All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 18, 2022 - Epoch Times
20:46
3,200 Fully Vaccinated Cruise Passengers Suffer Massive Outbreak, 17 Confirmed Cases | Facts Matter
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening.
Just yesterday, it was reported that there was a COVID outbreak on a cruise ship, despite the fact that all of the crew members, as well as all of the passengers, meaning that 100% of the people on board were fully vaccinated.
Meanwhile, four days ago, the state of Nevada, it became the first in the entire nation To actually charge a monthly penalty on all of their unvaccinated workers.
And the penalty, by the way, is not cheap, going all the way up to $175 a month.
And then lastly, as the Biden administration's different vaccine mandates are all currently held up in court, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City is not interested in waiting.
Instead, earlier today, he announced a new vaccine mandate on all workers in the private sector here in the city of New York.
Let's go through it all together.
This is your daily Facts Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times.
And now let's begin today's discussion over in Nevada, which has just become the first state in the entire nation to impose an actual surcharge on people who aren't vaccinated.
Let me just repeat that.
The state of Nevada has just become the first in the entire nation to impose a surcharge on workers who have not gotten the vaccine.
Although it's worth noting that the penalty does not go into effect until the middle of next year, until the middle of 2022.
Now, to be specific, this new policy was voted into effect by Nevada's Public Employees Benefit Program Board, also known as the PEBP.
And in case you're not aware of what this board exactly is, this is a state agency, and they are required by law to provide insurance to all state as well as public employees in the state of Nevada.
And currently, this board covers about 44,000 workers in the state, as well as an additional 27,000 family members.
And what happened was that last Thursday, 32 out of 34 members of this board, basically almost everybody, they voted to approve a penalty of $55 per month on unvaccinated workers.
And then furthermore, in that same proposal that they approved, besides the $55 per month penalty on the actual worker, there is an additional $175 penalty for the workers' spouses, their partners, as well as their dependent adult children.
Now the big question is why exactly is the state of Nevada taking this course?
And the answer is actually because the governor of Nevada, Mr.
Stephen Sisolak, he's a Democrat, he enacted a policy that forces workers in the state to get tested for COVID on a weekly basis if they choose to not get the vaccine.
And the cost of all this testing, as you can imagine, is beginning to add up.
In fact, up through the month of September, which is the latest data that we have access to, all of the COVID testing in the state, it added up to approximately $3.3 million.
And by now, since we're in December, I'm sure it's a lot more.
And according to Ms.
Laura Rich, who is the executive officer of the state's Employees Benefit Program Board, she says that the penalties that they're about to be levying on the actual workers themselves, they will help to offset the cost of administering all these COVID tests.
Now, what's interesting to note here is that prior to the board actually voting on and approving this measure, there was a public forum where residents of the state came to a meeting and they spoke out against this proposal.
For instance, during that meeting, a woman by the name of Ellen, who lives in the state of Nevada, she said that many people who enjoy natural immunity from the virus don't need to get the vaccine, and she added this.
I believe that the proposed surcharge is inappropriate and excessive.
Likewise, there was another woman at that meeting named Shaina, and she said essentially that the state of Nevada is putting her between Iraq and a hard place.
That's because on the one hand, she says that she has concerns about forcing her 18-year-old son to get the vaccine because there are studies which show that young men like him have an elevated risk of developing heart inflammation after getting the shot.
On the other hand, though, Shaina said that she is already paying $255 a month for insurance, and therefore, the new penalty would essentially be a 90% increase on her monthly payments.
However, on the flip side, there were some members of the public which were in favor of the surcharges.
For instance, one resident who came to the meeting, he said this, And the sentiment that that man echoed seems to be exactly in line with what the governor of Nevada is actually trying to do, given the fact that his policy director, the governor's own policy director, said this in regards to the matter.
The pandemic has been shouldered on the burden of everyone, and now this particular burden, the testing, should be shouldered on the burden of those who refuse to be vaccinated.
Now, the big million-dollar question here is whether the surcharge is actually legal.
And frankly, only time will tell.
Last month, Nevada's Department of Labor, they did release a guidance memo which said essentially that surcharges like these are in fact legal.
However, that is just their opinion, and very likely what will actually happen is that Nevada workers will sue this board, The matter will be decided in the courts, and then it will be appealed to the appellate level, and then likely all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And so we will just have to wait and see.
Otherwise, for your reference, if nothing else changes, these surcharges will officially go into effect on July 1st of 2022, so in about six months from now.
If you'd like to read more about these penalties out in Nevada, I will throw the links to several articles into the description box below this video for you to check out.
