JeffB

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

Questions regarding testing protocols for entry to Caribbean ports and Caribbean Cruise ship itineraries that start from US ports then reenter the US via the cruise terminal/US C&I have become complicated. Governments of Caribbean Islands that you might make a port call at impose varying entry requirements. Here's a recent article that covers "international travelers" that by my reckoning includes cruise ship guests: https://www.travelweekly.com/Caribbean-Travel/Caribbean-readies-for-a-wave-of-reopenings As of right now, if you are aboard a cruise ship, on a Caribbean itinerary that starts from a US port and returns to that port, there is a two track reentry requirement for vaccinated and unvaccinated. Below is a clipped version of a table that Celebrity provides that explains in detail the testing and health protocols in place for all their ships. This one is the reentry requirement for sailings on Equinox that is sailing E. and W. 7n Caribbean itineraries from PEV. The entire table is at the second link. WARNING: It is small and almost impossible to read if you try to print it out. The best way to examine it carefully is to download the table then expand it until you can read it in parts. Here's the link to the entire table. There may be one of these at the RCL web site but I'm not sure of that. This one is very detailed and tells guests everything they need to know: https://www.celebritycruises.com/content/dam/celebrity/pdf/celebrity-healthy-at-sea-protocols.pdf

What does the increasing numbers of new COVID cases in FL mean for cruise ship operations? First, no denying the new case numbers are rising. What that entails with respect to disease burden in FL remains to be seen but, in general, hospitalizations and deaths in FL are not increasing at the same rate as new case numbers are. In checking claims by the press that FL's hospitals and ICU's "are being overwhelmed" by the "surge" in new cases, that is not born out by the numbers. Yes, both basic admissions and ICU beds use for the more seriously ill are up statewide but I could not find a county report on these details that show more than 80% occupancy of either. Moreover, if hospital administrators are asked, they respond that the situation is well in hand. If you are cruising to the W. Caribbean, Grand Cayman remains closed to cruise ships. Both Coz and Costa Maya have been identified by the Mexican government, being within the state of Quntana Roo, as having "very high" transmission risk. What that designation generates is various levels of strict mitigation measures for businesses and gatherings. I am aware that Celebrity Equinox cruising from PEV to these ports on their itineraries will only allow curated tours from the ship. Guests can't debark and walk around town/do tours on their own. Both the port of Miami and PEV are, according to a similar transmission risk mechanism released earlier this week by the CDC, within FL counties with high transmission risk according to the table below: The CDC isn't directing increased masking, businesses or school closures or any of that. They are simply letting both state PH officials and the public know the risks they are facing. Ostensibly the CDC is allowing for those availing themselves of this information on viral prevalence to make their own decisions about their activities. As I have posted here before, this is consistent with my views - give us the data and let us decide what to do to protect ourselves and others around us. This was released on July 27th, just 2d ago, and actually addresses my preference for government PH agencies to give us the data we need to decide for ourselves how we will act and where we will go. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7030e2.htm#T1_down My personal view and in no way meant to tell you what to do given the facts, is that cruise ships, of all the venues impacted by the circumstance of increasing COVID case numbers, is, hands down, the safest leisure activity to take part in of any of them available to us. The proof is in the pudding. I don't think many members would disagree with this position. I also believe both federal (CDC) and state PH officials know how safe cruise ships are and how prepared they are to deal with an outbreak aboard and contain it. For that reason, I don't think there is any danger, at the moment, that any government official at any level would move to restrict cruise ship operations. There's no appetite for such a move. The US continues to move towards accommodative approaches to the management of the pandemic. I feel confident about that .... for now.

