MrMarc

Now the CDC will file an appeal to The Supreme Court or to the full 11th Court of Appeals (en banc).  So it is  like a chess-tennis mash up.  Except no one really knows who will make the next move or who will the ball next.

2 hours ago, Pooch said:

So was she now the washy washy WJ greeter?!?!?

No, she was actually really nice, and very honest.  I don't remember why she was on the ship or how the conversation started.  I do remember I felt like I had put my foot down my throat when, after I had been talking about it, she told me who she was.  She was not happy with the way they made them roll it out.  She actually seemed really intelligent, but my impression is she did not have the resources or control that she would have wanted to have.  The bottle of wine sent to my room from her convinced me she was who she claimed to be.

I just remembered, a few years ago, if anyone remembers the truly disastrous roll out of the new app when pretty much everything disappered and was messed up for a couple of months.  I was talking to a crew member, and it turne out she was either in charge or high up in the team that was responsible for it.  They had wanted more beta testing and to pull it when they found so many errors with it, but they were told they could not and had to repair it in place.  I used to be in IT and was expressing sympathy with her and her team.  She sent a bottle of wine to my room.

Nothing against anyone that works for them, Has anything with Royal IT ever worked consistently?  I have never understood how a company that depends so heavily on technology for almost every aspect of it's focus could have an IT department that is, well, like it is.

I booked it for a December cruise, but the extra meal, ability to drop off my carry on stuff and Wi-Fi is enough value for me.

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Your post is a fair one. It's on topic re the courts so I'll respond and let the chips fall where they may:

TBC, Judge Merryday absolutely has the authority to tell the CDC to "submit" a re-write. I didn't use order but even then pretty sure he can do that too. In his courtroom he has sweeping powers. Can he put someone in jail on the spot for say, contempt? Without a hearing, without due process? You bet he can. Asking the CDC to rewrite and resubmit their crappy CSO is several rungs up the ladder of easy for him to do.

I also find it hard to understand that you didn't see that my concluding paragraphs speak exactly to your concerns about a "harm" that might come if Merryday rules against the CDC. I can imagine no harm that is done by this. In fact, I can imagine a ton of good. You may disagree and that's fine with me.

What good that I think is at stake in all of this, and why Federal Judges are probably looking at this entire case very closely, is that it DOES have the potential to curtail the creeping administrative state this Republic has become and produced what I consider to be the unlawful NSO and CSO. Shutting down an entire industry - in this case the cruise lines - because the CDC knee-jerked into doing something that looked good? Come on. Please. 

• A win for FL will have sweeping precedential effect beyond the narrow scope of the 5 parts of FL's claim.
• The CDC is in the cross hairs where a FL win will take away the authority of HHS and CDC administrators to make quasi laws that don't comport with the powers granted to them by Congress and/or impinge on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - even in a PHE.
• A win for FL will reestablish a strong precedent that will apply to the entire spectrum of Federal agencies that have grown bloated and more powerful and presently their policy makers have no accountability to the voters. The forefathers are likely turning over in their graves and have been for several decades.
• A FL win will reestablish both proper oversight of such Federal agencies and prohibit further law making usurped by any of them restoring it back to Congress where it belongs  

That was for my earlier posts.  Yes, I read it, but once I get going on a rant, I sometimes forget where I meant to go.  You say the same thing, but better than I did.  I understand that as a Federal Judge can do anything.  As I always ask:  Do you know the difference between a Feferal Judge and God?  No? Neither does a Federal Judge.  My point is that he really should decide the question before him.  Either they exceeded their authority or they did not.  Otherwise he would be taking oversight authority on the CDC's rules.  Once that happens, it really does take an act of congress to take it back, and sometimes they like throwing the ball to a Judge so he can take any blame, so they create rules that give Judges oversite authority on subjects I think they shouldn't be deciding.  I think the argument regarding the scope and depth of Federal authority has been debated since the founding of the country, and certainly since Gibbons v. Ogden, it has been expanding.  Maybe this is the case to start restricting it.  I don't know.  My honest feeling is that this is neither the subject matter over which  or time to start changing things.  Decisions made in the face of unique situations, like COVID, many times end up with many unintended consequences.  Bad facts make bad law.  Further, with our Government so divided, I am afraid that any correcting legislation would be almost impossible at this point, I am afraid that many areas would be left unattended so to speak, with no one having clear authority over certain issues.  If I have said the same thing earlier in this thread, I apologize.  I am having basically this same discussion in many different places.  No, I'm not sure exactly why either, but since I don't practice law anymore, sometimes I enjoy screeching those legal muscles that I've stopped using.  This past year has provided an amazing number of opportunities, but far too often they dissolve into the "Yeah?  So's your old man!" level.  So I enjoy discussing it here.

