Two Cruise Lines Circumvent Dangerous DeSantis Edict

[Fantine]

Log into Facebook | Facebook

Royal Caribbean and Carnival will require unvaccinated to buy travel insurance costing several hundred dollars and take a COVID test for $150.

I have been on several cruises and am glad these lines figured out a way to insure passenger safety. Who knows, the budget minded anti-vaxxers might even decide to do the right thing.

 

[hislegacy]

Log into Facebook | Facebook

Royal Caribbean and Carnival will require unvaccinated to buy travel insurance costing several hundred dollars and take a COVID test for $150.

I have been on several cruises and am glad these lines figured out a way to insure passenger safety. Who knows, the budget minded anti-vaxxers might even decide to do the right thing.

Well good luck with that. I'm sure they will be absolutely over run with grateful people.

Or people will not like the intrusion and not bother to even go.

Time will tell.

 

[Fantine]

The vaccinated will go. The unvaccinated probably won't.

Personally, I wouldn't give up a relaxing week on the ocean visiting tropical paradises because I refused to get a free pinprick in my arm.

 

[hislegacy]

The vaccinated will go. The unvaccinated probably won't.

Personally, I wouldn't give up a relaxing week on the ocean visiting tropical paradises because I refused to get a free pinprick in my arm.

Time will tell.

While I am vaccinated - I would not go on a cruise if you paid me to do so.

But time will certainly tell.

I know two of my children and their families will not. Both are in their 20's my daughter is an RN and her husband is a paramedic. Neither will get the vaccination. My daughter because of pregnancy concerns with the vaccine and her hubby because his risk of infection is so low.

 

[Hank77]

My daughter because of pregnancy concerns with the vaccine and her hubby because his risk of infection is so low.

Why would his risk of infection be so low?

 

[probinson]

Why would his risk of infection be so low?

Age?

 

[hislegacy]

Why would his risk of infection be so low?

He is 28, healthy - the risk for that age group is very low. He is a first responder who transported Covid-19 patients all through the pandemic - he is trained, educated and versed on both the disease on the vaccine.

 

[hislegacy]

Age?

I don't have the stats at hand - can you post them please.

 

[probinson]

He is 28, healthy - the risk for that age group is very low. He is a first responder who transported Covid-19 patients all through the pandemic - he is trained, educated and versed on both the disease on the vaccine.

This is the one big thing I think most people don't understand; age stratification of the disease. According to current CDC data, those that are age 18-29 currently account for 0.5% of all COVID deaths in the US. With the CDC having data available for 496,493 total deaths as of this posting, that means ~2,482 people between the ages of 18 and 29 have died throughout the entire pandemic.

 

[Hank77]

This is the one big thing I think most people don't understand; age stratification of the disease. According to current CDC data, those that are age 18-29 currently account for 0.5% of all COVID deaths in the US. With the CDC reporting 605,551 total deaths as of this posting, that means ~3,028 people between the ages of 18 and 29 have died throughout the entire pandemic.

View attachment 302333

Are we just talking about deaths or are we talking about contracting the disease and infecting others?

 

[probinson]

Are we just talking about deaths or are we talking about contracting the disease and infecting others?

We're talking about risk.

We know that the vast majority of people who contract COVID may have such a mild infection that they don't even know they have it. This is one reason why testing asymptomatic people is counterproductive. It inflates "cases" and drives panic without truly understanding the impact of the virus.

We were told when this all started we needed to "flatten the curve" to prevent hospitalizations and deaths. But we keep moving the goalposts. There are good indicators that deaths and hospitalizations are now decoupling from case counts, meaning that there is a high probability that deaths and hospitalizations will not increase proportionally as cases increase. This is good news, and is resultant from a combination of vaccination and natural immunity.

Each person should decide for themselves the level of risk that is acceptable to them. If you are more vulnerable, you should probably take more precautions. But if you're a young, healthy adolescent or adult, your risk is considerably lower, as the data clearly shows.

