side effects from the vaccine, we know 2 healthy people who received the vaccine and ended up dying within less than a week.  We also know a person who lost their pregnancy right after they received the vaccine.  While I can't specifically tie each of these situations to directly blame the vaccine, there's enough there for me to warrant pausing and letting this play out.

 

There's a couple of things that don't make sense.  First, the 1st dose of the pfizer vaccine has been shown to be about 75% effective....   That's roughly the same effectiveness as the J&J vaccine which only requires 1 shot.  I don't understand why 2 people with the same immunity levels would be treated differently.  Secondly, I'm actually MORE protected than those who are fully vaccinated and did not get the virus because I've had the 1st shot and the virus.  Studies have shown that those having the virus have more immunity to the mutated strains than those who just received the vaccination as well as those having 1 shot who have had the virus have 7x the protection than 1 shot alone.

 

All in all, I'm taking my chances on re-infection as opposed to the vaccine.  There's reports of several other vaccines being developed right now as well as theraputics that expect to be available by the end of the year, including a pill.  Not to mention several medicines that are cheap and widely available and work but aren't being allowed to be used.  There's also a nasal spray that's been developed that I believe is going through trials right now.

I get being nervous about the second shot.  The media has reported on people who have had side effects from the second dose, so I think that made a lot of people nervous.  I got the Pfizer vaccine and debated about getting the second dose since the first dose is very effective.  I just decided to suck it up and do it to support to my husband, who needed that second dose.  We got our first and second doses together.  

The side effects from the second shot were minimal.  He only had a sore arm and I had very mild symptoms for a day.  I am glad I did it, but I understand the hesitation.  It's really too bad the media focuses on the negative and doesn't report the millions of doses where people were just fine.

As far as getting the vaccine after having a case of covid, I read that those people might be more likely to have side effects because their body was already introduced to the virus.  I know a guy who had covid and  temporarily lost his taste and smell.  After he got dose two of Pfizer, he again temporarily lost his taste and smell (although only for a few days).

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Anyislandwilldo said:

I suppose now that the CDC is allowing cruising to resume in July, the airlines will start to rake us over the coals by increasing airfares.

It's called the law of supply and demand.

[JMKreno]

37 minutes ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

I agree... that's all it is is wishful thinking.  As far as the vaccine, I have the first dose in me, but won't take the 2nd.  My daughter is an ICU nurse and has seen nasty side effects from the vaccine, we know 2 healthy people who received the vaccine and ended up dying within less than a week.  We also know a person who lost their pregnancy right after they received the vaccine.  While I can't specifically tie each of these situations to directly blame the vaccine, there's enough there for me to warrant pausing and letting this play out.

 

I am saddened to hear of these occurrences and my thoughts go out to you as well as them.

 

However, that being said, the odds of ALL of these happening to people you know and being related to the vaccine are less likely than being struck by lightning three times. Correlation is not the same as causation.

 

If by chance those were ALL caused by the vaccine, we should connect and go play the slots in Vegas, as you have a 1 in 262,000 (0.0038%) chance of winning the Jackpot. You have incredible statistical odds. Not to make light, this is just to give comparison. 

 

Just for additional reference, my wife is also a nurse in a metro area of 600k (Reno area which has a 52% vaccine uptake, so large sample size) and her hospital  have had no deaths linked to a vaccine, they have had some adverse reactions, but at a rate even lower than the flu vaccine, and substantially less than the shingles vaccine (that thing is just a train-wreck to get). 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the CDC:

CDC estimates regarding adverse reactions (including death) to ALL the covid-19 vaccines. 

Over 230 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through April 26, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 3,848 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

And just in case there is opinion against the CDC, other countries Health Agencies also reiterate the safety in statistics, like the MHRA in the UK  (this is specific to blood clotting, but those odds are substantially higher than dying through other factors with the vaccine but are all normalized with ALL the data, and  is outlined in the article and linked to other research journals including the BMJ which is one of the most respected medical journals)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-issues-new-advice-concluding-a-possible-link-between-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-and-extremely-rare-unlikely-to-occur-blood-clots

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by JMKreno

[cscurlock]

12 hours ago, pc_load_letter said:

 

Perhaps it's illegal to "ask" but what if they state that customers need to show proof of vaccination? They're technically not asking.