Oh, and in my view there really is no difference if a Federal Judge requests you to submit something or orders it.  In this case, he didn't request that they submit something, just gave them the opportunity.  I think that they would have been crazy to voluntarily submit something.

22 minutes ago, Matt said:

This thread is about discussing the CDC's stay of the injunction. Not the place to be debating vaccines or masks.

Sorry.  I stopped.  Please forgive me oh mighty sailor and controller of these very civil threads, as opposed to that other dark place. 

3 hours ago, JeffB said:

Good call @AshleyDillo. It's a possibility........ the pressure point though for the CDC is going to be FL's position re, first, the appeal of the lifting of the stay (to reinstate Merryday's July expiry date for the CSO) ongoing in the 11th Circuit USCOA and next the reality that Merryday ruled that FL won on the merits and then stayed the injunction. FL wants a favorable ruling on this (set aside the lifting of the stay) bad.

There are no defaults for either party, as has been noted previously. There are two ongoing and unresolved court proceedings - one in the 11th Circuit of the USCOA not yet resolved where its removal of the Merryday' stay is being appealed by FL and one yet to be resolved (the original FL Complaint) in the USDC Middle Court of FL (Merryday's court).

Here's how this is going to go down: The 11th Circuit USCOA will consider FL's appeal of the lifting of the stay - there are various options all the way up to the USSC of how this is done that I won't go into but one way or the other that ruling will either stand or be set aside. Whatever the outcome, it really has no bearing on the yet to be resolved FL complaint before Merryday's trial court.

A ruling by the 11th Circuit USCOA that sets aside the lifting of the stay ruling in favor of FL's appeal would however sink the enforceability of the CSO in it's entirety. That is because Merryday's ruling that the CSO becomes recommendations only and is unenforceable stipulates that will happen on July 18th. That date has passed. Therefore his ruling becomes effective immediately.   

Once the appeals court resolves its matters at hand, either way, the FL suit is yet unresolved and Judge Merryday will reconvene to listen to what plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys have to say. At issue is the CDC's failure to submit as Judge Merryday stipulated, "the revised version of the CSO," that you mention. Guess who has the final say on whether or not the revisions submitted by the CDC are acceptable? FLs friend Judge Steven Douglas Merryday. The CDC does not have carte blanch to ride off into the sunset claiming "they did do something."  First, as Merryday demanded, they have to submit a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing law. Second, it will be up to Merryday if the rewrite is good to go and it's pretty clear he doesn't like the HHS/CDC attorneys who will be presenting the CDC's re-write and arguing their position before him. I think that potential hit for the CDC team has been pointed out too.    

The potential outcomes in the USDC that Merryday is presiding over are this: (1) Merryday lays the hammer on the CDC, tells them to go pack it and the CSO as it is currently written becomes unenforceable recommendations. (2) Merryday accepts a rewrite and it's over. The rewritten CSO that Merryday approved goes into affect

I don't think there is any question that its around 40 to 20 with FL in the lead in the late third quarter and they have one quarter left to score three TDs while holding FL to no points and win. I don't think they can do it. I also don't think there is a worst case scenario for FL. I'd opine that they are in the driver's seat here.

The impact for us cruisers and as it relates to our cruising experiences going forward is about zero.  The outcomes are:  The existing CSO remains in place - something the cruise lines have adapted to and, for the most part, complied with ...... or a potentially better CSO for the cruise lines that they can turn into a better guest experience emerges.

I think the cruise lines have really played this smart. They didn't sit on their hands waiting for the outcome of the FL complaint. They reportedly worked with the CSO to get ships sailing in a way that satisfied the needs of both sides.

