Snowchaser

Even in Canada(where supposedly we are handling Covid well..lol) we have different rules for each province and some cities within the same province, so the color of the state really doesn't have any bearing...why don't you just say each province instead of trying to get a dig in at the USA.
 
Pretty sure I saw ALOT of people from your own province flaunting the rules this weekend....
 
Here in Canada, we are threatened with fines, jail and Covid camps for detention if we don't follow the rules..so please don't try to make another country out to be worse than yourself.....
 
Rules change all the time for various reasons..its not hard to learn and adapt...some emails and videos should be enough from Royal...its not rocket science to understand what we will need to do.

You seem to have taken the position that everyone in America thinks cruises will start tomorrow.   That is an incorrect assumption.  
We all know the restart will be a process that will take time.  That process couldn't start until the CDC made their announcement yesterday.   The process has begun.  Royal is crewing ships today as a means to fulfil the CDC requirement for sample or test cruises.   Once that is accepted by the CDC they'll move onto the next requirement.  
Everyone here knows this will take time and there will be milestones to complete but we all see that process is now underway.  

You may want to re read the document again, because what Twangster posted above is verbatim to what the executive summary says, in order and in context.

Per CDC most people that have contracted the virus have been wearing masks. Europe is under a second wave as well and have been under a very restrictive mask mandate. The push should be for the vaccine, hopefully available by end of this year.

I think that with all these points being awarded the benefits of xyz status will be greatly diluted. I think with many cruises still to be canceled into 2021, maybe this is a moot point and RCG will not see the need to dilute the perks.
 

For me i had a momentary rush a few years back when i first started getting the balcony discounts ... then they made that non-combinable with the "sale of the day" so i really didnt use it much.
Later i was excited to get the Diamond Lounge and the Diamond Drinks ... except that then we got drink packages and the discount ahead of time is almost always more than the Diamond discount so basically nothing from that either.
I think i get a free picture still ??

I think it is for two reasons, first trying to limit capacity in case ships are permitted to sail but at limited capacity.  Second would be they are taking advantage of all the 125% credits by raising prices and pushing back credits to later sailings.
I have a April trip booked on Freedom and it is more than doubled now, we rebooked not long ago (balcony 2 kids, 2adults) for $2100, current price is right at $4600!  Fingers crossed it isn't canceled.

Besides what @AshleyDillo mentioned, there's also a good Diamond perk for onboard internet purchase that @twangster covered a while back; basically, wait until day 2 for your VOOM purchase (easy when you're in port and have cell service most of the day), and the prorated price for Diamond level becomes lower than the best price you can find on the Cruise Planner.
IIRC, there's also Diamond-level onboard pricing on the DBP that makes it better than anything on the CP. Pretty sure @twangster has also written about taking advantage of that on his more-recent (not totally fake and unrealistic ?) live blogs.

A lot of people want the Diamond status because it gets them access to the Diamond Lounge and Diamond Happy Hour.  After another next big perk comes at the 350 point mark (I think) is where the solo supplement is only 50%, so if you're sailing by yourself you don't have to pay double.  That could be a pretty significant per sailing cost.   Those two perks to me ones that are worth the intentional climb.