An article with some "new" information about the days following the 11th USCOA reversal of it's original ruling, turning the CSO from enforceable to unenforceable, appeared in this morning's local S. FL news papers. It seems that the CDC sent letter's to all the cruise lines asking them if they intended to voluntarily comply with the CSO pending litigation of FL v. Bacerra adding that if they didn't the CDC would more vigorously enforce masking and sanitation regulations that are unaffected by the 11th's ruling against the CDC. In addition, the CDC threatened that ships not voluntarily complying with the CSO would be identified in public statements made by the CDC that the CDC could not guarantee that a specific ship was safe. It's reported that all the lines, along with CLIA sending a letter back to the CDC that it supports voluntary compliance with the CS0, have agreed to voluntarily comply. With NCL appearing to be a holdout, later that day NCL also agreed to voluntarily comply. Following this action, FL's attorney general asked Judge Merryday to rule that what the CDC was doing was coercive and an attempt to enforce the CSO when it had been ordered not to do so. Merryday refused to rule. I'm unsure of how this action was transmitted as it does not appear (yet) in the Court Listener. I'll be watching for it. Observers, including myself, feel that the 11th's ruling would make little if any difference in what we might experience on a future cruise if, say, the cruise lines suddenly abandoned compliance with the CSO. In my case, the most appealing action by the cruise lines to insure my safety from COVID infection while aboard is how the lines have required (actually somewhat coerced) guests over 12 to be vaccinated. Vaccinations for cruise ship passengers are not mandated by the CDC. Mandates for them, in all the forms such mandates have taken, are being implemented under separate laws involving the right and responsibility of businesses to provide a safe environment for employees and customers.

There is a huge problem regarding the nomenclature of the wide range of tests and collection protocols to determine if you are infected with COVID. The foregoing posts are correct regarding the type of test being used by RCL. They are antigen tests using the anterior nasal swab protocol for specimen collection. To my knowledge, for antigen testing, this is the preferred collection methodology for COVID screening and is what is being used by the cruise lines including RCL. Antigen tests - all of them - have a higher false positive rate than molecular or PCR tests. If the antigen test is positive on your child using the anterior nasal collection protocol, a PCR test would be performed to confirm that it's positive. Any of the different types of collection protocols can be used for this. I'm not sure which protocol is being used by RCL for molecular (PCR) testing. My guess is cruise lines are not using the the brain swab (naso or oropharyngeal swabs) see chart below. I've had a mid-turbinate swab and the anterior nares swab neither are awful. I've also had the nasopharyngeal swab. It was tolerable because I knew what was coming. Kids? Your probably right. No way. If it comes to a PCR, request it be collected by Anterior nasal or Mid turbinate collection. It is said that without the Nasopharyngeal level you may get the dreaded "equivocal" result from a PCR. Not enough specimen to isolate the virions in your tissues. I like Jill's idea of practicing with a Q-tip to get them to know what's coming and that it isn't that bad but don't insert it in the nostril any further than 3/4 of an inch or basically whatever is nose picking depth for your kid. Good luck, I think your kids will be fine.

The recently active thread on FL. v. Bacerra, et.al - US Appeals court lifts CDC cruise ship restrictions in win for Florida -has been locked. We still have a thread to discuss this important topic as it relates to cruising and the cruise industry. Wanted to elevate it with a post so everyone knows where to post comments or updates on FL's law suit v. the CDC. Of course, keeping it relevant to cruising. And to recap where we are. It really helps for RCL Blog members following this case that when a new court activity occurs or an event/news involving FL v. Bacerra occurs, a new thread not be started. That's happened twice with Matt merging them. Let's make this THE PLACE to discuss FL V. Bacerra going forward. To recap......... Nothing new has happened over the last 48h. The CDC's appeal (#95 at the Court Listener) of Judge Merryday's ruling that he issued on June 18th (#91 on the Court Listener) has ended. FL has also withdrawn their appeal to the USSC of the 11th Circuit COA's action after they reversed themselves 6d later. The CDC has publicly acknowledged their CSO is no longer enforceable pending the outcome of litigation. The remaining court case track involves the actual litigation of FL v. Bacerra. This will take place on August 12th in Judge Merryday's court (Middle District Court of FL) per #103 and #105 at the Court Listener. These two events are HHS/CDC's unopposed motion to delay the date of their response to FL's complaint to August 12th (#103) and Judge Merryday's approval of the motion (#105). This week, the CDC publicly announced that they would not enforce mask mandates on board cruise ships if the cruise lines continued to comply with the CSO on a voluntary basis. Public statements by RCL indicate RCL's intention to voluntarily follow the CSO. I'm unaware if the other majors have made public statements to that effect. In an unrelated matter, NCL has sued the state of FL claiming that the Desantis ban of vaccine mandates is beyond the scope of FL's governor to issue and is unconstitutional. RCL's COVID related onboard health and safety protocols developed under the CSO that are published and available for review at numerous links, including our front page, are unchanged as of the most recent publication of them.

