NCL suing Florida over vaccine law.

[Dat Cruisin Couple]

1 minute ago, Miloomar said:

Oh sorry, i did see your other post... i just wanted to piggy back off your comment to stress how bad it is for the people who actually believe in your sarcastic remark... most anti-vaxxers have no idea about mutations and how they could literally be dooming the human race since you have no idea what a mutation will do

 

I know, I've seen 'The Stand' 🙂

[Miloomar]

Just now, Dat Cruisin Couple said:

 

I know, I've seen 'The Stand' 🙂

Hope you're talking about the 90s version and not the crappy one from this past winter

[bucfan2]

4 minutes ago, Miloomar said:

see, my statement is built around facts and yours just makes no sense. But nice try

I'm not 'trying' anything....I won't cave to your agenda, regardless what you say, so don't bother trying.  Stay scared if ya want.

[smplybcause]

6 minutes ago, Dat Cruisin Couple said:

 

Not really, I have had season tickets to sporting events, but because of flooding and had to shutdown access to one end zone while they fixed things.  they setup overflow seating and we had to sit there or not go. Same thing, unforseen conditions at the point of the initial transaction and they were covered because of the sales agreement. 

 

But it's not unforeseen? It's not like seats being moved because they flooded. It's not like Solarium is flooded so no one can use it. It's only the unvax. 

[broberts]

1 hour ago, firefly333 said:

Huh?  It's the cdc rule of 95% to be considered vaccinated and not be required to wear masks. Quit blaming florida for cdc cso. 

 

To answer the post you quoted, you can book, but you need a exemption to board if not vaccinated. Cdc set the 95% not florida. ..carnival is just adhering to cdc protocols. 

 

If you want lower talk to the CDC or wait for cso to lift. 

 

I don't believe it is a CDC rule so much as an option. If I understand correctly cruise lines can opt to not use the 95% option in which case voyages have to follow a different set of mitigation protocols to account for an unknown number of unvaccinated passengers.

[smplybcause]

10 minutes ago, CruiserRob said:

Since the modification takes place in international waters can the Florida law apply.  It can get you on the ship but once outside 3 miles can the law apply at all?

 

I was thinking that angle. But do they wait until then to block the locations? Can you go to the Solarium before sailaway and for the first hour after? Or is it as soon as you board? 

[3kidsncats]

5 minutes ago, Dat Cruisin Couple said:

 

Not really, I have had season tickets to sporting events, but because of flooding and had to shutdown access to one end zone while they fixed things.  they setup overflow seating and we had to sit there or not go. Same thing, unforseen conditions at the point of the initial transaction and they were covered because of the sales agreement. 

Force majeure is not the same as altering or denying service based on a knowable, non-emergency scenario.  So really can’t compare a force majeure situation with denial of service for vaccine status.  It’s not unforeseen to allow unvaccinated passengers.  It’s a choice made in advance, as a manner of conducting business.

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, Babr said:

I was trying to ask what the Florida prohibits. Is it denial of service or does it include any alteration of service? I thought it was only denial, but I have not read the law.

Oh sorry. I have not read the law in its entirety but from what I am aware of, denial of services is definitely part of the law.

[bucfan2]

4 minutes ago, Miloomar said:

lol "my agenda" .... is called science. Stay ignorant if ya want. One day it'll come around to you

I'm vaxxed, and have some faith in the experimental therapy, so nothing to come around to (following the science).  You'll continue to follow the séance, and I don't believe it will come around to you 'one day'...but that's ok.

Edited July 15, 2021 by bucfan2

[3kidsncats]

36 minutes ago, mauraoel said:

It is not a denial of service it is just a modification of the cruise contract which is done all the time.

It’s an alteration (reduction)of the service you paid for based on your vaccine status — which is not allowed under the FL law.  If it’s available to other passengers strictly based on the fact that they are vaccinated and not available to you strictly because you aren’t vaccinated, it’s in violation.  
 

I believe the state of Florida is purposely choosing not to enforce the law, because they actually want and need cruising to resume.  

[kilkoyne]

1 hour ago, Babr said:

So what happens if the 95% goes away as a result of the other lawsuit. Are you saying that the cruise lines will throw the doors open to all with no vaccines and no masks because Florida prohibits denial of service?

 

Cruise lines don't need 95% vaccination. MSC has been successfully cruising for the past year without CDC or CSO intervention and has not suffered any major outbreaks.

 

[coffeebean]

5 hours ago, bucfan2 said:

Ya, and the stars may all fall from the sky.  The fear mongering is over.  Let's talk cruising.

This virus has already mutated and our current vaccines are not as efficient as they were before these mutations occurred. That is fact. More mutations just my render our current vaccines even less effective.This is what the scientists have told us. I honestly do not believe that is fear mongering; just being realistic about it.

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, Scottee25 said:

 

Please read my other post where I even stated that my statement was sarcasm. I do not want to see ships full of unvaccinated people, not wearing masks, freely spreading COVID around. Completely understand that as long as this virus continues to spread, the chance for further mutations is quite possible.

Yet.....some folks call that "fear mongering". SMDH!