I like objective data not claims of a "fact" related to the COVID pandemic without data to back it up.  For example, the WHO claims lots of things to include the virus spreads via aerosols. Subsequently and within days, they backed away from that claim and say "we only know it's airborne." The reason behind the fall-back by the WHO was a lack of data to back up their claim. Claims of fact are one thing. Without data they are empty claims.
Matt posted the announcement by RCG results of a study conducted by the University of Nebraska's Medical Center onboard the Oasis of the Seas confirming that cross-contamination of air between adjacent public spaces is extremely low, and undetectable in most test cases. The study marked particles < 1 micron in size (considered to be aerosols) and then injected them into a space aboard ship. Next it followed these particles with equipment designed to detect if they passed through the ship. They didn't. IOW, even if the virus gets introduced in this congregate setting, it's not going to spread in aerosol form (the only way they can do that) via the ship's air handling systems. This was one of the claims, one of the facts, advanced by CDC that isn't supported by objective data.
Just want to be perfectly clear about the value of data backed assertions compared to well, it could be or it might be sort of facts. Here's another example. The CDC alleges it's risky to fly and the longer the flight the higher the risk of becoming infected with COVID from an otherwise asymptomatic COVID positive passenger.  Don't get on airplanes or cruise ships if you are otherwise at higher risk for becoming infected. Given this very public claim, given that it is frequently augmented by the media, you'd be afraid to jump on an airplane to get to a cruise port, right?
Don't be.  
Results from the Boeing 777-200 and 767-300 airframes showed a minimum reduction of 99.7% of 1 µm simulated virus aerosol from the index source to passengers seated directly next to the source. An average 99.99% reduction was measured for the 40+ breathing zones tested in each section of both airframes. Rapid dilution, mixing and purging of aerosol from the index source was observed due to both airframes’ high air exchange rates, downward ventilation design, and HEPA-filtered recirculation. Contamination of surfaces from aerosol sources was minimal, and DNA-tagged 3 µm tracers agreed well with real-time fluorescent results. Transmission model calculations using the measured aerosol breathing zone penetration data indicates an extremely unlikely aerosol exposure risk for a 12 hour flight when using a 4,000 virion/hour shedding rate and 1,000 virion infectious dose.
https://www.ustranscom.mil/cmd/docs/TRANSCOM Report Final.pdf
We should not be fearful of flying on commercial aircraft to get from point A to point B even when the flight is even 12 hours long. The data does not support CDC's recommendations not to fly for leisure. It appears this is another example of unsupported advice coming from the CDC, crushing a sector of the travel and leisure industry, in it's role of prevention. There should be no surprise that people don't trust them anymore with it's trustworthiness ratings among Americans plummeting.

There's a couple things to recognize when looking at new case numbers in isolation as an absolute indicator of virus spread. That data is inherently flawed and so are conclusions being drawn from it. 
First, there is growing recognition by public health officials and epidemiologists that the virus cannot be suppressed such that there is zero risk of viral spread. Places can get close but it takes lock-downs and shuttering of businesses to do it and these are not sustainable for a number of reasons not the least of which is the economic and social costs of doing that. The WHO is latching on to this trend. You can read about this in the WSJ if you have a subscription. You may be able to get to the articles I'm speaking of w/o a subscription - worth a try. Google today's WSJ. The virus can be contained and it's impact on public health can be decreased - and already is being both contained and decreased regionally with reasonable mitigation measures. The point of the foregoing is that restoring appropriately restricted human activity and mobility is becoming a more acceptable alternative to lock-downs and shuttering of varying severity. It's known that the PH benefits derived therefrom are not sufficient to warrant the social and economic costs of them. That thinking is going to weigh in favor of restarting cruise ship operations. 

I disagree with your conclusion, the total number of daily new cases in the US has remained relatively constant since peeks in late July early August timeframe.
Comparing USA numbers and Singapore numbers really isn't a great idea regardless due to the sheer differences in land mass, and overall population

“Skyrocketing”??  Public data just does not support this statement. 

Well, because it doesn’t make sense. I can be outside at the port next to the ship and not need a mask, but if I’m outside on the ship, I do?  And on top of that, I just had 2 negative tests plus a health screen to get on it. 

Heck, even my Florida hometown ACC team's coach tested positive.  The team still played without him as coach that weekend.
I always assumed the point of the initial lockdown was to stop rapid spreading that would overwhelm our medical care infrastructure.  A byproduct of that is that it bought us time to learn more about the virus and now we are getting to the point where the impact is understood more and we know how to mitigate the risk a bit better.  Now it's time to keep implementing the practices to keep moving forward and slowly reopening everything.  It's still personal choice whether someone wants to patronize a private business but at least the businesses are allowed to be open so you can make that choice.

