MrMarc

35 minutes ago, em.down.the.rabbit.hole said:

Thanks for the name bomb ... do you have an email address for this John Heald and his team please?

Wrong name.  Michael Bayley: mbayley@rccl.com 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.

27 minutes ago, Jill said:

John Heald is the brand ambassador for Carnival. Not sure how he could help with a Royal ship

Wrong name, I hate my stupid...oh what do you call it....oh yeah, memory.  Michael Bayley.  That's what I meant to say.  mbayley@rccl.com

19 minutes ago, CruiseGus said:

Maybe Matt can point to this information for us.

Sounds like a good blog subject also

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?

7 hours ago, JeffB said:

I'm paying pretty close attention to this stuff and I've not seen it. First time I've heard about it. If you haven't done this already/exhausted all options on board, I'd fight it up to asking for a sit down with the Guest Services Department Head AND the Chief of Staff (usually a Captain in waiting). Ask them to show proof that this restriction was published and that you were notified. It may not get you anywhere right now but showing a track record of how you handled this on board could be important post cruise. Post cruise, I'd go right up the chain of command and ask for compensation in some form. This, to me, is no small matter. TBC, I rarely complain about anything. I'd be furious about this. 

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,

3 hours ago, JeffB said:

Judge Merryday today has approved TX's motion to "intervene" (#26) making them a party to the original FL law suit. If FL prevails in the litigation scheduled to begin on August 12th in Merryday's court, the CSO will be unenforceable on ships sailing from Texas ports too.

What this tells me is that Merryday is signaling that a win by FL in their law suit may not invalidate the CSO in its entirety - only for cruise ships sailing out of FL and TX ports. I don't think that is earth shattering news. If FL prevails the CDC's authority to act in a PHE to the extent they did with the NSO and CSO is going to get restricted in two ways. It may not be restricted by the court's precedent in the matter but most likely by Congressional action to limit their authority going forward.

That's certainly not guaranteed especially in D controlled legislative and executive branches. The precedential nature of a FL win, though, is going to make the CDC and any government agency vulnerable to state governments or businesses seeking injunctions on overly broad and restrictive actions which governments might impose based on a future emergency, PH or otherwise. 

   https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.117.0.pdf

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.

25 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Sure ...... referring to my statement that the CDCis on notice to "tread lightly," applies only to treading lightly on even the hint that they are trying to pull off an end run by coercing or otherwise enticing the cruise lines to comply with the provisions of the CSO.

On reading that thing and trying to become familiar with the U.S.C. that applies, IMO, what is in question here is the issue of free pratique and exactly by what means and for how long, the CDC can limit it under existing law. It's clear that Judge Merryday thinks the CDC (on the merits of the case) to have exceeded the powers that they were granted by Congress by issuing the CSO. Of course that thought is not final. The CDC could still prevail. Nevertheless and regardless of the outcome of the litigation, I would think that they'll be hesitant going forward to try to duplicate that action in the future.

I think, in retrospect, whatever happens with the litigation and even if FL wins, the maritime law in question is rather narrowly defined. JMO and these are very complex maritime legal issues that I certainly don't claim to be an authority on 

 My take is that your fears aren't warranted. The background here is that it has become clear to me that the CDC and the cruise lines cooperated in the development of the CSO, bumps along the road notwithstanding - maybe not initially but, as time went on. I think that cooperation will continue. I think that is a good thing. I have issues with the CDC's pandemic messaging. Beyond that, they serve an important public interest.

When I did the side by side comparison of the HSP and CSO last week, my sense was that the CSO was actually the more current set of guidelines, most reflective of the current pandemic circumstances if not from a practical standpoint, it was from a scientific one. The CDC, IMO, wrongly assumed the sneaky, money hungry cruise industry would figure out ways to get around them and to sail their ships as profitably as possible and damn new, complicated and costly health protocols to address SARS2. Based on that faulty assumption that didn't recognize the substantial motivation the cruise industry had to get their health protocols right, the CDC made the CSO enforceable by levying fines for non-compliance. They also shut down the entire cruise industry from operating from US ports with the NSO and hamstrung it's restart with the CSO. Merryday called them on that.

My best guess is that FL will prevail in the end but that is not going to remove the current health protocols implemented so far that have produced a most excellent outcome. They've worked exceedingly well and demonstrated exactly how you contain outbreaks of infectious disease in congregate settings of all types but especially cruise ships. If that continues, and I feel confident it will, cruise ships won't present a question of the need for quarantine of an entire ship if infected people are aboard and upon it's arrival in port going forward. Protocols to deal with infected crew and/or passengers are present and tested. They work. First to prevent outbreaks on board ship (none so far) and second to transport those that are infected off the ship. Using those tested protocols will prevent and have prevented the spread of COVID on cruise ships. Moreover those protocols have protected communities that receive the infected. 

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.

