• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cruise ships and vaccination requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
The big question will be if this can be seen as indirect discrimination (e.g. SAGA are't saying that if you are disabled you can't go on a cruise - but what if your disability means you can't be vaccinated?).

Even then you may well have a defence if your discrimination is proportionate to pursuing a legitimate aim (such as the health and safety of staff and guests). Discrimination law is a powerful tool to protect vulnerable people but it isn't quite the slam dunk that it now appears people think it to be. There are plenty of ways justifying discrimination so that there is no legal recourse against a business which is discriminating.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
No.
Discrimination is only illegal if it is for some very specific reasons like age, gender, race, disability and a few others. And even then there are some get outs (e.g. a womens only gym is fine, a holiday where you have to be over 50 is fine, a bar that you have to be over 21 is fine etc).
It is perfectly legal to discriminate for other reasons.
The big question will be if this can be seen as indirect discrimination (e.g. SAGA are't saying that if you are disabled you can't go on a cruise - but what if your disability means you can't be vaccinated?).
It is worth saying that by the time they do set sail again it is likely that a vast majority of their usual customer base will have had the vaccine.
Whilst vaccine distribution is being limited to people basked on age groups, surely this is Age by proxy?
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Isn't all discrimination illegal by its nature? I don't know where the law sits on this but being prevented from doing something through no fault of your own based on age (vaccination levels) is certainly something a lawyer might be interested in.
No. Discrimination is only potentially illegal if it is based on a protected characteristic, and even then there are dozens of get-outs depending on the specifics.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
Whilst vaccine distribution is being limited to people basked on age groups, surely this is Age by proxy?

As above whilst it may be indirect discrimination as long as it is a proportionate response to pursuing a legitimate aim (such as the health and safety of staff and guests) then it may well be lawful.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
As above whilst it may be indirect discrimination as long as it is a proportionate response to pursuing a legitimate aim (such as the health and safety of staff and guests) then it may well be lawful.
It is disproportionate, there's no precedent for requiring vaccination for respiratory illnesses in any preexisting section of society, and it does not warrant creating a set of first and second class citizens.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
One does wonder how proof of vaccination can be provided. Especially since the government said that vac certs wouldn't be a think.

A cynic may say that's the cunning plan. Companies/venues/other countries try to start requiring it, the current mechanism is inadequate as proof, and so the government 'reluctantly' decides it needs to start issuing them after all. A full 'health papers please' society in place before the end of the year.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
It is disproportionate, there's no precedent for requiring vaccination for respiratory illnesses in any preexisting section of society, and it does not warrant creating a set of first and second class citizens.

In your opinion. I have no idea how a court would view the matter and it is a court that would rule on the matter.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
No.
Discrimination is only illegal if it is for some very specific reasons like age, gender, race, disability and a few others. And even then there are some get outs (e.g. a womens only gym is fine, a holiday where you have to be over 50 is fine, a bar that you have to be over 21 is fine etc).
It is perfectly legal to discriminate for other reasons.
The big question will be if this can be seen as indirect discrimination (e.g. SAGA are't saying that if you are disabled you can't go on a cruise - but what if your disability means you can't be vaccinated?).
It is worth saying that by the time they do set sail again it is likely that a vast majority of their usual customer base will have had the vaccine.

What if your age means you can't be vaccinated? That falls under the criteria. There's no guarantee 50-70 year olds would have the vaccine in time/
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,486
Location
Kent
So are they also going to insist that all crew have a jab too? Good luck with that one SAGA.
Now that is a really good point. I wonder whether someone who had booked could ask for their money back on the grounds that SAGA could not prove that all the crew have had both jabs?

What if your age means you can't be vaccinated? That falls under the criteria. There's no guarantee 50-70 year olds would have the vaccine in time/
Especially as SAGA are insisting on both jabs!
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Now that is a really good point. I wonder whether someone who had booked could ask for their money back on the grounds that SAGA could not prove that all the crew have had both jabs?
I think that is rather fanciful.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
There's no guarantee 50-70 year olds would have the vaccine in time/