My two points stand:
(1) The media has created an inaccurate characterization of Governor Desantis' announcement to move FL to Phase III and to prohibit citing or fining people or businesses that don't comply with lawfully established mitigation measures. That inaccurate media characterization is one that paints Desantis as irresponsible .... not the first time the media has done that and it won't be the last.
My view is that Desantis is not only acting responsibly but also making it clear state and local governments in FL shall not operate as police states dictating behavior and meeting out punishment for those that don't behave. Freedoms granted require personal responsibility. I favor rejection of the nanny state, less litigation and more citizens taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. YMMV. 
(2) With appropriate targeted mitigation measures and protocols SARS-CoV-2 spread can be controlled without the severe restrictions to social and economic activity that have proven to be ineffective in producing significant public health benefits. I provided many examples of countries and organizations doing just that while others take more draconian, widely applied measures that are harmful. YMMV.
BTW, after Florida's weekend of allegedly unmasked revelry without appropriate distancing in bars and clubs unleashed by Governor Desantis' irresponsible actions, FL's positivity rate as of today's numbers continues to decline, remaining below 5%, along with every other meaningful measure of disease burden in FL. Employment in the hard hit restaurant and entertainment sector continues to improve and unemployment claims continue to drop. But, yeah, let's shut everything down.      

Scrumps, well, decisions relating to the pandemic response in the US is "political" to some degree. With respect to mitigation measures, in thie case the No-Sail-Order, it is more of a legal argument. You have the abridgment of personal freedoms  v. the imposition of rules and regulation in the national interest, in this case public health. The Circuit Courts have, as far as I know, ruled against litigants who appear before them arguing that local restrictive measures such as mandating masks is unconstitutional. Under the pandemic circumstances the courts have ruled it is not. End of argument there.
Extending or letting the No-Sail-Order expire is a matter involving the question of whether or not the US Government has the authority to curtail an activity that is potentially hazardous, e.g., the operation of cruise ships from US ports, in a pandemic. I think it does and, if this authority were challenged in the courts, the litigants challenging it would likely lose. There are no politics involved here at all. Period.
Let's break this down further. The CDC, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services,  is subordinate to the Executive Branch. The CDC recommends and the Executive branch decides. At the time of the issuance of the No-Sail-Order, The Department of Homeland Security under the authority of the Executive closed US ports to cruise ship in March. It was a lawful order, within DHS's authority to issue. Lots of water under the bridge since then.
Has the CDC objectively demonstrated that cruise ship operations threatens public health in the US? No, they said it COULD. Looked at in total, the cruise industries contribution to global COVID-19 before the industry was shut down was minuscule. The visuals were condemnatory; the facts are anything but. Not only that, the cruise industry has developed a comprehensive Safe-To-Sail Plan addressing every possible public health concern the CDC could have about cruise ship operations and submitted it to them. Going beyond that, they have addressed every issue involving any burden on a US port facility and the city within which that port is located should a cruise ship need to disembark passengers or crew infected with SARS-CoV-2   
In the face of a weak case for endangering the public health or burdening cruise port facilities offered by the CDC and based on it might or it could, the Executive branch has demonstrated the economic harm being done by continuing them The cruise industries balance sheets are objective. The unemployment secondary to layoffs in the entirety of cruise ship operations are both enormous and objective. These are real facts. The CDC? Well, they say it cruise ship operations from US ports COULD be dangerous...... and this in the face of successful cruise ship operations in Europe. Case closed. The CDC hasn't made one based on the necessary facts.
This is why in America, we have a a system of government framed in checks and balances. Pence, IMO and acting within his authority as the Chairman of the Pandemic Advisory Committee told Redfield to sit down. There's no politics in Pence's actions at all. Looking forward, I expect the Executive to let the No-Sail-Order expire on October 30th...... amidst the hand wringing of the various groups that have a vested interest in continuing the exaggerated negative narrative associated with COVID-19.   
 

I would agree with what everyone else here has been saying about the mitigations -- the point is not to get to absolutely zero spread; the point is to minimize spread as much as humanly possible. So if a passenger or crew member contracts the virus and spreads it to one or even a handful out of 2,000 passengers (very rough guess, and based on a Navigator- or Freedom-class ship at ~50% capacity), with confirmation of no further spread to the remaining passengers 2 weeks after debarkation, then that should still be considered a success and the fat lady should not be singing (unless it's the finale song of triumph over adversity).
The only point at which the fat lady should be singing a finale of lamentation and rage is if that passenger or crew member ends up infecting over 5% of the ship (my arbitrary number, which in my scenario would mean over 100 passengers). That would be a horribly damning sign of failure in my book, because the ship was worse than current US guidelines for determining re-openings and overall safe levels.