The most significant outcome from the Merryday Court's final decision is that either way he decides on the FL claim, irrespective of an appeal by the CDC - and they will appeal -  the CDC is being told in no uncertain terms that it acted unlawfully with both the NSO and the CSO. The net result will be legislative action - exactly where it should be - to curtail the powers of the CDC in a PHE. It was those executive powers, usurped from Congress, that allowed them to wrongly interpret that they had the power to issue the NSO and CSO. They will also face much more stringent oversight of all their powers in a PHE not just those embodied in U.S.C. 42, Section 264 dealing with maritime issues and free pratique.    

The issue is that if he finds that the CDC overstepped it's authority in this instance, it will limit it in all areas, and such a ruling may have far reaching effects on many other agencies with similarly worded enabling legislation.  I do not believe the Judge has the authority to order the CDC to revise the CSO.  The actual question before him is whether or not they have the authority to issue the one that they did.  He wanted them to voluntarily submit a new one for his approval.  If they had done that, they would have ceded their authority to him forever.  I seriously doubt they would ever do that,  and if they did, his authority to do that would immediately be challenged by someone.  I agree that the result would have to be new legislation, but in today's environment I doubt anything could be passed, thus leaving a vacuum in the space formerly occupied by the CDC.  I don't think that would be a good thing.  If he wanted to do that, I would hope he would use the practicality used by the Supreme Court in the eviction situation, which would leave them in control until new legislation is passed to clarify their powers.  I think that would limit the possible harm such a ruling would have.

1 hour ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

I agree. If the government tries to implement far reaching mask mandates, even for the vaccinated, they are going to have some really angry people on their hands. As you stated, why are the personal freedoms of those who are vaccinated being questioned along with those who have made the decision not to get vaccinated. I also believe that it is a personal choice on getting vaccinated or not, but as one who is vaccinated I don't think I should be required to mask up again. Having vaccinated individuals wear masks states that the belief is the vaccines don't work, which is completely false. 

I don't think it's anyone's role to shame people, although many of them are doing that very well on their own.  However, I do think it's within the governments's role to protect those of us who are vaccinated from the potential danger posed by unvaccinated people.  That is why I think it is within the Government's duty to require unvaccinated people to wear masks.  I am not going to argue "the science" with anyone though.  Whatever study you want to through at me, common sense proves that a mask will reduce the spread of a virus, if you cannot see that, there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind.  However, if you ever mention the Democrats from Texas on the plane, you automatically loose your argument.

On 7/15/2021 at 4:44 PM, twangster said:

Maybe they did, maybe there is more to how they ended up with bracelets.  

It's an unfair situation.  Royal can't tell their side.  All we have is the account of a nut job.  I am not assuming her claim that they "accidently" were given bracelets as factual.  

That would kinda like accidentally using someone else's cruise card that you "found" on your table.

The fact that decisions regarding a virus are going to be based on public opinion or political paranoia illustrate the problem with this whole mess.  

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Very confident, especially since we'll be entering the winter viral season, they'll have more "excuses" to keep it going.

To some, excuses, to other reasons.  We live in strange times where most Americans seem to know more than any expert, who are no longer considered experts.

48 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:

They wouldn’t meet in person as a group ….. they’d make this decision talking however they talk when not all together ……. But that’s only if Justice Thomas were to decide to not make this decision on his own and ask for a group decision.  Any justice can make stay decisions on their own for the cases brought to them from the current Appellate Court they’re overseeing. 
 

If it were to come before Justice Thomas, I have a feeling he won’t want to be the sole decision maker and will ask all the justices to vote on whether or not to allow the stay.

 

 

I shouldn't have said meet as a group, I ment consider a case as a group.  And I agree that Justice Thomas will probably want a full Court to decide this.

2 hours ago, ChrisK2793 said:

‘If it’s brought to them, the single justice over a certain Appellate Court CAN issue or remove a stay totally on their own or throw it to the whole court to immediately decide to issue or remove a stay as a group, it’s up to that justice how to handle it ……. This can happen even when they’re on break …. 

…… a final decision of a case (like what they release every June on cases heard) however will never be made in this manner …… that can only be decided after a case is placed on the court calendar and argues before the Justices .
 