 

[Hank77]

We're talking about risk.

We know that the vast majority of people who contract COVID may have such a mild infection that they don't even know they have it. This is one reason why testing asymptomatic people is counterproductive. It inflates "cases" and drives panic without truly understanding the impact of the virus.

We were told when this all started we needed to "flatten the curve" to prevent hospitalizations and deaths. But we keep moving the goalposts. There are good indicators that deaths and hospitalizations are now decoupling from case counts, meaning that there is a high probability that deaths and hospitalizations will not increase proportionally as cases increase. This is good news, and is resultant from a combination of vaccination and natural immunity.

Each person should decide for themselves the level of risk that is acceptable to them. If you are more vulnerable, you should probably take more precautions. But if you're a young, healthy adolescent or adult, your risk is considerably lower, as the data clearly shows.

Risk isn't about just death as a consequence is it?

 

[probinson]

Risk isn't about just death as a consequence is it?

Let me ask you a question;

If the total death toll of COVID-19 was 3,000, do you think we would have responded the same way? We don't even have to be hypothetical, as we can go back to the H1N1 pandemic and see that even with a death toll in the tens of thousands, the answer is absolutely not. There were no lockdowns, no masks, no social distancing, no event closures, no quarantines. None of those things were implemented as part of the H1N1 pandemic. Why? The risk was lower.

Each person needs to assess the level of risk they are comfortable with. To do so appropriately, they need accurate data and evidence. Public health has failed on the whole to deliver that information accurately.

 

[miamited]

Let me ask you a question;

If the total death toll of COVID-19 was 3,000, do you think we would have responded the same way? We don't even have to be hypothetical, as we can go back to the H1N1 pandemic and see that even with a death toll in the tens of thousands, the answer is absolutely not. There were no lockdowns, no masks, no social distancing, no event closures, no quarantines. None of those things were implemented as part of the H1N1 pandemic. Why? The risk was lower.

Each person needs to assess the level of risk they are comfortable with. To do so appropriately, they need accurate data and evidence. Public health has failed on the whole to deliver that information accurately.

@probinson

Well sure, we can make up scenarios and play the 'what if' game. But there is a reality to be dealt with here. Sure, if only 3,000 people had died we wouldn't be dealing with this issue the same way. I mean, come on, let's be real.

But...there is a reality and that reality is that over half a million Americans have died due to complications from this disease. So no! It absolutely doesn't get treated the same as the disease that kills 3,000. That would seem to be a pretty obvious...duh, to me.

We lose some 35k to 45k people every year to auto accidents. So, we mandate seat belt use and hand out careless driving tickets. Our auto manufacturers work to build safer cars. You can bet that if in any given year we see 500k people dying on our roadways, our reaction to that will be different than just handing out some speeding tickets and telling people to wear their seat belts.

God bless,
Ted

 

[The Barbarian]

At least one cruise line simply stopped doing cruises from Florida ports, using other ports in other states, in order to protect their workers and customers. DeSantis had his political gesture, and so harmed the Florida workers who would have otherwise been employed servicing those ships.

Classic spite. Doubt if he cares.

 

[probinson]

@probinson
Well sure, we can make up scenarios and play the 'what if' game. But there is a reality to be dealt with here. Sure, if only 3,000 people had died we wouldn't be dealing with this issue the same way. I mean, come on, let's be real.

OK. Let's be real.

