Originally Posted by GeriS (Post 1938244)

I won’t ever be cruising if vaccine is required for something with a 99.xx% recovery rate & cures that are available. We are being played.

Originally Posted by oneclickplus (Post 1938469)

No, it doesn't. This is the exact wording:

"if a ship attests that 98 percent of its crew and 95 percent of its passengers are fully vaccinated."

Count me in that 5%. I don't need proof of anything.

Originally Posted by GeriS (Post 1938244)

I won’t ever be cruising if vaccine is required for something with a 99.xx% recovery rate & cures that are available. We are being played.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1938355)

I don't understand your objection. You state that no cruise ships are currently going to the BVI and the rules will likely change in June when the BVI may start accepting cruise ships. I noted that the current rules only made sense for visitors staying for more than a day and I wondered how they might change for visits of only a few hours. We seem to be in agreement that these rules won't work for visitors from cruise ships and may change when cruise ships are again allowed.

Originally Posted by oneclickplus (Post 1938469)

No, it doesn't. This is the exact wording:

"if a ship attests that 98 percent of its crew and 95 percent of its passengers are fully vaccinated."

Count me in that 5%. I don't need proof of anything.

Originally Posted by Tmarkwald (Post 1938699)

That 5% is only for people who had shot 1 and had a documented allergic reaction at the vaccination location.

And attesting means that you must prove to the cruiseline you are vaccinated or have a medical reaction.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1938733)

Attesting, according to the dictionary, means you state that something is true. If the requirement was for proof then the CDC should have used a different word such as "document."

Of course, what the CDC writes and how that gets interpreted or implemented can be entirely different.

Originally Posted by Tee4ta (Post 1939194)

Vaccines are always a balance between a public health imperative and individual freedoms.

The government has to MANDATE certain vaccines (i.e. to attend public school) because the risk of disability/death to one particular individual is so low that many will likely refuse the vaccine for themselves or their children.

If too many refuse, an outbreak could be devastating to many. Generally, we vaccinate for the good of society, not for ourselves, because outbreaks of diseases with mandated vaccines are so infrequent.

Covid certainly falls within the range of transmissibility and death/disability rates overall of other diseases that have mandated vaccines (but very low for the individual, so unsurprisingly many are refusing to be vaccinated) so I am interested to see if the vaccine will be mandated in more settings than cruise ships, colleges. Maybe elder care settings?

Originally Posted by oneclickplus (Post 1938469)

No, it doesn't. This is the exact wording:

"if a ship attests that 98 percent of its crew and 95 percent of its passengers are fully vaccinated."

Count me in that 5%. I don't need proof of anything.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1938733)

Attesting, according to the dictionary, means you state that something is true. If the requirement was for proof then the CDC should have used a different word such as "document."

Of course, what the CDC writes and how that gets interpreted or implemented can be entirely different.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1939296)

Perhaps you are missing the math.

If 6% of the people who WANT to be passengers are not fully vaccinated or can't show proof of it, then 1/6 of those people will be told their presence is not welcome aboard.

You are a member of that 6%. So you might be culled from the herd at the last minute. They'll probably put you on a waiting list, if you refuse to show proof of immunity. And then, when all the people who DO have vaccines are assigned their staterooms, they'll call you and tell you you're either a) a lucky passenger who gets to go or b) sorry no room at the inn.

Originally Posted by Tmarkwald (Post 1939301)

When I called and asked about this, they said that a small percentage of people (<1%) have an allergic reaction to shot #1 and that this gave the leeway for people who only had 1 shot out of the 2 shot regimen. All passengers will still have to provide proof. And the allergic reaction is documented along with the original shot on both the card and the state records.

And, with something like 67% protection from a single shot, it still make the chance of an infection extremely unlikely.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1939299)

YOU don't have to attest anything at all.

The SHIP has to attest it. And they will cover THEIR butts by requiring proof from their passengers, so that their testimony (which is what it's called when you attest to someone) is based on evidence, not on guestimations.

While some people have no problem with fudging facts to fit their narrative and bypass rules to do whatever they want and to hell with the rules and the needs of the many, most people will either comply honestly, or bow out of the experience entirely.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1939313)

There are also kids, who can't get vaccinated because they're under the recommended minimum age. You have to account for them being potential passengers as well. They can't have proof of being allergic since that's not the case at all. But their passports/birth certificates would be proof that they are exempt from being vaccinated.