 

I didn't realize the would meet as a group except when in session.   It's been too long since law school.

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

I'll relate the question on why Delta variants matter or don't matter to cruising. Here are the facts:

• The Delta Variant is more transmissible
• Rising case numbers globally and regionally are being attributed to growing percentages of Delta
• Around 90% of new COVID cases numbers are among the world's unvaccinated cohort.
• 99% of new COVID cases that result in deaths are among the world's unvaccinated cohort.
• Generally, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID (serious illness) have remained steady. There are regional exceptions and increased disease seriousness tracks inversely with vax rates - the lower the vax rates, the higher the prevalence of serious illness and deaths. 

OK, fine. How do I relate these indisputable facts to cruising?

My take is that the SARS2 pandemic is being successfully controlled and managed by a combination of immunity gained from previous exposure to COVID, from vaccinations and from responsible SARS2 mitigation measures that look at the cost of such measures versus the PH benefits derived therefrom. What else matters in this equation is the remarkable growth in the capacity of doctors to manage the disease of admitted COVID patients and promote recovery. That is a stunning and mostly unrecognized contribution to the effective management and control of the virus. But, no. The media insists on creating a false narrative of catastrophe.  

Because of this, I favor an accommodative approach to new case numbers (Great Britain and others) rather than an elimination through lockdown approach (Australia and NZ). I'll acknowledge both have their place depending on circumstances.

Nevertheless, all forms of media are trumpeting a rise in case numbers as signaling dire consequences, end of times and a resurgence of the pandemic. IOW, things are out of control. IMO, they are not. We are where we should be right now in nations that have secured vaccines. Where nations have not done that things aren't so good, and that needs to be and is being addressed.

Given the media narrative, the potential for the imposition of stricter mitigation measures by policy makers in government is high. Never lose sight of that threat. Sometimes the imposition of mitigation measures is not based on the science or facts on the ground but rather on political pressures to "do something." Cruising is high on the list of targets for imposition of them and that is regardless of the facts that cruising resumed over a year ago and the incidence of cruise ships contributing to the spread of SARS 2 is non-existent. Do you think that will matter? I don't.  

I agree with most everything you said except for the successfully controlled part.  I personally think we are like a runner collapsing a few yards before the finish line.  We have the resources to have successfully controlled it by now, but because it became so polotical,  we aren't fully taking advantage of resources that so many countries can only wish for.  Between the previous anti-vax people, the newly created anti-vax people, and the I support my side and won't take the Vax people, we have a vector for Delta to thrive in and for more variants to be made.  If a new variant finds a new entry point but stays as contagious, we could be almost back to square one.  

Having said that. I know that I am using some information that some of you don't believe.  

As for the larger political question, I  wish it was being asked about something more substantial than a recreational activity.  It is an important question that needs to be answered,  but I really wish it was being asked about something else.

2 hours ago, JeffB said:

From the local Sun Sentinel:

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday vowed to seek — to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — a reversal of a Saturday night court ruling that allows a federal health agency’s authority over the cruise industry to remain in place while the state pursues its lawsuit seeking to overturn that authority.

DeSantis said the state would seek to reverse an order issued late Saturday night by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta that prevented the lifting of restrictions on the cruise industry imposed in spring 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

DeSantis on Monday said he was confident that the full 12-member appellate court or even the U.S. Supreme Court would side with the state and reimpose the injunction sidelining the CDC.

I'm anxious to see the US COA's ruling in print. It appears FL's lawyers have seen it and think an appeal is worth it and not just theater. In case you're confused, here is a timeline set in Cliff Notes format:

• In April FL sues HHS and the CDC. There are 5 elements in the suit. One of them is that the CDC exceeded it's authority when it issued the NSO and subsequently the CSO.
• On May 13th, the case is heard before Judge Merryiday in the Middle District Court of FL. He refers the case to arbitration and to get back to him in 10d.
• Subsequently, Several motions to delay are submitted by the CDC. Motions to add Texas and Alaska to FL's suit are filed (Alaska later withdrew because of conflicts between congressional legislation authorizing ships to sail from US ports without porting in Canada [Jones Act] and the FL suit)  
• Arbitration fails and both sides provide their arguments before Judge Merryday on June 13th. Merryday issues his ruling on June 18th that FL wins on the merits but stays the order enjoining the CSO for 2w pending a rewrite of the CSO that comports with existing laws.
• The CDC files a motion to stay (extend) his order to enjoin to July 18th. Merriday denies that motion.
• On July 16th,  the CDC files an appeal to Merryday's denial with the 3 member US COA. The US COA rules 2-1 in favor of the CDC's appeal on July 17th. That stops the enjoining of the CSO on July 18th. 