Allow the cruise industry to restart or keep it shuttered ........ a political decision? I think this is more likely to involve two different viewpoints both of them with supporting data behind them. One of them seriously flawed.
The CDC believes congregate settings, such as those present on cruise ships have a high enough risk of promoting viral spread and endangering the Public Health to be curtailed. The data is unambiguous. Congregate settings do promote viral spread. The administration believes that with mitigation measures present, such as those proposed by the Sail-Safe Panel, the risk is sufficiently lowered that the economic benefits of green-lighting the cruise industry outweigh the Public Health risks.  The economic harm to the cruise industry including every facet of supporting operations being rendered by the CDC's no sail order is also unambiguous. It is significant. I'd call it catastrophic when the entire supply chain for the cruise industry is considered. 
Two sides both with fair points. The CDC has been wrong before in matters involving SARS-CoV-2. They are wrong again extending the no-sail order for the cruise industry
My personal view is that the CDC has, from the beginning of the pandemic in the US, over-stated the public health risks. That is not to say, by any means, that SARS-CoV-2 is harmless. It is not. It has the capacity to produce significant morbidity and mortality but the degree of it is highly age stratified allowing for targeted, specific containment measures instead of mass lock-downs. Moreover, and as our knowledge of the virus has increased, we have learned that simple mitigation measures that are layered are effective in controlling viral spread short of shuttering the economy and immobilizing citizens. Meanwhile, the protection of vulnerable populations has improved along with improved patient management when this cohort does become infected and requires hospitalization.
During the entire pandemic, it is only now, 6 months down the road, that governments at the national level and local levels are realizing that the continued curtailment of social and economic activity is not sustainable. Cost/Risk/Benefit analysis is taking shape globally. Countries are recognizing that lock-down were counterproductive at the start and now continue to be more useless in controlling viral spread. Not only is this approach not sustainable but it also has already created previously unfathomable social and economic hardships that having nothing to do with the health related issues involving COVID-19.
To sum it up, the damage done implementing many aspects of the CDC's approach to disease control has been enormous with little benefit to the public health. Keeping the cruise industry shuttered is just another example of bad policy with huge objectifiable downsides and few objectifiable benefits.
 

Yes but this is total over the entire pandemic not active cases.
In Lee health Ft Myers Fla there is only 10 active cases in the hospital as of 9/28/20.

Me either.  We get calls on 911 all of the time that go something like this:
911:  "And the female that you saw, can you describe her, please?"
Caller: "Yes, she was a white female, brunette, blue jacket, elderly"
911:  "And can you give me an idea of what you mean by elderly, sir?"
Caller: "Oh, you know, about 35."
911:  ...... bangs head on desk .....

Us poor people go to the windjammer for a cheese burger.

Imagine the upside when you board knowing everyone else, 100% of everyone on board, tested negative!  Yay!!!
Personally I'd welcome a biohazard device that worked like a metal detector you walk through.  "I'm sorry sir, you can't bring a knife on the plane"  becomes "I'm sorry sir, you can't bring noro virus on the plane" or "I'm sorry sir, you can't bring the flu on the plane".  
If I'm infected with a viral disease I shouldn't be let on board.  That's a good thing if it is caught.  
Imagine the disappointment you would feel if you learned you inadvertently infected someone and they later died.

I just wanted to throw out there that maybe food consumption should be added to the spreadsheet.  I know whenever I have a drink package I typically eat waaay less due to being liquid full!  So put a few dollars back on the cruise lines side of the scale.
Side note, if I'm on a drink package I typically tip a bit if the bar tend goes above normal duties like remembering what I was drinking or coming around more often to make sure you are never empty.  I will say though when I've traveled through Europe that dining is much more enjoyable than stateside, due to the laid back atmosphere with the waitstaff not in a hurry to move the table along.