Posted on 04/23/2021 7:46:19 AM PDT by Capt. Tom
Like the rest of the travel sector, the cruise industry is looking at how to guarantee the safety of those ready to explore the world again.
And while an ever-increasing portion of the population has been vaccinated, questions are arising as to whether so-called “vaccine passports” will help pave the way to safer travels or impinge on the privacy rights of individuals.
How Cruising Could Be Impacted It’s impossible to talk about the resumption of cruising without addressing all of the questions surrounding vaccinations. Which cruise lines will insist on passengers providing proof of vaccination… and is it even legal for them to require it?
Florida seems well-positioned to be the battleground on which this discussion will play out, given that Governor Ron DeSantis has signed an executive order preventing private businesses from asking for proof of inoculation even as several cruise lines planning to sail from the state’s ports seem intent upon doing exactly that.
covid 19 vaccine
Vaccination passports — or programs that serve the same basic purpose — already are being used in several countries.
For example, Israeli citizens who have been fully vaccinated are issued a “Green Pass” which allows them access to restaurants, theaters, swimming pools and other public venues.
Similarly, Denmark’s version of a vaccine passport is known as “Coronapas” and allows the holder to prove, via digital app or paper record, whether they’ve had a vaccination, negative test result, or previous infection.
The European Commission is currently considering a “Digital Green Certificate” which would allow individuals to freely travel within the European Union. It hopes to have the system in place across all 27 member states by the end of June.
Closer to home, Hawaii has announced a plan for a vaccine passport program that will allow fully vaccinated people to travel between its islands without being subjected to quarantines or pre-arrival testing protocols.
In its early stages, Hawaii’s plan is restricted to people who have received their vaccination within the state — so local travelers will be the first beneficiaries. However, according to a recent Forbes article, the program could be expanded to out-of-state visitors later this summer.
Why The Programs Are Stirring Up Controversy While advocates see these programs as ways of safely opening up parts of the world to travel, opponents instead see the passports — in all their forms — as an infringement on an individual’s privacy rights. And in some countries, the fact that vaccines are more readily available to those in the upper classes than the poor is seen as creating a caste system within the larger framework of society, rendering the issuance of “vaccine passports” inherently unfair.
The issue becomes trickier, however, when one takes a look at the economic devastation being wrought on some sectors, particularly the cruise industry, which has been shut down for over a year.
A Temporary Solution? “If governments are keen to ignite travel in the near term, it might be that level of assurance that everyone is looking for in order to open up a bit of tourism,” said Canadian tourism professor Joe Pavelka in an interview with CityNews.
Pavelka does not, however, see vaccine passport requirements as something which would be implemented as a permanent measure. Rather, he believes it could be used as a short-term “solution in order to get people moving.”
In a recent opinion piece for CNN, UCLA history professor Peter Baldwin, author of Fighting the First Wave: Why the Coronavirus Was Tackled So Differently Across the Globe, expressed similar sentiments.
“Vaccine passports are a temporary measure, useful during the interval while many are vaccinated, but before herd immunity has arrived. A different solution is needed for the few who have medical reasons to avoid vaccination. They must be given the benefits of inclusion in the scheme. For others, passports will distinguish those vaccinated from the rest.”
Baldwin agrees that the concept of vaccine passports is inherently unfair, but rejects portraying the issue as right versus left or liberty versus oppression. Rather, he says, “Passports should be a technical issue, helping us exit the pandemic, not yet another occasion to score ideological points.”
Cruisers Will Likely Remain Divided While the issue is still being debated around the world, one thing is certain: No matter which way things go, at least some cruisers will find themselves disagreeing on the ultimate decision. From the moment the issue was first broached, voices were raised both in support and opposition.
One thing most cruisers agree on is that it’s time for cruising to resume. The past year has created economic hardships for many, and left would-be passengers wondering why they’ve been left high and dry even as nearly every other aspect of travel has begun re-opening.
As for the cruise lines themselves, they will no doubt find themselves navigating public sentiment, policies dictated by agencies such as the CDC, and other factors with only one endgame: doing whatever is necessary to safely resume sailing as soon as possible.