According to the news above, FL is appealing the US COA's decision in favor of the CDC to the 12 member Federal Appellate Court 

There are now two court  proceedings tracking along: (1) the original trail court that Judge Merryday is presiding over - the one that he ruled in favor of FL - and (2) the appeal process involving the US COA's ruling - in favor of the CDC - that reverses Merryday's decision to deny CDC's request to stay his order.

OK, take a breath. If the US COA's reversal of Merryday's denial of the CDC request for a stay of his order is successfully appealed to the 12 Member Federal Appellate Court or, if necessary, the USSC the appeals process ends and the CSO immediately becomes a set of recommendations only. Of course I'd expect the CDC to appeal if FL prevails at the 12 Member Appellate level. That takes the case to the USSC ...... which is not in session and won't be until October.

If it comes to the USSC, FL still has a chance to make a statement before the CSO expires in November and/or make a renewal of the CSO by the CDC on December 1st impossible. 

Does this matter in the short term to us cruise fanatics? Not really and I've explained why up thread. But this case is enormously important going forward and FL's appeal makes that clear.

Desantis is a dedicated supporter of less government in our lives especially the power that springs from the abuse of executive orders and actions by the president's executive branches such as that taken by HHS/CDC. You can agree or disagree with his politics but the outcome of this case will either increase or decrease the capacity of the executive branch of the US government to establish laws without being responsible to the voters and increase or decrease the role of the Legislative branch, that is responsible to the voters, in making those laws.

Right now, the US has become over time what is essentially an administrative state meaning that the executive branch, including the president (although laws more clearly limit his powers) has been given too much power by the courts and the legislative branch has failed to reclaim it. A return to a more powerful legislature is at stake in what is seemingly a small time case. It's not.    

 

 

 

Or Justice Thomas could issue an emergency order pending the Court accepting and hearing the case.

I was told by the Social Media team (Facebook question) that this was now pending further review.

32 minutes ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

Didn't I read somewhere that Judge Clarence Thomas is able to decide this case on his own since this case falls under his jurisdiction ?

He has initial authority over things coming from the 11th District.

§42. Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits

The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation.

A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.

I just found this, we may have another case decide this before this one can make it to the Supreme Court.  I haven't read the entire thing yet, but the issue is very similar. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A2/183598/20210712133351957_21A2 a.pdf

I'll leave this here for anyone that want to read it, but I jumped the gun.  This is an individual asking for emergancy relief from wearing a mask on a July 17 flight.  Every Court has denied his request.

37 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Understood the former but, it is my understanding that the US COA essentially reversed Merryday's ruling that rejected the CDC's request for a stay. Ipso facto the CSO remains in effect instead of expiring - maybe that's what your saying and I'm misreading your post.

That is correct, I thought you were saying that the extension of time to respond had extended the time until the Stay took effect, I am sure it did not.  I was surprised that they didn't even ask, but given the Judges mood toward them, it was probably better that they did not, and just depended on the COA.  It is very disheartening to be presenting a case to a Judge that you know is already "against" you.  It feels like it's 3 on 1, with the Court counting as 2. 

19 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

I am not in disagreement with you here. But "The so what" comment apparently means it doesn't bother you that a government agency controls a vacation segment most here love to do. And now if the CDC wants to tighten down the CSO they can; if the CDC wants to shut down the cruise lines they can; if the CDC wants to extend the CSO they can!!!!! That bothers me.

 

 

My problem with this is that there are times when this would be a good thing.  We can argue back and forth as to whether or not this is such a time, but I would rather have a government agency whose stated mission is focused on health, even if they are somewhat political.  I wouldn't want to have to depend directly on our elected officials whose main focus is politics.  Sometimes events call for difficult decisions to be made that are not politically popular, and we know that politicians have problems making decisions like that.  However, we are vearing into a dangerous area, so can we just agree to disagree?