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Thanks @CGTLH. Your link is to the CDC's "Dear Colleague" letter. This took me to the series of motions by FL and the defendants on the Court Listener page in response to the CDC's letter. #114 is important and I'm quoting the important part and linking the entire ruling on FL's motion below.

The media reported that Merryday did not rule on FL's motion. He did and DEFERRED the ruling. He did not refuse to rule whihc is what news reports implied. The language in Merryday's ruling is important:

Although the injunction prohibits CDC’s enforcing against the identified ships and ship operators a regulation, policy, or the like that exceeds CDC’s statutory authority, Florida’s motion seems, especially in light of assurances offered by CDC’s counsel at today’s hearing, to anticipate a violation that has not occurred and that might not occur. For a time, the disposition of Florida’s motion is DEFERRED. When and if necessary, Florida may renew and supplement the motion, including with additional documentation and affidavits, if CDC either by means of CDC’s Dear Colleague letter, as clarified, or by means of any other agency action violates the injunction, including a violation effected by any pattern of vexatious, harassing, coercive, discriminatory, bad faith, or retaliatory conduct that amounts in effect to CDC’s undertaking to enforce a matter that CDC is enjoined from enforcing or undertaking to punish, harass, or retaliate against a ship operator for not voluntarily complying with the conditional sailing order, the Dear Colleague Letter, or a later message from CDC directed to a similar end. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 26, 2021.

I find this ruling entirely sensible. CDC, however, is on notice to tread lightly and if they don't you can bet FL's attorneys will be all over them.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.114.0_1.pdf

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.

10 minutes ago, nate91 said:

Keep it on cruises or we're going to have another thread lockdown...we're all tired of lockdowns!  

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

On 7/16/2021 at 5:25 AM, twangster said:

Don't forget their sage advice not to kiss chickens recently.  That was a close call.  

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.

23 minutes ago, Baked Alaska said:

My ass is on the bandstand! Love it!

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.

44 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Given the surprise action of the 11th Circuit late Friday night, anything could happen. It's been pointed out that right now, it looks like mid to late October before the case is finalized and that would be a the USSC level and accounting for all the appeals and motions that will be filed. even that could be a stretch ...... or not if this somehow gets fast tracked and it might. I think there is a good deal of interest in this case among the federal judges who have dealt with it as it relates to the constitutional issues that have been raised by it. I'm not even hazarding a guess.

For cruising though, I think it will march onward and how quickly and painlessly that goes depends on the unknowns associated with the pandemic.

Stay positive.

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.

17 minutes ago, JeffB said:

If it's some consolation to you @MrMarc, antibody tests (AB) that you get out of a box, even the ones administered in a clinic or pharmacy setting, aren't terribly accurate. They will give you a rough idea but your immune response is very complex.  

The out of the box (or wrapper) AB tests typically take a prick of blood from your finger and then measure your Ig response to an infection and sometimes a vaccination. Some people, and you may be one, have no Ig response. No big deal. Almost everyone who gets infected or gets the jab have some type of AB response from Ig to Memory B cells and T cells. A response in the form of any of these either in combination or in isolation can provide some level of protection from COVID.

While it is not necessary in your case, there are serologic tests from blood draws, batteries or panels, that look at a list of antibodies. I'm pretty sure if you had one of these, you'd see how robust your immune response probably was. For the average person, don't run out and ask your health care provider about getting such a test. For others, e.g., transplant or AIDs patients with poor HIV viral control, they might help in developing medical management approaches.

Here are a couple of links if you want to dig deeper. The first is "Spot see Jane" primer from the CDC. It's good. The second is more detailed but not so overwhelming that it's not readable for non-medical people who don't regularly study the human immune system.  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/what-do-antibody-tests-for-sars-cov-2-tell-us-about-immunity--67425

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.

1 hour ago, barbeyg said:

Absolutely. I agree with personal responsibility and doing what is best for you and yours. That said, we had a very scary experience this week. My sister, who has had the shots, got Covid, and it attacked her heart. We almost lost her within a day of getting sick. Long story short, she had a heart condition we didn’t know about, and Covid made it worse. Regeneron and two stents later, we think she will make a mostly full recovery with some heart damage from Covid. I wasn’t so positive about that Tuesday.   
 

I believe we will get thru this newest strain, and this pandemic will pass.  I won’t be complaining about the cruise lines and the choices they make to stay operating. I will just be happy to be onboard. Whatever way these court cases turn out.

Thank you all for analyzing all the info. I’ve followed this closely (till this week, when I was distracted). I personally appreciate the time and effort from each of you.

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. 

17 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I'm going to risk brining this up - masking - because for those of you coming to FL to start a cruise, there are some risk calculations I'd recommend you follow. 

Background: For a long time and after we got about 2-3 months into the SARS2 pandemic, I've been an advocate of taking individual responsibility for your own health and the health of those around you. This is the land of the free and I support that basic concept that includes the right to choose ...... to a point.