It's guaranteed for the first sailings. For those who want to depart on the first sailing (1st May implied), you need to have had your second jab by mid April, which using a rigid 12 week gap from 1st to 2nd dose means you have to have been vaccinated by end of this week. Seeing as at the start of the week they'd only just started sending invites for group 4 (70+ & CEV), that effectively limits it to the 75+ on those first sailings, and certainly not all of them given the geographic variability in the rollout
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
What if your age means you can't be vaccinated? That falls under the criteria. There's no guarantee 50-70 year olds would have the vaccine in time/

It can be lawful to directly discriminate on the basis of age. Again as long as it's a proportionate response to achieving a legitimate aim then it can be legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of age. It's why SAGA can even run cruises that are restricted to people aged 50+ in the first place! I would strongly recommended (I don't think for the first time) that people have read of this page on the Citizens Advice website that gives a solid overview what factors are considered in whether discrimination is justified or not. As @island has alluded to there are plenty of get-outs when it comes to discrimination.

Justifying discrimination​

This advice applies to England

Sometimes it doesn’t count as unlawful discrimination if someone treats you unfairly because of who you are. The Equality Act 2010 says if someone has a good enough reason for treating you unfairly, they may be able to justify discriminating against you.

When can someone justify discrimination?


The law which says you mustn’t be discriminated against is called the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. This means you can take action in the civil courts.
But sometimes people are allowed to discriminate against you if they have a good enough reason for doing so. They would need to be able to prove this in court, if necessary. This is known in legal terms as objective justification. If discrimination is justified, it doesn’t count as unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act.

Discrimination can only be justified in certain situations. These are:
  • indirect discrimination
  • discrimination because of something connected to your disability, this is called discrimination arising from a disability
  • direct age discrimination.

What’s a good enough reason?


The Equality Act says discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If necessary, it's the courts which will decide if discrimination can be justified.

What’s a legitimate aim?


A legitimate aim is the reason behind the discrimination. This reason must not be discriminatory in itself and it must be a genuine or real reason.

Here are examples of legitimate aims:
  • the health, safety and welfare of individuals
  • running an efficient service
  • requirements of a business
  • desire to make profit.

Example
A hospital advertises a surgeon’s job for which it requires at least ten years’ experience. You can’t meet this requirement because you’ve taken time off work to care for your children. As you’re a woman, this looks like indirect discrimination because of sex. But the hospital may be able to justify this, if it can show that the job can’t be done properly without that amount of experience. This is likely to be a legitimate aim.

What’s meant by proportionate?


The aim or the reason behind the discrimination must be fairly balanced against the disadvantage you’ve suffered because of the discrimination. This means it must be appropriate and necessary. If there are better and less discriminatory ways of doing things, it will be more difficult to justify discrimination.

Example
The fire service requires all job applicants to take a number of physical tests. This could be indirect discrimination because of age, as older people are less likely to pass the tests than younger applicants. But the fire service can probably justify this. Fire fighting is a job which requires great physical capability. The reason for the test is to make sure candidates are fit enough to do the job and ensure the proper functioning of the fire service. This is a legitimate aim. Making candidates take physical tests is a proportionate way of achieving this aim.

Can saving money be a legitimate aim?


Economic reasons alone are not enough to justify discrimination. Someone can’t justify discrimination by saying it’s cheaper to discriminate. But costs can be taken into account as part of the justification if the person can show there are other good enough reasons for the treatment.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It's guaranteed for the first sailings. For those who want to depart on the first sailing (1st May implied), you need to have had your second jab by mid April, which using a rigid 12 week gap from 1st to 2nd dose means you have to have been vaccinated by end of this week. Seeing as at the start of the week they'd only just started sending invites for group 4 (70+ & CEV), that effectively limits it to the 75+ on those first sailings, and certainly not all of them given the geographic variability in the rollout
It does make it a strange decision when you look at it like this. They will effectively be turning away pretty much all of their already limited customer base in the first few weeks. I wonder if this will be an attempt to make it look like they are doing something but not turning a profit, and so they can try to get the government to bail them out?
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,486
Location
Kent
I think that is rather fanciful.
I don't know why? It is bad enough social distancing in a supermarket, but I'm in and out in half an hour. A cruise ship you are on for weeks, often inside (in a public space) for hours at a time. I have no problem with them insisting on the vaccines but the crew are just as capable of spreading the virus as the passengers.

