MrMarc

I just got a Facebook reply to my question about this that says the rule is "pending further review" and to "stand by for further communications".

I think RCCL has been handling this as well as they could, given all the changing obstacles in their way. But I think they blew it on this one. I have actually had 2 full vaccinations of different brands, I wonder how they would classify me. I am not going until december, so maybe non of this will matter by then.

So can we assume that you have been told not to tell us, or is it that you can't tell us that you were told not to tell us? You know what I mean?

I don't understand why the Judge was surprised and clearly angered by this. If CDC filed any changes with this Court, the CDC would be ceding it's power to the Court, and once this Judge has approval power, he would have it forever. It was a chance to give up, which would be very unusual for any party to do. The only thing that surprised me was that it took them so long. Perhaps the were considering a revised CSO, but decided against it.

One more quote from the study, and I am done. Why would people who say the vaccine hasn't been tested enough rely on studies that say: Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.

Please, read what the people in the study actually concluded from the metastudy. Don't take parts of the overanalysis because you like what it says. This was not an actual study, it was a study of other studies. They concluded that more research was needed to find an answer. Abstract There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.

Ok, I can't resist this one. It just doesn't say what you want it to: Conclusion Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings. Additional, large RCTs are needed to detect a potentially clinically important difference owing to small event rates. Initial guidelines on preventing acute respiratory infection relied on surrogate exposure data and data extrapolated from the protection of health care workers against tuberculosis because clinical evidence did not exist at that time.58,59 Randomized controlled trials conducted in clinical settings represent the most valid information to evaluate the effectiveness of N95 respirators. They are more relevant to real clinical situations and report actual outcomes in health care workers, and therefore they are the best evidence on effectiveness to inform policy-making

No. Please. You want me to say your are right and I am wrong. Ok. You can be right and I will be wrong.

No, I am not going to take the bait. Yu know that there are answers to each of your points, but you do not agree with them. Let's keep this civil and understand that there are disagreements about who and how this situation should have been handled. And people on both sides say science in on their side, because depending on which science you look at and how you interpret it, there are results that can be used to support both sides. But once it became politicized, the science really has not mattered as much as it should have. I am not here to say I am right or you are wrong. Please don't get this whole thing deleted.

Yes, I remember. That's why I say that this medical issue has been a political issue from the very beginning. There have been so many missteps from both sides, and we have had to suffer with the results. As I said, in this particular situation, a more "consistent" government and central control would have had advantages, but the drawbacks are not worth it. A little less bickering and a little more cooperation would have been nice, but that was not going to happen where we were/are. I firmly believe that this, like all of the other troubled times in our country will eventually become less antagonistic at some point. Our system is designed for it. It might look a bit messy at times, but over time it smooths out the bumps, and in general the country comes out better. I will admit that this pandemic looked like a possible unifying event, but sadly no. But something will happen or time will bring us back, or at least closer, together. But to relate this to cruises, so I don't break the rules, regardless of the CDC, CSO, lawsuits and such, the industry is on the way to recovering and we will get back to "discussing" chair hogs and shorts on formal night. It's just a matter of time.

Unless someone else is getting upset, I think this is a good discussion regarding how the CSO could have been avoided or whether or not it should be affecting our cruising now, no one upset that I can see.

That was after the spread had already gotten out of hand, and we are not a rule following culture, so there were a lot of people not doing it. Defiance of authority is practically part of our DNA, nothing new. I think to have been effective, it would have had to happen earlier and much more uniformly. It's all 20/20 hindsight. The fact is it is practically impossible for the Federal government to actually issue such an order. That's the same reason we never had a Federal mask mandate, and the Courts ruled that the CDC did not have the power to issue orders related to eviction. There are many, many advantages to our form of government, but there are a few drawbacks as well. But I think the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks by far. In this particular situation, I think a central government has certain advantages.

