MrMarc

Wrong name. Michael Bayley: [email protected] I believe I have seen some people get assistance by communicating with him (his team), sure couldn't make things worse. So sorry for you.

Wrong name, I hate my stupid...oh what do you call it....oh yeah, memory. Michael Bayley. That's what I meant to say. [email protected]

I agree. But if I cannot find it and I am specifically looking for it, the ship didn't know it, how were they supposed to know? I would also want to see how RCCL claims they notified them. Why would they notify them and not cancel the kids reservations from the second cruise?

I am trying to find that information anywhere on the internet, and I cannot find that stated anywhere. Has anyone else found where that is stated?

I agree 100%. I would try and get John Heald's assistance team involved, as they seem to be able to resolve some issues by email. The certainly should have specifically notified you long before boarding, their IT team may not have the best reputation, but this would have been a very simple task. And if they were not aware of it onboard, how could they expect the passenger to know. I think this is by far the worst situation of this type I have heard of. I won't change it to try and deny how stupid my memory can be, but that name should be Michael Bayley,

Interesting that the order does not extend the TRO (or Stay) to Texas, since it specifically enumerates Florida, will Texas have to file it's own motion?

I wonder how long before Governor DeSantis issues an executive order prohibiting this.

I tend to agree with you, and this is one of the reasons that I wish this important question regarding the delegation of power to a Federal Agency in it's enabling legislation was centered on a more important issue, or actually almost any other issue. However, while I think the protocols will initially be followed, competition may relax them too quickly. One bad cruise could be disastrous to the industry. As for the NSO, we can't go back and change it. So far we have not seen Florida take any action on the 95/5 workaround that cruise lines have come up with. Now that the CSO is not enforceable, I am waiting for Florida to try and force that to end. Since they are no longer limited to the 95/5 capacity limits, it is harder to claim they are not denying service based on vaccination status but because of capacity limits. It would be like a restaurant having 25 tables for vaccinated people and 1 for unvaccinated people trying to claim they were not denying service based on status. I am not worried about Texas even though the injunction (or stay, I keep forgetting which mechanism they are using) now applies in Texas. The Texas law is structured differently, and the Port of Galveston has specifically said they would allow cruise lines to require proof of vaccination status. It is amazing how one word("otherwise") can change a law.

I agree, but it is not clear to me how they can tread lightly. It would create a whole new round of appeals if they were stopped from exercising powers that are not in question. I would really like to see what assurances were made in Court. The specific language of those assertions, in my opinion, should have been included in the order so that the order was clear. I do not see how any attempt to enforce these rules is not going to be called coercion by Florida or this Judge based on the tone of his orders. So enforcement of actions within the CDC's powers will likely result in them being ordered not to enforce those rules, resulting in another appeal and even more uncertainty. Whether or not you like the CSO or the CDC, I think this lawsuit has been and will continue to be harmful to the cruise industry by continuing the uncertainty and negative publicity for the foreseeable future. That is why I continue to feel this is an important legal question, but I really wish it had been framed around an issue other than cruising. My biggest fear is that Florida will win this suit and appeals, ships will relax their rules and there is an outbreak on a ship. Without the CSO, dealing with that will be more complex, falling back on 42 CFR 71, which could actually allow for the quarantining of the entire ship.

I would stay in any room. I can only afford to cruise with free myvegas cruises, or on another lines $200 deals, so inside is fine with me. I just leave the TV on to the bridge camera and that's my window.

My bad, but some of these comparisons..... Well, I guess I should just stop reading for a while.

It is easy to try and make fun of the CDC on issues like this, especially when you don't add the context. There has been a salmonella outbreak, and while you might not know it, many people have chickens that they keep as pets, and they pick up chickens from their flocks and treat them as many would treat dogs. The full sentence, out of a much longer document was Don’t kiss or snuggle backyard poultry, and don’t eat or drink around them. This can spread Salmonella germs to your mouth and make you sick. So don't be so quick to make fun of an orginazation just doing it's job. You may not believe this, but there are a lot of people who can't understand what the CDC's job is and tend to ignore them if they are too general or even when they are very specific. Even when there are things that people with simple common sense should do or not do, the CDC has to tell them, and many still can't figure it out.

Um, hate to tell you, My AXE is on the bandstand, as in guitar.