It does make it a strange decision when you look at it like this. They will effectively be turning away pretty much all of their already limited customer base in the first few weeks. I wonder if this will be an attempt to make it look like they are doing something but not turning a profit, and so they can try to get the government to bail them out?
Or just to indicate that SAGA is back in business, they are taking appropriate measures so cruising is safe, lots of photo-shots inviting people to sign up for summer and autumn cruises? (I think it is that vessel's - Spirit of Adventure - maiden voyage, try it out with reduced numbers of passengers, find any teething problems.)

I wonder what the vaccination policy will be for say, club 18-30 holidays ?

Just out of curiosity - I'm way past their target audience.
... which, I believe, is 30 - 50!
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Or just to indicate that SAGA is back in business, they are taking appropriate measures so cruising is safe, lots of photo-shots inviting people to sign up for summer and autumn cruises? (I think it is that vessel's - Spirit of Adventure - maiden voyage, try it out with reduced numbers of passengers, find any teething problems.)
No I suspect this is an effort to get the government to back them, after all by the summer pretty much every one of their potential customers will have been offered a vaccine.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
It does appear that the actual annoucement from Saga applies to all their holidays. It was the FT that added 'on cruises'.

Saga: "we think shortly after beginning of May almost all of customers will have received a second vaccination".

Dream on. As others have already observed, more like August/September, IF the promised schedules are kept to.

Then what. Vaccination is not a guarantee of not being infectious. What is life going to like on board ? What rules are the ports the cruises visit going to apply ? All those disembarking must have a 72 hour negative test ? All those on the ship must have a 72 hour negative test ? Simply Stay Away ? What if a passenger does test positive, confined to their cabin ?

I suspect there will be a series of "Had we known this we would never have booked" stories later in the year.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
They'd have virtually no business (apart from healthcare workers!) if they did that any time soon!

By the time all 18-30 year olds have been offered a vaccine, I predict we will be beyond the stage of requiring vaccinations (for events within the UK at least).

It's likely that at some point proof of vaccination will replace a requirement to have a negative test.

Indeed. I can't imagine it being a policy demanded by their customers anyway !
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Also you can be young
Indeed. I can't imagine it being a policy demanded by their customers anyway !
That's another defining factor.

There was a pub somewhere that banned young people from going to the pub as they claimed virus levels were higher in the younger age groups. I can't remember what the minimum age was but maybe 30 or 40. Definitely younger than Saga's 50. We could see a return to some pubs trying to do that sort of thing, but only in certain areas where there are a lot of older clientele. Not a major problem as long as there is an alternative pub nearby though!

It does appear that the actual annoucement from Saga applies to all their holidays. It was the FT that added 'on cruises'.

Saga: "we think shortly after beginning of May almost all of customers will have received a second vaccination".

Dream on. As others have already observed, more like August/September, IF the promised schedules are kept to.
Exactly so they are going to have to revise their plans. Just one jab would suffice really.


Then what. Vaccination is not a guarantee of not being infectious. ...

No but it is going to reduce the probability of each person being infectious by a substantial amount. And then if someone was infectious, the chances of others getting infected would be reduced. The immunity among any given population does not have to be anywhere near 100% to prevent a virus spreading exponentially.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Also you can be young

That's another defining factor.

There was a pub somewhere that banned young people from going to the pub as they claimed virus levels were higher in the younger age groups. I can't remember what the minimum age was but maybe 30 or 40. Definitely younger than Saga's 50. We could see a return to some pubs trying to do that sort of thing, but only in certain areas where there are a lot of older clientele. Not a major problem as long as there is an alternative pub nearby though!

A pub would really have to dislike the younger clientelle to put them off in this economic environment.

Pubs seem like a long time ago :(
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Found it:


The Oddfellows Arms in Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, said it will refuse to serve those aged between 18 and 25 after the Government announced stricter limits on social gatherings.

The pub wrote in a Facebook post: ‘In light of recent events and an escalation in cases we are now not serving anyone in the age bracket 18-25.

‘We have thought about this very carefully, we will continue to try and ensure our community, customers and staff are all kept safe in these difficult times.
The problem is people have been scared by Government messaging and think that implementing some bizarre restriction will ensure people are "kept safe".

The pub did receive a huge backlash
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The problem is people have been scared by Government messaging and think that implementing some bizarre restriction will ensure people are "kept safe".

And it's always presented in such a smug way as if they are doing everyone a favour.