Unfortunately, there are a large number of Americans who seem to to be fine with government telling them what to do or not do and handing out free stuff without any thought of the government's bank balances.... and to hell with MMT. The argument mitigating toward CDC regulation of the cruise industry is clearly spelled out in 91 at the Court listener, ORDER resolving 25--Florida's motion for preliminary injunction. For those of us that have been following the CDC's circus act in the FL District and US Court of Appeals, and are close to this situation, the CDC's justification for the NSO and CSO are laughable. Judge Merryday presiding over the Middle District Court of FL seems to agree with us. His ruling was a blistering rebuke of the CDC's actions involving the cruise industry.......upheld on appeal by the 11th USCOA. Still, we have a large group of American citizens that think what the CDC is doing, a reflection of what our government is trending toward if not already there, is fine. That's a disturbing thought. Time to push back, not only regarding the CDC's buffoonery, but also the unrestrained drift of governance in America to an unaccountable executive branch.

Actually, I'm hoping for (A), the federal PHE to expire or (B) The CSO does. I have no idea how the Biden administration with the PHE or the CDC with the CSO is going to play this. I think we have a glimpse of how the weaselly CDC will play it. They will brazenly fight to remain the PH authority by doing silly things. Hello ...... no one is listening to you anymore. What's happening now with federal PH policy isn't at all science or fact based. If it was, the federal declaration of a PHE would end. I can make a strong case for that and I find it hard to understand why conservatives in Congress aren't pressing harder for this. They call Bacerra and Walenski to testify before Congress, grill them, those two come up with the lamest reasons for their PH policy pronouncements and that's the end of it. Weird. The CDC minions cannot justify mask mandates in transportation hubs and conveyances (cruise ships) as vax rates pass 70% and they are close. Lately, there's actually been a significant uptake in vaccinations from those who were procrastinating, too busy or unnecessarily waiting on more safety data/full FDA approval. Interviews of these folks indicates most of them admitted they were either just lazy or fearful and are neither anymore after seeing the benefits. To me, with cruise ships sailing with at least 80% vaxed pax, if the CDC was following it's own recommendations, masks would not be required for cruise ship guests. It's that simple and the CDC just continues to show it's ass.

Personally, I never had a problem with the 95/98 thing. As I anticipated my first cruise in the early months of 2021 and as I felt certain that the lines would restart first in Europe and from Caribbean ports, as soon as US Citizens could travel to foreign countries and board a cruise ship sailing from there, I looked for cruises that sought to vaccinate most guests. I chose Greece as the most likely country to allow cruise ships to sail and let Americans enter their country only if vaxed and that was before it was clear that cruise ships would be sailing from Caribbean ports. The clincher was when Celebrity clearly subsidized air fares from the US to Athens as fares were super low, lower than the cost of flying from Miami to St. Maartin, for example. I jumped on those and booked Apex. I could have sailed a week earlier on Edge out of PEV but too late, by the time that became a thing, I was already booked on Apex. I was happy that it was reported that 98% of guests and 100% of crew were vaccinated on Apex. The antigen testing required before boarding (a Greek government requirement) made this the safest place re COVID of anywhere probably on the globe to enjoy a vacation.