22 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I think we have a glimpse of FL's position on this. On Friday last, the CDC filed a request for an extension of the date required for their response to the Trial Court (Merryday's domain). The new deadline for the CDC's response would now be delayed until August 12th. The CSO, as per Merryday's ruling, therefore did not expire today. FL did not contest the request and it was granted. The CSO is still in effect.

That leads me to believe FL wants to know how the US COA feels about the CDC's case. The liberal US COA court make-up leads me to believe they support the CDC's arguments to uphold that the CSO is lawful and within their authority to act in a PHE. IOW, this court is more likely to favor a liberal view of government authority (I agree with FL's position that its overreach) to protect PH interests. The US COA's written ruling is not yet in the public domain. I doubt FL's lawyers have had a chance to look at it either.  

I'd expect that after a careful read of the US COA's written ruling, if FL thinks the US COA is likely to side with the CDC in any appeal of the trial court's (Merryday's) final ruling, i.e., reverse it assuming Merryday will shoot down the CDC's rewrite of the CSO and the CDC will again appeal that ruling, FL may negotiate with the CDC (arbitration). If FL thinks that the US COA will send any further CDC appeals back to Merryday's court, essentially gut punching the CDC, they won't negotiate and will go for the walk-off homerun against the CDC.

I think the trends in the USSC are instructive, Among that court's conservative judges, they nevertheless have made rulings this summer that are clearly based on liberal interpretations of the law. That the US COA seems to be more liberal, one would hope that the dissenting conservative judge may have some influence over the two liberal judges. But, I agree with @MrMarc, the outcome and now this thing tracks is interesting.

I agree, except the CDC did no request that the Stay be delayed, and the order did not say it was, so i believe it would have gone into effect today.  I'm surprised that they didn't rule Friday.  Considering that the SC left the eviction issue remain in place until it's previously planned end tells me that even if they are inclined to find the CDC overstepped it's authority, it would let it stay in place at least until November, since as a practical matter, like in the eviction case, those are the rules that everyone has been playing by and planning on,   I am still concerned that decisions like this that will have broad effects on the way the CDC and possibly other agencies empowered by legislation might have, I wish the issue at the heart of the case was something much more substantial than cruising.  I like to cruise, but it not exactly a critical issue in the grand scheme of things.  Even if the cruise lines went bankrupt, it would not have a devastating effect on our society or our economy.  And these cases truly have nothing to do with cruising, they are political disagreements as to the role of Government and by extension Government Agencies.

7 hours ago, sk8erguy1978 said:

I'm not at liberty to say.

That what I thought you would say so now I think I know what you are saying by not saying it while telling me you cannot say it so you said it...sort of.  Oh yeah, if what you're not saying is what I think you are (or aren't), have fun, unless I'm not supposed to say that, in which case pretend I didn't.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.  It may well continue on a 2 track course, with the Trial Court continuing to proceed while the Appeal also proceeds, or the focus may shift to the Appeal and the Trial Court proceedings slow down.   If the Trial Court were to procced to a final judgement, it would make this appeal moot, and start a whole new process.  The other option is to allow the appeal to continue to get an idea of how the Court of Appeals feels about the issues.  I know a lot of you do not agree with me, but I think this is a win for the cruise lines at this point.  They can continue with the plans they had made based on the CDC's rules, they keep a level playing field for all the companies, and they can blame everything on the big bad CDC, even if it is protocols that they would have enforced under the HSP guidelines.  I own a small business, and it was a lot less complicated when I wasn't the one deciding what rules to have.  I promise you, it's better to have someone else to blame.

21 hours ago, DJsMrs said:

I’m in this boat with you.    We also sail in December and have had 2 different vaccines.    I feel like they’re going to have to revisit the science on this and realize that their policy doesn’t reflect facts and people can receive 2 different vaccines (under the advice of doctors, scientists around the world) and still be vaccinated.    It’s disappointing in the mean time.  

But I've had 2 doses of moderna  earlier this year and 1 J&J Friday, so I have two total vaccinations.  I know it' strange, but it's something my doctor and I decided was best.  I am afraid I will confuse them.