nate91

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

52 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

This feels more like politics than law to me.

32 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 think these two together about sum it up.

So...the CSO is invalid in FL and TX? I agree with @twangster, this has gotten to the point that it's ridiculous!

13 hours ago, jack_c4321 said:

‎‎‎‎

I disagree vehemently!  

19 minutes ago, JasonOasis said:

Since you came up with this poll I'm curious which option would you choose?

I would go with c. I also agree with cruisellama that cleaning is important, but I think we can all agree that RC has been VERY good at keeping things clean even pre-pandemic. I think that at some point, we will all need to go back to weighing individual risks whenever we do any activity, whether it's going on a cruise or crossing a street. The vaccines are protective, so if I'm vaccinated, I don't much care who else is or is not.

I'd love to see a poll of the members of RCBlog, asking whether people, if given the choice, would choose:

a. a fully vaccinated cruise ship

b. a mixed cruise ship, vaccination status not required

c. a 2019 cruise ship, run exactly the same as a pre-pandemic cruise.

I'm wondering if any health and safety protocols will change now that the 95% number is simply a recommendation. 

I guess we know now, wristbands will be required and a hole will be punched in the SeaPass card.

Does anyone else feel very uncomfortable with the separate venues and areas for the two different classes of people? Makes me very uneasy.

I think this brings up a BIG problem with vaccinated cruises. Obviously by requiring vaccination, you are excluding a large portion of the potential customers already. Now, with positive cases happening on a fully vaccinated cruise, will fully vaccinated cruisers be willing to take the risk of having their vacation abruptly ended due to what's either a false positive, or a correct positive? Even if they are indeed COVID positive, the fact that everyone else on that ship is fully vaccinated means that COVID will not spread based on the evidence we know now. So what does kicking people off the ship accomplish, aside from a PR perspective? I would think from a PR perspective that there are some vaccinated people who would choose not to cruise due to the chance of something like this happening.

7 minutes ago, LizzyBee23 said:

Exactly! Population incidence rates in port countries are the only thing that matter, and I'd argue with the advent of vaccines only hospitalizations and deaths. The CDC has begun to demonstrate as much but indicating they'll only track serious cases as breakthroughs. 

The CDC has demonstrated...I don't know what exactly, confusion, ineptitude...by measuring cases in one way for COVID and in another way entirely for those vaccinated. This creates a cognitive dissonance that is clearly showing what the CDC would like the results to be. I wonder what would happen if we measured in reverse and tested vaccinated like the unvaxxed and vice versa.

Bringing it around to cruises, I'm sure the cruise lines would love to test based on the lower PCR thresholds for the vaccinated, and do the new CDC rule of not counting a case unless it leads to a hospitalization. That would surely help their news exposure.

7 minutes ago, danv3 said:

The likelihood of a vaccinated asymptomatic person infecting another vaccinated person is so low that it’s really not worth thinking about.

To add to that, The likelihood of a vaccinated asymptomatic child infecting another vaccinated person is so low that it’s really not worth thinking about thinking about thinking about it.

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

Meanwhile in Malta

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/25/malta-claims-herd-immunity-from-covid-19-with-70-of-its-adults-partially-vaccinated/?sh=3bb19d667573

I quite wish people understood that the concept of herd immunity isn't a magical button that stops COVID in its tracks. The more immunity, natural or vaccine, the less COVID will spread. But it will always be around, just like various plagues still circulate, albeit at VERY low levels. We just need to be able to make level-headed risk determinations of where that proper risk threshold lies. One of the big questions recently is who is most fit to make that risk analysis, whether it's the government, the cruise lines, or the individual. Hence...arguments (the number one supporter of the internet!)  )!

I doubt any of us used the term 'asymptomatic' before 2020. The retro term for this was 'healthy.'

Overall, the background testing rate on a cruise ship shouldn't be any higher than a similar environment on land, say, Las Vegas. There may be discussion on what this proper level is, but overall, if we are testing more in one similar environment than another, the amount of cases found will be higher, even if the same percentage of the overall populations are positive (and that's not even taking into consideration false positives). 

10 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 As with the initial hearing, held on May 12, U.S. Middle District of Florida Judge Steven D. Merryday issued no immediate ruling but said he would have a decision “soon.”

Can I get a supercut of all the times we have been told anything regarding cruises is coming "soon?"  

24 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Long summary of today's hearing.  Merryday was very prepared to call the bluff of the CDC when they used very outdated data or misleading studies to try to prove their case.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article252007683.html

It would be humorous if it wasn't so sad how inept the CDC is, and how their ineptitude has effected the country. 

Did the article say that...they're going back to mediation? (Since it worked so well the first time!)

Wanted to share my thoughts on this and see what others think. RCI has made it clear that on cruises where vaccines are "highly recommended" that there will be an upfront testing cost for unvacccinated passengers. They have also mentioned additional protocols, which I think many of us assume means masks. I'm wondering how they will enforce these onboard protocols, eg if staff see someone not wearing a mask, how will they know if they are vaxxed? I can only think of a few options:

1. Market for vaxxed, such as a wristband. This would have to be replaced every day throughout the cruise though, as wristbands don't last, and it would be VERY easy for someone to share their wristbands. They could also do a sticker on the SEAPASS card, but then no one would see it unless the person was paying for something. 

2. Do what every grocery store in America seems to be doing and leave it up to the honor system.

Anyone think of any other options than these two? First one puts a lot of pressure on the staff and enforcement, and second one is essentially the same as recommending that unvax on the ship wear a mask but not requiring.