And all I ask in return is that you take a quick, quick second to smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
Now, since we're on the topic of vaccines, let's talk a little bit about cruise ships.
Just yesterday, it was reported that there was a COVID outbreak on a cruise ship, despite the fact that every single passenger on board was fully vaccinated.
Let me just repeat that.
After disembarking from New Orleans, a Norwegian cruise line ship had an outbreak of at least 10 cases of COVID, despite the fact that all of the crew members, as well as all of the passengers, meaning 100% of the people who were on board, were fully vaccinated.
Now, what happened specifically was that about 3,200 people got on board the ship in New Orleans on November the 28th.
And then they cruised on through the Atlantic, making stops in Mexico, Honduras, as well as Belize, before coming back to New Orleans with the intention being to dock on December the 5th.
However, before they made it back, they discovered that there was a COVID outbreak on board the ship.
Although, according to a representative of the Norwegian cruise line, the, quote, identified cases on board are asymptomatic, and he also added that, quote, in addition to requiring that 100% of guests and crew are fully vaccinated per the company's comprehensive health and safety protocols, we have implemented quarantine, isolation, and contact tracing we have implemented quarantine, isolation, and contact tracing procedures for identified cases.
Meaning that besides requiring everybody to be fully vaccinated as a prerequisite for boarding, they also had a contingency plan in place just in case of an outbreak.
And now, there are 3,200 people who are stuck in their cabins waiting to get the green light to leave.
Now, according to the Louisiana Department of Health, they will soon begin to allow these people to disembark and enter New Orleans.
However, according to that same statement from the Department of Health, everyone on board will have to be tested before disembarking, and then if they test positive for COVID, they will have to either go home directly or self-quarantine, per the CDC's guidelines.
Now, here's specifically what the Louisiana Department of Health said in their statement.
Governor John Bel Edwards, the Louisiana Department of Health, the City of New Orleans, and the Port of New Orleans are aware and working closely with the CDC And then, as just a quick addendum,
earlier today, the Louisiana Department of Health actually issued an update, and they said that not only did they identify an additional seven cases of COVID-19 among the people who were on the Norwegian cruise line, but also among the original 10 cases that they identified, one of them was a probable case of Omicron variant, of the Omicron variant.
Here's what they wrote, quote, This is in regards to the 10 cases that were originally found.
This includes one probable case of Omicron which has been identified among the crew.
The case is among the 10 cases that had been previously reported.
The crew member is not a Louisiana resident and did not leave the ship.
So that is quite fascinating.
Among a ship of over 3,000 completely fully vaccinated crew and passengers, they had 17 cases of COVID pop-up, including one case of Omicron.
Now, we did reach out to the Louisiana Department of Health for any additional information.
They have yet to get back, but this is obviously a developing story, and we'll see where it goes from here.
Otherwise, Roman in the studio, back to you.
Now, if you'd like to read more about this cruise liner over in New Orleans, I will throw a link to an article about it into the description box below this video for you to check out.
And all eyes can return is that if you haven't already, take a quick moment to smash, smash, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
And now, let's move on over to New York City, which has just announced probably the most sweeping vaccine mandate in the entire country.
What happened was that earlier today...
Sorry.
What's this?
Well, that's a great question, Roman.
And it is today's sponsor, which is an awesome messaging and email service provider called Secure.
And it's awesome if you're the type of person that actually cares about their privacy.
Because, I mean, it's no big secret that these big tech companies are mining and remining our data all the time.
In fact, in the year 2020, it was found that over 155 million Americans, likely including you and me, have suffered some form of data breach.
And by the way, that's only what's publicly known.
However, what's happened in the past?
Well, that can stay in the past because with Secure, your data and your messages can remain private and that's because secure has all of their data centers located over in switzerland rather than you in the us or in china and the reason that's so important is that switzerland has some of the strictest data privacy laws in the entire world and they are not subject to the intrusive cloud act and if you want to know what the cloud act is head on over to secure.com And watch their video on the homepage or on the video tutorials page, which is under their support section.
Now, the thing that I personally love the most about the secure app is the privacy aspect of it.
They don't mind my data.
They don't mind my phone number.
They don't mind the phone numbers or data of my friends and family who I chat with.
But best of all is that if your friends and family don't actually use the secure app themselves, it doesn't matter.
Because the way that it works is that when you use their secure send email technology, all of your emails and your messages route to Switzerland, and then the recipient can reply using their secure reply technology.
And so everything remains private no matter what.
And the same actually goes for their messaging app as well.
And they're always coming up with new features.
In fact, the most recent one they told me about, they sent me an email here, was that they're coming up with a new feature called text to chat by invite.