Late to the party. Just read today's news and the foregoing posts on it. More an academic than a practical thought but the issue of the enforceability of the CSO came up in another thread after I questioned Matt's piece on the front page this weekend. His piece asserted that the 11th Circuit's sua sponte reversal of their previous granting of the the CDC's request for a stay of the Merryday (Middle District Court of FL) imposed preliminary injunction of the CSO rendered the CSO unenforceable. I disagreed with that view. With today's filings, that's moot. With FL's withdrawal of their appeal to USSC, the CSO is in fact unenforceable. The CDC acknowledges that and defeat ..... for the time being because litigation is still pending in the Merryday court. Not part of the CSO is federal authority to mandate masks in transportation hubs and conveyances. They are reiterating that a cruise ship is a public conveyance on which the CDC can mandate masks. That position is legally defensible. But, the little weasels that they are, are stating publicly that they won't enforce face mask mandates on cruise ships IF CRUISE LINES VOULTARILY COMPLY WITH THE CSO. That is really dangerous and faulty PH policy making that amounts to cry-baby, childish politics. Whatever, not unexpected. So, for now, the appeals process involving the preliminary injunction has ended. FL beat that effort by the CDC. Yipee. In effect that prevents enforceability of the CSO pending the litigation of the FL v. Bacerra case to take place in his court beginning August 12th. It's been mentioned by @twangsterand @Matt that the lines would be foolish to abandon what amounts to full scale compliance with the CSO considering the CDC could still prevail in the Merryday trial court. Today, the CDC demonstrated they know this but instead of a polite gesture to that reality, they stick their fingers in FL's eye. It may be their last stand. At this point, I'd give the chance of the the CDC prevailing in the litigation to take place in the Merryday court as having a less than 10% chance of happening. Because of that, I could see cruise lines making contingency plans and be ready to launch them within days of a FL win in Merryday's court. What might these be: First, and for now, the lines will probably remain in full compliance with the CSO. At least RCL will. I'm not sure about NCL, Carnival, MSC, Disney and others that are planning on sailing from FL ports. Delrio at NCL has been particularly aggravated by all this, including the Desantis ban on vaccine passports. He's a wild card in all of this, IMO. You can review the CSO and compare it to the HSP at the links below. I feel confident that some things are going to change with a drift away from the mandates of the CSO and towards the recommendations of the HSP. I thought it was an interesting exercise to compare the two side by side. Most may not ? Here goes my take: For starters, if the CSO is ruled unlawful in it's entirety by a FL win in the Merryday court's litigation, and mostly transparent to cruisers, would be eliminating the onerous reporting requirements, including the No Sail Response Plans to the CDC and CDC's approval of them. These response plans involve crew members and the repeated testing and reporting of the test results - none of which comport with existing guidelines for population surveillance and are not present in any other congregate settings, e.g., concerts, casinos and more. There are much better, less expensive and effective ways of surveilling for COVID among crew members that what the CSO mandates. Here's what the HSP recommended cruise lines consider - note this isn't directive in nature like the CSO is: One screening protocol that could be considered is testing 10% of the crew every week and oversampling the crew with high-touch/high-exposure jobs. Alternatively, cruise operators could choose to test all crew on a rotating cycle so that everyone is tested every other week. It is likely that the color coding system imposed on the cruise lines for crew members will also disappear. This isn't a part of the CSO but it is included as reference and legally is probably an extension of what the preliminary injunction enjoins and that completion of litigation in favor of FL would eliminate in it's entirety. I'm speculating here as I'm not completely clear on how that rather complex and onerous system was developed and under what it U.S.C the CDC believed they were authorized to issue it is. That whole thing was issued as the cruise line catastrophe of March/April 2020 was unfolding. It was a total knee jerk reaction TO DO SOMETHING!!! Another thing that will at least be eased is the requirement for the lines to develop these contracts with local agencies to receive debarked COVID cases from cruise ships making a port call to do that. Agreements are fine and the cruise lines probably would have developed those on their own without the CDC breathing down their necks. What's not fine is the burdensome review and reporting of legal contracts instead of hand-shake agreements between cruise lines and applicable shore based entities. No one involved in the debacle that was March/April 2020 wouldn't see the need to address this without being told to address it by government. Not required by the CSO in US ports, and one of the most hazy aspects of the HSP, is screening of guests before they board. There are recommendations on how to do this and they seem to me to be a bit weak and needing updates but missing is screening guests with antigen tests - these are considered the best tool for screening when the goal is to create some type of bubble on board a cruise ship - which is what the lines are effectively trying to do. IMO, that should be considered when viral prevalence in the US county hosting the home port is high. Foreign home ports are requiring it of the cruise lines and they are complying. Screening guests after a port call where viral prevalence is high or the government demands it for debarkation is not listed in the HSP as a recommendation. It is more difficult but it could and is being done (St. Maartin); there are other options to mitigate risks such as not making the port call or strictly controlling mobility of guests by requiring them to book curated tours from the ship, e.g., in the Caribbean - Coz, Costa Maya, Tortola. The CDC never mandated vaccinations for guests on board cruise ships. They did do some arm twisting with the two pathways to restart gig and that has resulted in at least 95% vax rates for lines that chose the no test sailings required pathway. CDC mandated test sailings will disappear and the cruise lines will applaud. I do expect them to do some sailings for just crew training and drills and without paying passengers or probably non-crew volunteers. I absolutely expect the current vaccination policies involving at least a 95% vax rate for all pax 12 yo and older to be continued by the cruise lines that went that route. I believe some concessions were made by the CDC in negotiations with the lines leading up to the restart over this. Both sides seem to be happy with this outcome. I think time will tell about the continuation of cruise line vax policies that produce hybrid pax manifests, e.g., RCL. These do produce what I consider to be rather onerous protocols and extra costs for the unvaxed that may impact the bottom line. It's a hard question forlines that cater to families. IOW, as far as vaccinations are required to cruise, News at 11. https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/healthy-sail-panel-full-recommendations.pdf?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_c7648eb6fea257ff230906afde0a6a92dfa69512-1627311192-0-gqNtZGzNAiKjcnBszQii https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/CDC-Conditional-Sail-Order_10_30_2020-p.pdf