The risk of COVID-19 is age stratified, in a HUGE way. Here is the CDC's breakdown of the number of deaths by age in the United States;

Now, let's apply actual numbers to each percentage, using the percentages and number of deaths currently reported by the CDC. The CDC is currently reporting 606,991 deaths (although more and more counties are adjusting those numbers down, some by as much as 25% as my other thread shows). But let's run with these numbers;

Ages 0-4 - .02% - 165 deaths
Ages 5-17 - 0.1% - 606 deaths
Ages 18-29 - 0.5% - 3,035 deaths
Ages 30-39 - 1.2% - 7,284 deaths
Ages 40-49 - 3% - 18,209 deaths
Ages 50-64 - 15.3% - 92,869 deaths
Ages 65-74 - 21.6% - 131,110 deaths
Ages 75-84 - 27.4% - 166,315 deaths
Ages 85+ - 30.8% - 186,953 deaths

It should be obvious from these numbers that the risk of COVID is highly dependent upon your age. This is something that many people fail to understand. Why do we treat teenagers and young healthy adults as though they have the same risk as those over 85? Why are we rushing to vaccinate teenagers and young healthy adults in the US while there are countless older people in other countries who need the vaccine? History will not be kind on this point.

But...there is a reality and that reality is that over half a million Americans have died due to complications from this disease.

The reality is also that less than 30,000 of those deaths occurred in people under the age of 50. That's fewer people than die in car accidents annually, according to your numbers.

So no! It absolutely doesn't get treated the same as the disease that kills 3,000. That would seem to be a pretty obvious...duh, to me.

I'm glad you agree that is a "duh" moment. It is absolutely nonsensical to treat all people as if they have the same risk of COVID. They absolutely do not. But you wouldn't know that by listening to the government and public health. The refusal to admit the age-stratification of the risk of COVID is one big reason trust in public health is so low.

The Great Barrington Declaration posits that we should protect the most vulnerable. Focused protection is what is needed, as the data shows, not indiscriminate policies that treat teenagers as if they have the same risk as the elderly. Each person should assess their own risk, and take measures accordingly.

 

[miamited]

@probinson

I'm only going to address one point of your fairly lengthy response.

I'm glad you agree that is a "duh" moment. It is absolutely nonsensical to treat all people as if they have the same risk of COVID. They absolutely do not.

Yes, people who contract covid respond differently. The data does show that younger people are generally less at risk of death and some don't even suffer any ill effects. But...they are still carriers!!!!

So, sure the 22 year old that contracts covid may not suffer, but his 80 year old grandmother that he hugs and kisses and passes it to likely won't be quite so fortunate. That's why everyone is treated the same. Carriers are carriers no matter how the disease may effect the carrier personally. If they don't take the same precautions, then the people that they then spread it to...completely unknowingly...may die. That's the point!!!!!

However, I was just watching a news piece on NBC news where a journalist went into a hospital that had been visited at the height of the pandemic. She said that there were now 9 patients in ICU. Of those 9, 8 were unvaccinated. Of those 8, 3 were under 40. So, it may be that this new delta variant is not quite as age discriminatory as past strains have been. By the way, all of those 3 under 40's were on ventilators and 2 of them were suffering major organ failure.

I appreciate your position and quite agree that most young people can walk around flipping their finger at the rest of us...as regards their own health. However, when people consider that we hold some responsibility for our brother...well, then the algorithm changes a bit. We do it for the overall health of all who live among us. At least that's the way a civilized society should act.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Fr. Appletree]

These cruise lines should be hit with the maximum the law can throw at them. They should be shut out of the economy for embracing the Hitleresque COVID fascism.

 

[The Barbarian]

These cruise lines should be hit with the maximum the law can throw at them.

Which is nothing. No law against anything they did. And while DeSantis can sue them for trying to protect their people from COVID-19, good luck on finding a jury that would side with him on that one.

They should be shut out of the economy for embracing the Hitleresque COVID fascism.

Or commended for remaining rational in the face of Godwin's Law. Something like that.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Which is nothing. No law against anything they did. And while DeSantis can sue them for trying to protect their people from COVID-19, good luck on finding a jury that would side with him on that one.



Or commended for remaining rational in the face of Godwin's Law. Something like that.

Godwin's law says any online conversation heads towards hitler comparisons. It does not say such comparisons are invalid.

Of course, rational here seems to refer to blind obedience apart from data literacy and sophisticated hermeneutics.