I consider myself somewhat cynical, but I really do not believe that is what happen or would happen. Everything in this post is my opinion only. Actually, if very early on we had closed the boarders and gone into a "lockdown" for 4-6 weeks, I believe we would be in much better shape, far fewer people would have died and the actual cost of this pandemic would be much lower. But very early on this changed from a medical issue to a political one. I do not think the CDC are a bunch of power hungry people just frothing at the mouth to exert their control over everything. As for the rules regarding ships, I think they are looking at the potential worst case scenario for the initial cruises. I believe if the Politicians and Courts had not gotten involved, that the rules would have opened up in a step by step method, unless there were problems. I think if everyone and their brother had not decided they were experts in every aspect of this virus based on what they read on the internet or heard from their friends, we would be in a much better place. From the first day, I believe the CDC and Health Departments should have been put in charge, because this is the main reason they even exist. But none of this happened, a medical issue became a political issue, everyone became experts, wearing a mask went from a minor inconvenience to an attack on our freedom, Vaccines went from being a well tested solution to another attack on our freedoms or some diabolical experimental, untested drug to change us into monsters, track us, or kill us. Changing the recommendations based on the available science turned experts into liars, except when they didn't change based on the "science" that some people believed, then again, they were liars. Testing of the vaccine based on decades of medical knowledge and testing suddenly wasn't sufficient, and each rare POSSIBLE side effect (anything that happened to a person after they got the vaccine) became front page news. I doubt very many people even know why the two month testing period was chosen. It wasn't random. I wonder how many people have ever looked into the background of any drug their doctor has prescribed, actually read the entire label and papers that come with it and then refused to take it because of a possible rare side effect. If people used the standard they are using for this vaccine, most of them would not take any prescription or even over the counter drug. We need all of the politicians, Judges, internet experts and wanna be experts to step back and let the CDC and Health departments do their jobs. As for the cruise lines following their own rules, I think that competition will very quickly erode those rules until something bad happens, and then we will be right back where we are, but with no one in charge to correct things. But again, these are just my opinions with much of it coming from my knowledge only gathered from the internet, common sense, and how I feel things have developed. So I am not attempting to change anyone's opinion, just stating my own.

After doing some more reasearch, and much to my surprise and confusion, a Preliminary Injunction under the APA can be limited in geographical scope, so as of the 22nd the rules in Florida will be different than in any other state at this time. That also does away with any issue with the Alaska cruises. I have been incorrect in my assumption that a Federal Agency could not have different powers in different states. I believe that upon a final decision, it would become a stay and have Nationwide effects.

I think this is a more basic question of, from your example, did your mother give you the keys? But I like the analogy, and you may well be right.

There is no question how this Judge feels about the CSO and the CDC. The question is does the CSO need to be approved by a Judge, and what other effects will this Judge's ruling have on the jurisdiction of the CDC and perhaps other Federal Agencies. Now it is up to an appellate Judge, then perhaps more appellate Judges, then perhaps even more Appellate Judges. The Judge offered the CDC a chance to submit a new CSO subject to his approval. If that happened, then the CSO and any changes would have to approved by this Judge. So we are not there yet, and I am hoping we don't get there.

I realize you know much more about the cruise lines than I do. And I mean that as a compliment, not in a snarky way. I tend to agree with you, and that is what I would hope would happen. However, with no monitoring or authority behind the rules, I think they will be less followed and less effective. Without the lawsuit and judge getting involved, the CDC was approaching the the recommendations of the HSP, admittedly slowly. My fear is that competition will erode the rules too quickly. I also fear the unintended consequences that this ruling may have, which might actually be the biggest pitfall involved. But my views on the Law or what should happen are meaningless. The Judge has ruled, now it is up to the Appellate Courts and possibly the Supreme Court.

I just realized something I think is really ironic. A lot of us have been arguing as to whether these decisions were being made by scientists or politicians. We have now moved on and resolved that question, the decisions are being made by politicians and judges, I'm just not sure that is a good thing.

Looks like he is trying to resolve the central issue without adding any decisions that could be appealed and cause further delay or bring in more parties that could bring in issues not directly related to solving the main issue. I might not agree with his ruling, but I admire his speed and attempt to keep the focus on the main problem. He sounds like a very intelligent, practical, though irritable, Judge.

I am still trying to figure out if they acted athwart the Administrative Procedure Act how a CSO approved by the Judge would not violate the same act, and how a Federal Judge can find that an Agency did this, yet limit his injunction to a single state, allowing that illegal act to remain in effect for the other 49 states. The ruling seems very inconsistent with itself to me. But a Federal Judge is going to do What a Federal Judge wants to do. Whatever happens I think the worst possible outcome would be something that the Judge has to approve, because after that any changes would also have to be approved by the Court. Once they take the power over a subject, they rarely give it back.

But that still does not explain why they would have the power if he approved of how they used it. He even states that he gave them a chance to create a new CSO that he thought was reasonable. So either they have the power to create a CSO or they don't. So he is effectively saying is that if he does not agree with their CSO they are misusing their power, but if he agrees with it it is suddenly within their power. So it really is about what health precautions against COVID-19 are necessary or helpful. If not, then why the "invitation" to write a new one?

Sounds just like something a Federal Judge would say. All that is missing is the foot stomping.

I'm willing to bet any changes would be in reinforcing the barrier or in the behind the scenes security, so nothing will be noticeable to passengers.

nope, shouldn't have answered, so deleted.

This is the part that I think is the basis of much of the disagreement now. While I wish I could see things that way, I really cannot. I think if we take that view, we could easily head downhill very quickly. I think it would be so sad if way abandoned the race because we thought we were at the finish line, when the actual finish line was actually just a little farther ahead.