Either make the rule and enforce it, or get rid of the rule. I am a rule follower, but far too many people are not. I get really tired of rules only to those of us who are willing to follow it. It should not matter what anyone thinks about masks. If the rule is you have to wear them, then make everyone wear them. From my experience, I know if I took mine off for five seconds someone would appear to make me put it back on, that's just the way things work for me and possibly why I'm a rule follower.

I'm wondering if it will continue on a dual track in both the Appellate and Trial Court. Since it is over a preliminary injunction, I'm not sure it would be worth it, depending on how fast the trial can move along. That would be really interesting to see if the Appellate Courts dealt with the injunction issue differently than a final injunction. Personally, I think it would be a waste of time and resources at this point, just work on the trial to get a final decision that will immediately be appealed. But then again, I was one of those that thought Florida did not have a chance of winning, and I absolutely was shocked by the Appellate Courts reversal of itself, so my track record is not too good inthis case.

Thank you for the links. I had one done at my Doctor's office with a blood draw. I had thought it was the more complex test, but apparently it was only the IgG Chemiluminescence Immunoassay, I had thought it was the IgG and IgM test. So maybe I have only IgM cells. So I am fairly confidant at this point that I am just one of those people who's system is basically waiting to create the anti-bodies until they are actually needed. Although, since the J&J is a vector vaccine, I had hoped for a strong reaction. I have read the studies and understand the concept of the mrna residing in the T-Cells and lymph nodes. It has also been reassuring to see the latest reports on lymph node retention of immunity, so if I do have immunity I can expect it to last longer than they initially though. But n any event, I feel like I have a belt and suspenders.

I am so sorry about your sister, but I am glad she is ok. The vaccines are not 100% effective (no vaccine is), but possibly it moderated the COvid enough to have given her time to make it to help. I already have 4 stents, which is one of the reasons I am so invested in taking precautions and getting the vaccine. I am afraid that the vaccines may be ineffective on me. I had both Moderna doses, with only minor reactions. Then I took both types of antibody test, both were negative. A week ago I got the J&J vaccine, and again, almost no reaction whatsoever. So at this point I have no idea whether or not I have any immunity, and I am not going to test again, I've done everything I can. Now, to a great extent my fate is determined by what people around me do, and too many of them just don't care. I am going on a cruise in September (at least at this point) and will go as a vaccinated person. Whatever happens, happens. I will assume it is as the vaccine studies have shown, that my immunity is just sitting in my T-cells, waiting until the antibodies are needed.

That is an amazingly well written and reasoned description of the situation and how to approach it. I am not in the medical field at all, but based on reported experience from people around me, I would add that even though your chances of recovery if you are vaccinated are pretty much 100%, the experience itself can be very bad, a lot worse than the flu or it could be totally inconsequential, but there is currently no accurate way to predict what your experience will be.

Just a little poke in the ribs to remind the cruise industry that they will still have to deal with the CDC no matter how any court rules. It also may be an attempt to get the cruise lines to side with the CDC in the suit, trying to make a State win bad for the cruise lines.

I wouldn't tell a Federal Judge he had a little one. It sounds like contempt of court.

I honestly have no idea. Truthfully I am totally baffled by this. I never practiced at this level, and it's been a long time. However it seems very strange to me. Courts don't like being overruled, but I never had one overrule itself this way. This feels more like politics than law to me.

not necessarily. I missed that footnote and you are correct. It is not available pursuant to the RUles of the Appelate Court.: 11th Cir. R. 35-4 Matters Not Considered En Banc. A petition for rehearing en banc tendered with respect to any of the following orders will not be considered by the court en banc, but will be referred as a motion for reconsideration to the judge or panel that entered the order sought to be reheard: (a) Administrative or interim orders, including but not limited to orders ruling on requests for the following relief: stay or injunction pending appeal; appointment of counsel; leave to appeal in forma pauperis; and, permission to appeal when an appeal is within the court’s discretion.

After looking at the Court of Appeals Docket sheet, to me it seems that Florida's brief changed their minds. However, I find it strange that the decision was made with no hearing or even scheduling for briefs or responses. This had to come as a gut shot to the CDC attorneys and the cruise lines. At this point I would guess that what they really want is consistency and predictability, no matter what the particular rules were. Right now they have neither. Now unvaccinated passengers will be mad if they don't change the protocols, and vaccinated passengers will be mad if they do. To me this seems more harmful to the industry than the CSO ever was or would have been.

By the way, thank you to everyone posting the links to the actual documents, that gives a much clearer picture of what is going on than any news story.