The courts are making it clear that state's (not the feds .... yet and this is at issue in FL v. Bacerra) have the right under policing authority granted to them in the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution , to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers

So whether you think masks protect or don't, whether you think the local authorities can tell you to wear a mask to enter or not is immaterial. They have the lawful right to do so and the courts have been uniform in affirming that right. Your experience with this is going to vary depending on the political nature of your own state's positions on this. e.g. Governor Newsome in CA and others already have issued new mask mandates. Governor Desantis in FL and others have avoided them. 

Moving on and for Matt this post is about cruising not so much masks. There are several ways to assess your risk of becoming infected with COVID getting to/from a cruise terminal, in the cruise terminal, on the ship and in ports of call. One of them is viral prevalence (% positivity is an imperfect but satisfactory metric to do that). Another is to assess the environment and the dynamic within it that you will encounter while cruising. e.g., How good is the ventilation? 

Let's look at both in FL:

Viral Prevalence: Right now FL's state wide % positive rate is a whooping 17%. Broward Co. home of PEV is at 15.9%, Dade, home of POM is 19.2%.

The environment and it's dynamic: Even though the risk of infection might be slightly increased with increased viral prevalence outdoors, outdoors you should still be fine unmasked even though the in-port risks are subject to the same kinds of risk assessments. You can look these up yourselves depending on your itinerary. e.g., if your going to Mexico/Coz/Costa Maya and viral prevalence is high (it is) and you see a whole lot of unmasked people in a crowded market, think carefully about going in there and assess your own vulnerability and risk tolerance in decing to go in or stay out.

Onboard the a ship that is 95% vaxed, indoor places where you cannot maintain spacing, I can make an argument to mask. It's a choice and we don' t need to start arguing the utility of masks issue here. You decide .... for now and sailing from US ports. Masking mandates also depends on the country your sailing from, e.g., in Greece, Celebrity required masks in doors because the Greek government still requires them indoors.

I'm sailing on Equinox from PEV next week. I've just received an updated list of health and safety protocols for this cruise. Masks are required in the terminal but not on board. "Curated" tours are required in Coz and Costa Maya (that's new) and tortola (not new). I don't know where the Coz/Costa Maya requirement is coming from. I suspect it is from Celebrity trying to mitigate transmission risk in two places where viral prevalence has become quite high.

In my experience having already sailed on Apex, Celebrity has taken COVID mitigation measures in accordance with the CDC/HSP recommendations. Spacing is not a problem because of the measures Celebrity has implemented for you to include reduced guest loads and obvious table and entertainment venue spacing just about everywhere there are tables or chairs, 

My argument to mask indoors in crowded spaces where you can't maintain separation is stronger aboard ships with a passenger load that has vaxed and unvaxed guests. However, RCL has done a pretty good job with reducing increased transmission risks in this setting in the first place. Again assess your own risk tolerance and act accordingly when you have a choice. If for some reason going forward in sailing from US ports masks become mandated for everyone aboard and inside, you still have a choice. Book smartly with refundable fares and don't go if you're opposed to masking mandates. I know, there might be exceptions to this based your own situation.

At this point and considering the viral prevalence in FL, I'm aboard with the recommendations from the state's PH official to increase your level of caution for yourself and others around you. These increased case loads are going to decline. What's more important is that those becoming ill in FL and elsewhere from SARS2 infection and the development of COVID, if the need for hospitalization develops, there is plenty of excess bed space and your chance of a full recovery is exceedingly high, it's like 100% if you've been vaxed. Absolute numbers tend to be scary out of context. While siease burden in FL is increasing, it is not accelerating anywhere close to the rate of new infections. IOW, it's manageable and thankfully Governor Desantis recognizes this and isn't knee jerk reacting with new mandated mitigation measures, which, BTW, he has the authority to issue but has chosen not to.

Finally, I want to be very careful to express that while I'm a retired PA and am up on most, but not all, of the COVID literature, I'm giving you my unofficial recommendations here even though they are based on the current (albeit often confusing and conflicting) medical and PH advice. Do your research. Stay safe. 

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.

2 hours ago, dswallow said:

Don't worry about the CSO not being enforceable; the CDC still can flex its mask muscle.

 

CDC says mask rules will apply to Florida cruise ships not following sail order | Reuters

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said late Friday that it will enforce its transit mask requirements on cruise ships in Florida that opt not to abide by its conditional sail order following a court ruling."

"The CDC said it will not waive mask requirements in indoor spaces on cruise ships for those lines that are not voluntarily complying with its conditional sail order."

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.

39 minutes ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

It seems to me (as a totally NON-lawyer observer) that the 3-judge panel knew they were going to get their little pee-pees slapped.  Forgive the use of technical legal jargon.

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

1 hour ago, cruisinghawg said:

Do you think the 3 judges of the 11th Circuit knew what would happened when the state appealed to SCOTUS?

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.

17 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

You are obviously more adept at reading and interpreting the language of law than I, but I think I read where in the appeal to the SCOTUS it stated the entire court was not available.

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.