 

2 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

Exactly.  I don't get the arguments about HIPAA.  The cruise line can have the passenger sign a release for  specific information.  It's not complicated.  People sign releases at their doctor's office so that there can be an exchange of information with the insurance company, etc.

More than likely, if the cruise lines require vaccinations, they will have passengers sign a sworn statement verifying their vaccine information.  This will make it a criminal offense to give false information.  I think that would protect the cruise lines while they try to meet the 95% vaccination number.  

 

This.  They will ask your informed consent to request the verification from the state.  If you say no then you don't cruise.  Pretty simple.  

[ontheweb]

Just now, cscurlock said:

 

 

This.  They will ask your informed consent to request the verification from the state.  If you say no then you don't cruise.  Pretty simple.  

And totally legal, not prohibited by HIPAA.

 

But how quickly can the state verify? My DW is a teacher (I wrote about this in a thread in ask a cruise question.) She was exposed by another teacher. She was told she would have to quarantine. She has had both her shots (Moderna). She got a call from the state contact tracing, and read to them the data from her CDC card. The shots were from our county's health department which is part of the state health department. They said they had to confirm the data and would call back the next day. They did not. They finally the day after that sent her a release from quarantine by e-mail only after we had the office of our district's Assemblywoman intervene with them,

[wemjam]

I had an interesting thought last night about the 95% rule.  I know here my state, they have stated that once we reach 75% vaccination rate, that most of the mandates such as masks, etc. will be lifted.

 

I wonder if they are saying 95% (which seems a very strange number indeed, why 95% and not 100%), is to "compensate" just for the fact that they KNOW a certain percentage of people could potentially fake their vaccination cards.

 

From what I have been seeing all over the place at 75% seems to be some kind of magic number,  so maybe the are figuring a 20% fudge factor for cheaters.

 

Just a thought. LOL

[JMKreno]

1 minute ago, ontheweb said:

And totally legal, not prohibited by HIPAA.

 

But how quickly can the state verify? My DW is a teacher (I wrote about this in a thread in ask a cruise question.) She was exposed by another teacher. She was told she would have to quarantine. She has had both her shots (Moderna). She got a call from the state contact tracing, and read to them the data from her CDC card. The shots were from our county's health department which is part of the state health department. They said they had to confirm the data and would call back the next day. They did not. They finally the day after that sent her a release from quarantine by e-mail only after we had the office of our district's Assemblywoman intervene with them,

 

THIS 100%. People think "oh, the vaccine record is just an easily faked card!" Yes, THIS WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY to get rid of the "paperwork" burden on getting the shots distributed at mass vaccine sites. As evidence, I literally filled out my card PERSONALLY at our vaccine site (I was a volunteer and got a shot at the end of the day). I hand wrote my name and email and my phone number. That was it. I received confirmation of my follow-up appointment 2 weeks later with ALL my info (home address, phone, name) which was accurate, including the date of my original shot WITH the lot information included! I received my 2nd shot in early April and was able to pull a copy of my vaccine records WITH COVID-19 shot identified as RECEIVED AND COMPLETED about a week ago. So yes, they are tracking the details and it WILL be made available if there is a need to do contact tracing. The card is just the "quick and dirty" method. This is how travel vaccine passports would work....

[cscurlock]

5 minutes ago, wemjam said:

I had an interesting thought last night about the 95% rule.  I know here my state, they have stated that once we reach 75% vaccination rate, that most of the mandates such as masks, etc. will be lifted.

 

I wonder if they are saying 95% (which seems a very strange number indeed, why 95% and not 100%), is to "compensate" just for the fact that they KNOW a certain percentage of people could potentially fake their vaccination cards.

 

From what I have been seeing all over the place at 75% seems to be some kind of magic number,  so maybe the are figuring a 20% fudge factor for cheaters.

 

Just a thought. LOL

Children under 16.