In practical terms and in light of what the Bayley statement reflects, I agree with your points. The law can be a niggling nuisance though and that's at play in the question of whether or not the CSO is enforceable in FL. Until the CDC's appeals process on the preliminary inunction is complete, I do not believe the default position is that Merryday's preliminary injunction goes into affect, i.e., on or after July 18th. I do think there is room for both takes on this. We might get some clarification this week from the Merryday court.

Welp, I booked it. Seriously though I think the CDC restriction to 7d or less went by the wayside but I couldn't find that in writing ..... like most stuff you try to find at the CDC's web site! ?

On Celebrity Apex sailing out of Pireaus (Athens) Greece, and that I was aboard last week, if your country of return required a molecular test (PCR) you got one. US Citizens returning to the US need proof of vaccination or if unvaccinated, an Antigen test to re-enter the US. Unvaccinated children are required to take an RT-PCR test prior to re-entry for voyages 4 nights or longer. Travelers from developed countries in the West - the ones that can and are willing to travel - are going to experience a myriad of different and confusing vaccination and testing requirements to enter other foreign countries or return to the US. Particular venues operating within foreign countries will have varying requirements to enter or receive service as well. Celebrity has done a good job in letting us know what is required. I couldn't find it stated exactly by the CDC or by State but, I don't think there are exceptions for "closed loop sailings" in the Caribbean out of FL for COVID related entry requirements. I am getting about one email every three days from Celebrity concerning an upcoming B2B Eastern and Western 7n Equinox sailing from PEV. About 2w ago I received an email - the first of 2 others since then, titled "Important Updates to Testing and Health Screening Requirements." Each one had a new set of entry and testing requirements for the ports to be called on. The most recent announced a requirement of the St. Maartin government for visitors to that country to have an antigen test 2d prior to disembarking from Equinox on the scheduled port call there. Celebrity will provide these. The one before that added the caveat that only Celebrity curated tours were allowed in Coz and Costa Maya. In Tortola, BVI, another port call, in cooperation with the BVI government started a while back, Celebrity only allows their curated tours. I get it on both sides of this. Celebrity doesn't want the risk of a guest contracting COVID walking around in places with high prevalence rates, re-boarding after an unsupervised trip ashore and be the cause of an outbreak. Involved governments don't want infections being introduced to their countries by cruise ship passengers. What sort-of takes the hassle out of this is that most lines tell you what documents and testing you need and provide it free of charge. We were tested 2X while sailing Apex recently (on boarding and in preparation for debarkation) and it was painless. I find it amazing that the lines are working their way through this mess and keeping up with the variations. It really is hard for travelers to keep up and then jump through all the hoops to get to where you're going and back. I wonder if there will be a point where the lines or customers say enough, we can't keep doing this. I'm not even close yet. The cruise experience on Apex in the Greek Isles was worth every ridiculous air travel delay and every entry and exit requirement. Alll I can say if you want to cruise bad enough, be prepared mentally for the inconveniences you might experience.

Legally, I don't think it is moot. Practically, and in light of the Bayley Tweet. yes. Moreover, I think it has been pretty clear that RCL, among other lines, more or less, worked with the CDC to make cruise ships not become vectors of SARS2 since the issuance of the CSO. It seems to that end, the cooperation has produced the desired outcome .... so far.

Question for @Matt ......... In your front page article, "CDC Will Enforce Mask Mandate for Cruises Despite Court Lifting Cruise Ship Restrictions," you state that (paraphrased) "the CSO is no longer enforceable on cruise ships sailing from FL ports." I don't think it is yet clear what the status of the CSO is. While it is accurate that technically given that the 11th USCOA denied the CDC's appeal to stay the Middle Court of FL's injunction of the CSO, that preliminary injunction scheduled to be effective July 18th, also technically the appeals process is not yet completed. It still could be heard by SCOTUS and some think it will be. Either that or SCOTUS will decide not to hear it and then the 11th's ruling will stand. At that point, the enforceability of the CSO only on ships sailing from FL ports will end. Meanwhile the CSO may still be enforceable. I realize the CDC's statement yesterday on masks, seems to imply they feel the other provisions of the CSO aren't enforceable???? Some think that Judge Merryday might issue clarification of the court's position on the CSO pending either the outcome of the appeals process or the outcome of the trial court that convenes on August 12th this coming week. Are you hearing something else and more definitive on the enforceability of the CSO? Any of our other legal beagles here?