I'm finding it more and more annoying as time goes on. What about people who are driven to self harm or suicide, are they "safe"? People with cancers and other potentially terminal illnesses which are not being treated? People trapped in abusive relationships?

"Safe" has been redefined to mean "measures in response to the Deadly Killer Virus, which may or may not actually make any difference".
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
And it's always presented in such a smug way as if they are doing everyone a favour.

I'm finding it more and more annoying as time goes on. What about people who are driven to self harm or suicide, are they "safe"? People with cancers and other potentially terminal illnesses which are not being treated? People trapped in abusive relationships?

"Safe" has been redefined to mean "measures in response to the Deadly Killer Virus, which may or may not actually make any difference".
This is very true.

However I can understand why an organisation that holds events or provides services almost exclusively to older people may require compulsory vaccinations at some point, but I feel that:
1) May is too early (unless one jab will suffice);
2) The measure should not go on for too long;
3) This should not be done by any business whose clientele also includes younger people (by the time 18 year olds have been vaccinated the epidemic will be over)

If any business was to act in a manner that is contrary to that, it could be detrimental to them, through loss of sales but also bad press.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
2,842
Location
Stevenage
No but it is going to reduce the probability of each person being infectious by a substantial amount. And then if someone was infectious, the chances of others getting infected would be reduced. The immunity among any given population does not have to be anywhere near 100% to prevent a virus spreading exponentially.
Agreed. I was just pondering the rules the ports the cruise ships wish to visit will apply, which might not be so rational.
 

Scotrail12

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2014
Messages
834
Doesn't seem like other lines are currently following Saga's vaccine rule but here is a video I found about rules on Royal Caribbean from an employee:

In summary:
- All guests & crew must wear a 'contact tracelet' throughout the entire cruise except for when in stateroom.
- No available drinking taps on ship.
- Limited tables in dining venues (possible reservations though unclear).
- 5 people per hot tub/jacuzzi and 15 min time limit.
- Guests should remain in 'bubbles' with those from their respective party.
- Temperature checks at all onboard venues.
- Queues outside venues if over limit of people allowed in.
- Face coverings required around all areas of ship except bar.
- Guests not allowed to consume beverages outside of bars and restaurants.
- Limited seating in theatre.
- No physical menus in dining venues.
- Gym sessions must be pre booked.
- Social distancing: regardless of whether or not you are in their 'bubble', everyone must maintain 1m distancing from each other.
- All guests required to have negative COVID test prior to cruising.
- Health questionnaire to be taken and checked by staff prior to boarding. If not 'passed', you cannot board.

How the hell do they expect people to pay thousands of pounds/dollars for this? Why would you voluntarily go somewhere which potentially has more restrictions than your own home country?
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
It does make it a strange decision when you look at it like this. They will effectively be turning away pretty much all of their already limited customer base in the first few weeks. I wonder if this will be an attempt to make it look like they are doing something but not turning a profit, and so they can try to get the government to bail them out?
I would say they understand their market. Do you think many of the old age groups would want to go on a cruise with people who may not be vaccinated, I suspect not. At 69 I would certainly not, but then as I would not anyway as I regard cruise ships as floating petri dishes (think numerous Norovirus outbreaks every year). However I do have many younger and older friends who rave over cruising holidays.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
If I was going on a cruise, I think I'd want everyone vaccinated against norovirus !
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I would say they understand their market. Do you think many of the old age groups would want to go on a cruise with people who may not be vaccinated, I suspect not. At 69 I would certainly not, but then as I would not anyway as I regard cruise ships as floating petri dishes (think numerous Norovirus outbreaks every year). However I do have many younger and older friends who rave over cruising holidays.

I might be misunderstanding, but if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission then does it make any difference if others aren’t vaccinated? Especially if one has had the vaccine one’s self.

I saw the old woman sounding off about the care home staff not wanting to be vaccinated, which I found rather disingenuous. Looks like we’ve found something for people to preach to others about once (if?!) masks go in the bin.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
- Face coverings required around all areas of ship except bar.
I've only ever done one cruise. I'd like to do another one day but I definitely won't whilst masks are required. If I want to spend all day with a mask on I'll ride some 317s for a fraction of the price!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Will people actually be allowed to get off of these cruises and wander around anywhere ? Otherwise, you may as well just book into a nice hotel and wander up and down the prom (assuming they end the lockdown at some stage).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top