37 minutes ago, Ogilthorpe said:

From what I have read, European countries are already viewing vaccinated and 'recovered' individuals in the same category. Additionally, research results in the US that prove natural immunity and vaccine immunity to be the same are gaining traction.  If all of this is taken into account, the Cruise lines should be able to sail at nearly 100% passenger immunity without additional costs, restrictions, lawsuits or needless political debate.

Last three posts are on point. We've recently seen the media do an about face on the virus's (not sure how that one is spelled) origins, and I believe an about face on narutal immunity vs. vax immunity is coming. 
 

Not to let this drift away (intended) from cruising, I think that when this "revelation" happens, as you said, things will become FAR easier for the cruise lines to manage.

I don't envy the cruise lines, having to plan for all the possibilities:

1. CSO is enjoined and public health guidance remains as is.

2. CSO is enjoined and public health guidance changes.

3. CSO is not enjoined but major CSO changes happen and no public health guidance changes.

3. CSO is not enjoined but major CSO changes happen and public health guidance changes.

5. CSO is not enjoined, major CSO changes do not happen and public health guidance changes.

6. CSO is not enjoined, major CSO changes do not happen and public health guidance remains the same.

This doesn't even cover vaccine passport laws in FL and TX now. It's exhausting. No wonder we run into each cruise line, port, and even ship having totally different guidelines. We went from no cruise news in MONTHS, to changes literally every day.

I'm just going to do a little back of the envelope math here. Let's say that RCI recommends vaccines, but does not check or mandate them, and goes by the honor system. I'll use the current CDC vaccine data (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations). I'll also use the "At Least One Dose numbers, since the fully vaxed numbers should go up to around there by the time cruising starts. Obviously the later summer cruises will have more vaxed, but this is a starting point. 

Now I don't have any data on the demographics of Royal's cruisers, but I would wager that maybe 50% on a typical Caribbean cruise are over 50, with likely at least half of those over 65. Let's assume 40% of the ship is over 65. So then 40% of the ship is 86.1% vaxxed, assuming cruisers are a representative population (likely not perfect, but hey, we only have so much data). Let's assume the other 60% of the ship is 50% vaxxed. This should account for everyone under 65, and still being a bit conservative, as it will likely be higher. So now we're looking at a ship that is 64.4% vaccinated. That is a reasonably high percentage, as I know Biden's set goal was for 70% of the US to have one shot for things to go back to normal. If we account for existing immunity from infection, that number will go even higher. 

Another important factor is that the risk averse will likely either be vaccinated, protecting themselves, or decide not to cruise at all. Those who are less risk-averse have likely either already had COVID and now have immunity from infection, or they have strong immune systems that have prevented them, and will likely continue to prevent them from catching COVID. 

Obviously there are many variables that make this analysis imperfect, but overall, I think this would prevent major outbreaks. Doesn't mean there won't be an "OUTBREAK" as defined by the news media, but the media will latch onto anything that makes headlines, and even if all cruises sailed fully vaxxed and masks, I'm sure there will eventually be a couple cases and the media will be all over it. 

12 minutes ago, Galveston Steve said:

Since Royal is doing simulated sailings (test cruises), the CDC does not require the 95% vaccination rate for passengers.  95% vaccination for passengers is only required if you bypass the test cruises and go straight to revenue cruises like Celebrity is doing.

I was under the impression though, that having a mask-free cruise was predicated on meeting that vaccine requirement. I also thought that I had heard that RC had announced no masks on cruises. I could be wrong on either of these points, so please correct me if I am, but if I am right, then would there be some sort of method to keep track of who's vaccinated onboard to enforce the mask requirements? If so, it seems a little Titanic with different classes of passengers! Interested to see how this all plays out!

7 minutes ago, Galveston Steve said:

You never know when Royal will issue a retraction and blame in intern for a typo, but if this stands it would seem to defuse the confrontation with the State of Florida regarding asking passengers for proof of vaccination.

Agreed. It also seems to indicate that either Royal has some sort of agreement with the CDC so that they can sail with an unvaxed ship and not require masks, or that they are certain that the CSO will be cancelled. I don't really see any other ways they can get from here to there.

Here is one wording:

Guests are strongly recommended to set sail fully vaccinated, if they are eligible. Those who are unvaccinated or unable to verify vaccination will be required to undergo testing and follow other protocols, which will be announced at a later date. 

And here is the wording linked above by @Galveston Steve:

Guests are strongly recommended to set sail fully vaccinated, if they are eligible. Those who are unvaccinated or unable to show proof of vaccination will receive a test before boarding. 

12 minutes ago, Galveston Steve said:

Wow, it looks like the game has changed for US cruises. They used the words "strongly recommended" as far as the US vaccine requirements in today's announcement:

"U.S. Health and Safety Measures 

Travelers can plan their cruise adventure with peace of mind knowing that all crew members will be vaccinated against COVID-19. Guests are strongly recommended to set sail fully vaccinated, if they are eligible. Those who are unvaccinated or unable to show proof of vaccination will receive a test before boarding. "

Interesting. The same thing is quoted in another thread, and it mentions "further health and safety protocols to be announced later." But the page you linked is very clear that US sailings aside from Alaska will not require the vaccine. My question is...which posting is the updated/accurate one?

Now the judge will have to make a decision. Anyone know any ETA on this? I saw that Royal expected it soon...soon has kind of become my least favorite word in the last year.  

Whether or not they were false positives, they were all asymptomatic. Or as we would have called them pre-2020, healthy.  

But yes. The news will jump all over it.

I think your analysis is right, Neesa. And I suspect they'll default to the CWC option if you want to back out. I think it's a little ridiculous to mandate vaccines for low risk children.