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.

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

@barbeyg, sorry to hear about your sister and hope she fully recovers. Something I've been struggling with since the start of the pandemic is the stark difference of people's views on it between those that have been untouched by it and those that have. What I mean by that is people who have not gotten ill themselves, people who may have been infected but were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms, have a different perspective on the pandemic than those who have suffered greatly from COVID or knnow someone who has. As well, medical professionals who come in direct contact with the suffering - and there are millions of these - also have a different perspective. I'm in that first group. I became infected and even though I was at risk by age at the time of the exposure my symptoms were mild and I recovered in about 5d and tested + for antibodies and - for viral antigens 3w post positive testing. I did have some lingering fatigue and some neurologic symptoms but nothing significant that hasn't nearly fully abated in the 7 months since I tested positive. Therefore, I tend to have a much rosier, fact based and optimistic outlook on the pandemic. But let there be no mistake, I fully understand the devastation, emotional and physical, the pandemic has wrought, probably not at the personal level like you do but, I'm empathetic with your group. I think your message is one that echoes mine - we need to be cautious going forward recognizing this thing isn't over. Although the research tends to suggest the virus will be brought to heel, there are many unknowns regarding SARS2 and it's variants. The pathway to that objective could be bumpy. Thanks for your compliments.

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 outdoor market, think carefully about going in there. Assess your own vulnerability and risk tolerance as well as risks to others if you recently became infected while traveling to the cruise port in deciding to go in or stay out. Onboard a ship that is 95% vaxed, indoors in 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 depend on the country you're sailing from, e.g., in my recent Apex sailing from Pireaus Greece, Celebrity required masks indoors because the Greek government still requires them indoors, on their ferry's and all cruise ships operating in Greek waters. 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 of FL's PH officials 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 disease 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.

Obviously, I dislike intrusive government mandates, but unlike what appears to be court rulings that are undercutting the basis upon which they issued the NSO and CSO, that they can continue to tell people what to do in transportation hubs (airports, train and bus terminals that are under federal jurisdiction) as well as public conveyances that use them and cruise ships operating in US waters are a public conveyance.

I see this now ..... thanks for the link to the applicable document. I'm watching the Court Listener for The Middle Court of FL (Merryday's). Do you have a link to the 11th COA docket or Court Listener for the 11th? It will be interesting to see if Merryday issues a clarification on the status of the CSO. As you note, technically it would be invalid but as a practical matter it's still in effect. The lines aren't going to ignore the provisions of the CSO for several reasons. IMO some parts of the CSO - the one's consistent with the HSP recommendations - are good. The other parts involving the onerous reporting and contractual requirements aren't. Again, IMO, this isn't going to change the pathways the CDC established to restart sailing nor vaccination policies already established by the lines and playing out. So, getting back to Jill's question, "what does all this mean for the future?" In the short term by which I mean for the remainder of the 2021 cruising season, my take is that the status quo will apply. The lines have operational plan that are somewhat inflexible and their health and safety policies have been written, crew training has been completed and it would be a cluster to change course now. Over the long term though (January 2022 and beyond) a lot depends on how the pandemic plays out. If governments land on an approach that deems SARS2 manageable and slides it from a pandemic to a seasonal nuisance, many of the existing mitigation measures now in effect and that we are experiencing in our return to cruising (including vaccination policies) will ease ..... but even that is hard to judge. A lot of moving parts. OTH, if governments choose eradication of SARS2 - or as close as possible to getting there - (see Australia and NZ) what we are experiencing now in terms of mitigation measures will likely persist. Something in between is the most likely. If the outcome of the original FL law suit - and I believe this would come at the SCOTUS level - is to invalidate the NSO and the CSO as both being unconstitutional, the power of the CDC to carry out what they clearly believed 16 months ago was legal - the NSO - and a wide ranging array of pandemic mitigation measures will be significantly undercut in the short term. I've also opined that in the after math of the pandemic, after the PHE is cancelled, and that's assuming it will be and I think it will at some point, Congress is going to tweak all the applicable law that led HHS and the CDC to believe they acted lawfully in implementing the NSO.