This issue could divide some families and traveling groups of friends.
This issue is another hurdle for Cruise lines to deal with in the long term, if they get the go ahead for full ship capacity.
Running ships at 60% capacity is not the problem that running them at 100% capacity will present. - Tom
The “Mark of the Beast”.
What about the infected and recovered, who probably have the same antibodies as the vaccinated?
If they’re going to require something like that, why not just a stamp in your passport instead of a separate one?
they infringe.
check out blinkscience.com. they have an instantaneous test that gives results asap and override the need for any vaccine.
That is just one of the many things that will surface.
I am sure right now LAWYERS are reading up on how to make civil rights violation cases- for profit of course. -Tom
Check this out: The Nuremberg Code of Ethics
https://www.vaccine101.ca/post/the-nuremberg-code
https://www.fhi360.org/sites/all/libraries/webpages/fhi-retc2/Resources/nuremburg_code.pdf
Policy that enforces punitive measures if a person doesn’t accept a medical procedure, then is acting in a coercive or forceful manner, which thereby removes a persons’ ability to VOLUNTARILY decide for themselves. Such coercive and forceful policy is medically unethical, according to the Nuremberg Code. When it comes to current vaccination practices and policies, many doctors today are stating that many of the 10 ethical principals identified in the Nuremberg Code are not being met at all.
Count me out. I will not patronize any business that requires any information about my health. I can do without.
If forced then, by being taken to a vaccination site by law enforcement in restraints constitutes a war crime act.
Let the market decide.
I’m a strong pro-vaxx person. If someone doesn’t want to get one, fine, but any private entity should be free to tell them to stay the hell away. Just as anyone should be free to stay the hell away from an entity that requires them.
I’ve got mine, my wife got hers. If someone doesn’t get it, and they die, I’m not going to shed a tear.
I’ve already lost relatives to this, so the A-holes who have minimized this from the outset, that is treating it anything short of a serious pandemic requiring the strongest response, can FOAD and I think the world will be a better place. Any “it’s just the flu” or “Mark of the Best” nutcases that drop dead will make the world a better place, but then they would say the same thing, perhaps, of my cannabis ingesting, blasphemous, masked up ass; it’s a free country.
Science is always good; people without advanced degrees, post graduate study and academic publishing in the specific field = utterly irrelevant if not dangerous in matters of medicine. YMMV
As much as my wife and I love cruising, we’ll no longer cruise if covid vaccine or vaccine passport is required.
It’s the line’s choice, thus not an infringement of rights. Should it become an issue for enough travelers, some lines will be happy to find alternatives, such as a negative test. A government mandate which I could see the CDC, without authority, issuing is a major infringement. Clearly, at least for Caribbean, South and Central America and Mexico, alternative departure ports are a necessary diversification. And they’d be foolish to abandon them when the CDC relents. This is clearly a political issue, and something any international company has to consider when operating here. Obviously most important for cruise lines, where, though they generate considerable revenue for embarkation ports, with a few exceptions don’t operate within the US.
“... looking at how to guarantee the safety of those ready to explore the world again...”
What’s the point?
Demanding proof of vaccination for citizens traveling while allowing all ad sundry to enter, without ANY oversight at the ‘boarder’??
Well it sounded convenient to me not to have several booklets for each vaccination but a travel stamp in a section of your passport.
Cruise ships are floating petri dishes with or without mandatory vaccinations. I’ll pass.
How about we see Xiden’s medical records, first?
Similarly, Denmark’s version of a vaccine passport is known as “Coronapas” and allows the holder to prove, via digital app or paper record, whether they’ve had a vaccination, negative test result, or previous infection.
I agree, because you don't "NEED" to go on a cruise.
Viking Cruises will not allow any passengers under 18 to be onboard for a Cruise.
Is that an infringement of rights ?
Laws will vary country to country.-Tom
never trust a government that opens its border and distributes thousands of disease carrying invaders across its country during a so called global pandemic...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.