[mauraoel]

24 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Oh sorry. I have not read the law in its entirety but from what I am aware of, denial of services is definitely part of the law.

The cruise is the service so they aren't denying service.  Limiting access isn't the service.

Edited July 15, 2021 by mauraoel

[grandgeezer]

18 minutes ago, kilkoyne said:

 

Cruise lines don't need 95% vaccination. MSC has been successfully cruising for the past year without CDC or CSO intervention and has not suffered any major outbreaks.

 

If you consider one or two ships at greatly reduced capacity, limited itineraries, and limited customer base successful, then you are right. If they continue down this exact pass, they'll be out of business before the end of the year.

[mauraoel]

19 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

This virus has already mutated and our current vaccines are not as efficient as they were before these mutations occurred. That is fact. More mutations just my render our current vaccines even less effective.This is what the scientists have told us. I honestly do not believe that is fear mongering; just being realistic about it.

It's what one scientist has told us.  I prefer to have a consensus when it comes to science which is usually what happens for most scientific therory.  Strange how the science that is always quoted isn't based on learned scientific therory.

Edited July 15, 2021 by mauraoel

[Goodtime Cruizin]

2 hours ago, coffeebean said:

But.....DeSantis has stated he will not make an exception for cruise lines.

 

Well.... he is. 

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, firefly333 said:

Huh?  It's the cdc rule of 95% to be considered vaccinated and not be required to wear masks. Quit blaming florida for cdc cso. 

 

To answer the post you quoted, you can book, but you need a exemption to board if not vaccinated. Cdc set the 95% not florida. ..carnival is just adhering to cdc protocols. 

 

If you want lower talk to the CDC or wait for cso to lift. 

I'm all for the CDC requiring 95% for vaccinated cruises. I don't know how you misunderstood my intentions that I want lower percentage of un-vaxxed on board. That is not me. LOL.

 

It is Florida's law that is prohibiting the cruise lines from requiring vaccine proof so they can align themselves with the CDCs CSO. How can these cruise lines, home ported in Florida, abide by the CDCs 95% vaxxed without verifying vaccine status? That is the point I'm trying to make. So, I do blame Florida for not allowing the cruise lines to verify vaccine status.

[dswallow]

38 minutes ago, kilkoyne said:

 

Cruise lines don't need 95% vaccination. MSC has been successfully cruising for the past year without CDC or CSO intervention and has not suffered any major outbreaks.

 

 

At the moment at least it would appear the MSC protocols match up pretty well with what RCL is doing for the US. Except MSC doesn't have to play silly games to ask about vaccination status. Of course, they also are requiring masks in public areas, too, which is something many people who are vaccinated are objecting to (well, to be fair, some unvaccinated are object to that as well, but...).

Cruise Safety & Health measures | MSC Cruises
 

[mauraoel]

3 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I'm all for the CDC requiring 95% for vaccinated cruises. I don't know how you misunderstood my intentions that I want lower percentage of un-vaxxed on board. That is not me. LOL.

 

It is Florida's law that is prohibiting the cruise lines from requiring vaccine proof so they can align themselves with the CDCs CSO. How can these cruise lines, home ported in Florida, abide by the CDCs 95% vaxxed without verifying vaccine status? That is the point I'm trying to make. So, I do blame Florida for not allowing the cruise lines to verify vaccine status.

Royal has repeatedly said that they won't do the 95% because of families and that the Florida Law has no bearing on this.  My question would be would the Florida law be violated when NCL  cancels all the families because the children aren't vaccinated. Not because they are asking for 100% vaccination which would be the denial of service.

[bucfan2]

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

This virus has already mutated and our current vaccines are not as efficient as they were before these mutations occurred. That is fact. More mutations just my render our current vaccines even less effective.This is what the scientists have told us. I honestly do not believe that is fear mongering; just being realistic about it.

And I honestly expect an 'experimental booster' to go along w/ the 'experimental therapy'...turn off the gloom & doom tube for a bit, and enjoy today.

Edited July 15, 2021 by bucfan2

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, Goodtime Cruizin said:

 

Well.... he is. 

 

That's my take as well.

[coaster]

I can't but think maybe NCL didn't go the test sailing route to save $. These sailings without paying customers and the added protocols are expensive to pull off. NCL maybe having second thoughts about promising 100 percent vaccinated cruises and they can't deliver in their minds. They feel the need now to play the victim card and sue. 

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, xpcdoojk said:

 

I think you are confusing reading something and agreeing with it and then changing their minds.

 

People read it and disagree or they agree because they already agree.

 

In other words it is getting beyond boring and bordering on obnoxious to keep posting the same stuff on every thread on this topic.  Believe me when I say nobody is changing their opinion based on your or my or anyone in this forum’s posts.  Sadly, people only post to reinforce their own beliefs.  

 

JMHO but it is true

 

jc

 

 

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind about anything. You are correct that people have a certain POV and do not deviate from that POV. Having said that, if we all didn't post our POV, we would have nothing to discuss.

[Baron Barracuda]

So why not just set fare for 7 night sailing at $1MM pp (kids under 12 sail free) and offer a $999k discount to those who voluntarily provide proof of vaccination?  Doubt they'll get many unvaccinated.