Let me be clear, I'm not a lawyer but I follow constitutional law and SCOTUS rulings that deal with it closely. So, when you read my posts where I try to explain what's going on, these are the ramblings of a rank amateur. This stuff is very complex, filled with legal jargon that lawyers go to law school for 4 years to learn. Moreover constitutional law is a specialty field like cardiology is in the medical field. Having said that, I'd urge people reading this thread to not be "disappointed" by what has transpired. In this seemingly unimportant case you are seeing exactly how the framers wanted American style democracy in a republic to work. To wit: The framers anticipated creeping over-reach by presidents and his appointed members of the executive branch. The way to limit that was with a powerful judicial branch. Among other responsibilities but probably their primary one, SCOTUS interprets constitutional issues. Very early on in the FL law suit Judge Merryday picked up that this was going to involve constitutional issues. His 124 page ruling reflects that. Now it looks like the 11th Circuit judges see that too and that, as one of the documents released yesterday states, (paraphrased) "in anticipation that this case will be heard by SCOTUS" the appellant's (CDC) appeal is denied. ...... and yes, members of congress and the president know how important their appointment of federal judges and supreme court justices is in carrying out their fundamental believes about American democracy and the role of government in it. Of course, we expect these jurists to be "blind" to everything but the law. Sometimes they are sometimes they are not. In this case, and IMO, the judges involved adjudicating the FL law suit are ruling in strict accordance with existing law and importantly leaning a bit to the right on the constitutional issues involved - separation of powers.

I agree it is political but I don't think it's "sad." As I keep hammering home, aside from the complaint of economic harm that was done to the state of FL by the NSO and CSO, FL's claim asserts that an agency of the executive branch - the CDC - made quasi law in the from of the CSO usurping the powers of the legislative branch in doing so. What's important about that is over the last 20 or so years executive branch agencies that constitutionally have no law making authority and are unaccountable to the voters have assumed all kinds of power normally vested in the legislative branch. It's not just HHS/CDC. The Judges hearing arguments in this case and then ruling have made it crystal clear in those rulings that the CDC exceeded it's lawful powers granted by the legislative branch. It's a shot across the bow of a wide range of US government executive agencies to knock that stuff off. Congress makes the laws, the executive branch carries them out. The forefathers are smiling today.

Its not over yet ......... Matt, we again now have two threads on this subject. Can you merge them.

I know that legal proceedings are complex but this one is exceedingly hard to follow with so many motions, appeals and U-turns. That there are also two tracks in the proceedings, the appeal track that the CDC took and the pending litigation of FL's original suit. That makes following the cases doubly hard. I have had an off-line conversation via PM with @dswallowon the chain of events - trying to put them in order and make sense of it. He's got it right. The litigation of the original complaint (the FL v. Bacerra, et. al) hasn't taken place yet but will on August 12th before Judge Merryday. The appeal track has concluded with the CDC losing its appeal to the 11th Circuit where they asked the 11th Circuit to stay Merryday's ruling. To recap (in my own head ?) ....... FL's request for a Preliminary Injunction was heard in Merryday's court, he granted it then stayed it pending a re-write of the CSO to comport with CDC's lawful authority. The CDC appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit USCOA. That court granted the CDC's appeal, setting aside Merryday's ruling. 6d later the 11th Circuit reversed itself and vacated the 11th Circuits stay of the Preliminary Injunction issued by Merryday's court. The reason it appears as @danv3points out is that the 3 judges probably realized they made serious errors in interpreting the law and wanted to fix it in anticipation that the case would be heard by SCOTUS. That realization appears to have come from a brief that FL filed with the 11th Circuit in response to the CDC's appeal. SCOTUS has not yet heard the case either by a single Justice, Clarence Thomas, or the full SCOTUS hearing it. Justice Thomas may have been involved in the 11th Circuit's reversal though....??? What is unclear to me at this point is the status of the CSO. I don't think it is cut and dried that the CSO is no longer enforceable in FL. I would think that determination of enforceability would be made in Merryday's Court that will convene on August 12th. What is also unclear to me is whether or not a final ruling in favor of FL by either the Merryday court or SCOTUS renders the CSO unenforceable at all US ports or just FL ports. Asking @danv3or @dswallowto offer their opinions.