So they're an innovative company.
And they really do care about your privacy.
And so what they're doing doesn't work with your existing big tech email account.
So check them out.
You can head on over to secure.com.
I'll throw the link into the description box below.
And when you use promo code Roman, you can get 25% off.
And the rates are not even that expensive to start with, by the way.
It's only $5 for the messenger and $10 for the email and messenger combo.
And they even offer a seven-day free trial.
So head on over to their website.
Again, it'll be linked in the description box below.
Use promo code Roman to save some money.
And now Roman in the studio, back to you.
And now let's move on over to New York City.
Just earlier today, Bill de Blasio, who is the mayor of New York, he's a Democrat, he announced that private sector workers here in the city, they will have a choice.
Either get the vaccine or face termination.
Here's specifically what he said during an interview on MSNBC just earlier today.
We have decided to use a preemptive strike to really do something bold to stop the further growth of COVID and the dangers it's causing to all of us.
Now, to start with, you might be saying to yourself, wait a minute, Bill de Blasio?
Isn't he about to leave office?
And you would be correct.
His term actually ends on December 31st, and so he literally only has about two weeks left in office.
However, his successor, Mr.
Eric Adams, he has on multiple occasions affirmed the vaccine mandates that have already been rolled out, And so it is very likely that he will continue to enforce whatever measures Bill de Blasio enacts.
Although we did reach out to Mr.
Eric Adams for comment, but we have yet to hear back.
Regardless though, let's get back to the actual mandate that Bill de Blasio announced.
During that interview over on MSNBC, Bill de Blasio cited the Omicron variant.
Colder weather, as well as the upcoming holiday gatherings, as the reason that he is implementing a blanket vaccine mandate on all private sector employees, who, according to him, now have until December the 27th to at least get one dose of the vaccine.
Here's again what Mayor Bill de Blasio said explaining his rationale.
The more universal they are, the more likely employees will say, okay, it's time, I'm going to do this, because you can't jump from one industry to another or one company to another.
It's something that needs to be universal to protect all of us.
Meaning, essentially, that if you work anywhere in the city of New York, you will be affected by this vaccine mandate.
Now, the obvious question is whether Bill de Blasio has the actual authority to do this, which is exactly the question that Mr.
Joe Borelli, who is the top Republican in the New York City Council, is the exact question that he asked right after that announcement was made.
Here's specifically what he said.
"How can he enforce this on businesses that operate without licenses from New York City?
He can't.
Don't open the door for the de Blasio health police.
You don't need a VAX to work in most private sector jobs in New York City.
The court will tell us this, too." Now, thus far, it is the case that it's not exactly clear under what authority Bill de Blasio will attempt to implement this new vaccine mandate.
He did say during that interview that on December the 15th, he will offer specific guidelines.
And so we can look forward to those.
And in the meantime, we can also very likely look forward to the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up and challenge this new vaccine mandate in courts.
And we'll just have to see how all that turns out, because while all the vaccine mandates that have come from the Biden administration, they have been put on hold due to the legal challenges here in New York City.
It's a bit of a different story, because even though all of the New York City's vaccine mandates up until now have been challenged in court, thus far, none of them have been overturned.
And so we'll just have to wait and see whether this new one on private businesses will be Regardless, if you'd like to read more about this new vaccine mandate here in New York City, I'll throw several links into the description box below this video for you to check out.
And all that's going to return is that if you haven't already, take a quick moment to smash that like button for the use of algorithm.
And now let's move on over to California.
Imagine for a moment that you are running a corporation in the state of California.
Unlike everyone else who moved to Texas, you are standing firm and you would like to remain in California.
Good for you.
Now, your company has a spot that it needs to fill on its corporate board.
And so what you do is you...
Get out a piece of paper, you put a list together of the top 20 candidates, and you interview them one by one, you go through their records, you go through all their project histories, their accomplishments, and then you determine that the best candidate for the job is a man named Michael.
And so, you sit Michael down, you look at him and you ask him, Mike, are you gay?
And he looks at you and he says, no, I'm not.
And then you look back at him and you say, well then, I'm sorry.
In that case, I cannot hire you.
Now you might say that that scenario is unbelievable, but in the state of California, it's actually true.
That's because in California, there are two laws on the books in this regard.
The first one is called SB 826, and it requires that all publicly held corporations that are headquartered in the state of California, they must meet a quota of female board members or they will face fines.
And then a second law, one that's called AB 979, which will go into effect starting next year, it will require that those same corporations meet an additional quota for board members based on race as well as sexual orientation.
Meaning, essentially, that during your job interviews, you will have to take into consideration the applicant's race, their gender, as well as their sexual orientation.
And if all that sounds illegal to you, well, you're not alone.
That's because just a few days ago, a conservative think tank, they filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California, alleging exactly that.
Now, those two laws are unconstitutional.
Now, the plaintiff in that case, it's a conservative think tank called the National Center for Public Policy Research, and they argue that these laws perpetuate discrimination by treating people differently based on their immutable characteristics, rather than treating them as individuals.
Here's specifically what they wrote in their legal complaint.
The problem is these diversity quotas apply to all businesses across every industry in perpetuity, regardless of whether there is any specific evidence of discrimination.
These laws, which dole out benefits and impose burdens on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation, are unconstitutional.
Now, the timing of this lawsuit is extremely pertinent, given the fact that the second law that we mentioned, the one that's called AB 979, regarding minorities as well as people in the LGBTQ community, it will go into effect starting next year, which is just a month away.
And in terms of what that actually means once it goes into effect, well, here's what this legal petition says.
Under AB 979, any publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices are located in California must have a minimum of one director from an underrepresented community on its board by December 31st.
And that is indeed the case, because according to this new law, by December 31st, 2022, meaning December of next year, a corporation must have a number of directors with certain characteristics.
And the number of these mandatory diverse board members is actually determined by the size of the company.
And so according to that law, if a corporation has five to eight directors, at least two of them will have to be members of an underrepresented community.
And then if a corporation has nine or more directors, It will actually have to have at least three members from an underrepresented community.
And if you're wondering how the law actually defines a member of an underrepresented community, well, here's exactly what it says.
An individual who self-identifies as black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaskan Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
Although, frankly, they could have saved themselves all the ink and simply wrote, anyone who is not straight and white.
Which is exactly the crux of the issue.
Because here in America, explicit discrimination is illegal.
And so under this new law, otherwise qualified individuals will be denied job opportunities because of their race, gender, ethnicity, and or sexual orientation.
Which on its face would, at least in theory, be illegal.
And that is exactly the argument that the lawyer who is representing this think tank, which is challenging this law, is making.
In fact, here's how he summarized his argument in an email that he sent to us here at the Epoch Times.
What's happening is the state of California has decided that they can intervene and force private companies to impose race quotas and sex quotas and all kinds of quotas.
But the Supreme Court regards quotas as invidious because all they care about is one's membership in a class.
They're not treating you as an individual anymore.
And that is deeply, deeply, deeply contrary to the Constitution and to the ideals of equality under the law that the Constitution stands for.
Now, on the flip side, however, Governor Gavin Newsom, when he signed that new bill into law, he said that it advances racial justice, and then he added this.
When we talk about racial justice, we talk about empowerment.
We talk about power.
We need to talk about seats at the table.
Which is, of course, great political rhetoric, but we will have to see whether it stands in the court of law.
Regardless, though, we also did reach out to Ms.
Shirley Weber, who is the California Assemblywoman who actually initiated this law in the first place, but we have yet to hear back.
Regardless, if you'd like to read more about either the new California race, gender, and quota laws, as well as the lawsuit that's challenging them in court, I'll throw all that into the description box below this video for you to check out.
And again, all I ask in return is that if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
And now, since you've completed this episode of Facts Matter, I would highly recommend that you go on over to Epic TV and check out an awesome episode of Truth Over News, where Jeff Carlson does a deep dive into how Dr.
Fauci's mandates undermine our civil liberties and subvert the Constitution.
Here's a trailer for that episode.
Our Constitution is a charter of negative rights, and those negative rights play a crucial role in our lives.
Under our Constitution, all individuals have the right to engage in activities to preserve and enhance their lives, as long as they refrain from engaging in activities which prevent others from doing the same.
In other words, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This is why we as individual citizens only have negative obligations placed on us by our Constitution.
This must be so by definition in order to protect our individual rights.
In an age of COVID, these individual rights are now under greater threat than ever.
If you want to check out that awesome episode, as well as all the other phenomenal content over on Epic TV, I'll throw a link to it.
It'll be right there at the very top of the description box.
I hope you click on it.
I hope you check it out.
I hope you subscribe.
And I hope that you join us on this journey of exploring this beautiful, beautiful world through honest journalism that is based in truth and tradition.
Lastly, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
Subscribe to this YouTube channel if you haven't already in order to get this type of honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed while YouTube still allows it.
Also, consider hitting that notification bell so you can actually be notified of any new videos as we release them.
And then lastly, if you have an Instagram account, consider following me at EpicTimesRoman.
I publish behind-the-scenes research as well as spicy memes.
And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times.
▲
Export Selection