JeffB

Matt, I'm confused. The post from @DanielB above is from RCL Singapore and deals with testing protocols on Quantum. It has nothing to do with FL ports. Am I missing something here? If not. Please remove this thread.

No need to panic .........

From this morning’s Washington Post, they are reporting that an internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slide presentation has a lot of people freaked out. It says “........there are 35,000 symptomatic infections per week among 162 million vaccinated Americans.”

That comes out to 1 out of every 4,628.57 people. I like those odds! If you are vaccinated you are highly unlikely to suffer from COVID. If you are unvaccinated, you are in COVID's cross-hairs.

I’m sure someone would say “yes, but that’s per week, meaning you face the same risk the next week!” Okay, so every week, I face a new metaphorical lottery of being that one person out of 4,628 or so who has a symptomatic breakthrough infection. I can live with that, and you can, too. Yes, it will stink to feel sick for a couple of days, but symptomatic breakthrough infections almost never results in hospitalization or death (something like 95%/99%.

People accept that much higher level of risk all the time. The chances of dying in a car crash are roughly one in 107, and the average person is involved in three motor vehicle accidents in their lifetime. If someone told you they refused to ever get into a motor vehicle because the odds of dying in an accident were too high, you would urge them to get counseling for runaway anxiety.

People are suffering from what is called "recency bias." What this means is that based on what you hear on day one, hour one or hour7, and so forth, influences your perception of future events. Is there any doubt, based on the "dire consequences" media narrative that people are scared?

I absolutely do not want to be dismissive of those who are close to acquaintances, friends or loved ones who have suffered from COVID or health care workers in hiospital who see the surge and suffering first hand. I am continually struggling with how this group perceives the threat of COVID compared to those of us, including myself that have been fortunate enough to not be burdened by it.

Still, in the big picture .........PERSPECTIVE PLEASE.

11 minutes ago, columbus_cruiser said:

I am curious for those that are vaccinated that tested positive; what vaccination did they have?

Not released to the public and I doubt it will be. I would further offer, this is not a reasonable rabbit hole to go down. All the approved vaccines are fundamentally equal in terms of both efficacy and effectiveness. While there are news stories that suggest some vaccines are better than others, there's no solid research that is peer reviewed and suitable to draw conclusions from wrt one US approved vaccine being better than another. 

Once again, protocols are working. The concern on the part of the lines and the communities hosting home ports and ports of call has to be an increasing number of these events. Until the peak of infections occurs locally and starts to decline - and it will - the math suggests there will be more of these. The next question becomes, not as a matter of health policy but as matter of business, how long can RCL continue to pay for medical evacuation on private carriers of guests that become infected with COVID on board. This is an enormously expensive undertaking for just a few. Dozens are going to be cost prohibitive. Let's hope the numbers stay low. WHne viral prevalence in a home port or port of call is high, establishing pre-cruise negative antigen testing for boarding is one good way to keep these events low in number. Another is limiting tours to those offered by the ship.  

Agree with all the foregoing posts. Quintana Roo, the state within which most of the beach resorts are located, is awash with new COVID cases having risen from a viral prevalence as measured by percent positives of all tests and before April of under 5% to around 15%. Vax rates are around 30% which partly explains the rise in new cases. The other factor is the mass of tourists that flooded the resorts in April and May as Mexico already opened to international tourism opened further.

I start a Western Caribbean cruise on Sunday with port calls in Coz and Costa Maya. As of right now, guests can't get off the ship and explore on thier own. That should tell you which venue, a cruise ship or a Mexican Riviera beach resort, is a safer place to visit re COVID risk.  

Correct policy making for the cruise lines wrt to health protocols is to not over-react. A policy like @Tyrois suggesting is an over-reaction. Too many governments are over-reacting to the current delta "surge" and imposing renewed mandates. Here's why this is a bad idea:

13 minutes ago, steverk said:

If the CDC loses the court case with Florida (and I think they will), then they renew the CSO as a guideline and use their mandatory health inspections as a club to bring the cruise lines in compliance.

First, I agree with you that FL will win their law suit. Second, I am absolutely convinced that if the CDC tries an end run, and as you suggest, uses mandatory health inspections as a club to coerce compliance with the CSO, FL"s attonery's will be all over this.

If you are unaware, FL already filed a motion in the Middle Court of GA in opposition to the CDC's "Dear Colleague" letter that in no uncertain terms told the cruise lines that we won't rigorously enforce mask mandates aboard cruise ships (a lawful action they could take under different US Code) if you voluntarily comply with the CSO and to "please let us know if you plan to comply." All the cruise lines said they would.

The basis for the FL motion was that the CDC was coercing compliance with the CSO that had been enjoined by the Merryday court and upheld by the 11 USCOA. Merryday, IMO, correctly deferred a ruling stating that FL was objecting based on the potential for harm, no such harm having yet occurred. He left it open to FL to comeback to him if and when actual harm resulted.

FL is watching what the CDC does closely.

14 hours ago, JeffB said:

I've held for a while now that your own experience with further mitigation measures is going to be based on the political make-up of the governments at both the state and local level that you must deal with. 

I'm quoting my self here to make a point. I just finished reading a rare NYTs article that runs completely counter to the current media narrative regarding the delta variant "surge." It's paywalled so, I'll post my takeaways after I relate them to cruising.

This thread started by asking the question "what if." The question further asked what sorts of further mitigation measures, specifically an extension of the CSO, might we expect given increased COVID infections?

Let's be clear, IMO, outside of the over-sized reporting requirements, the strict requirements for contracts between the cruise lines and shore agencies that might be asked to handle passengers or crew infected with COVID and the imposition of fines for non-compliance with the CSO, the health protocols contained therein aren't bad. Moreover, they are working. I don't think anything more in the way of mitigation measures is necessary. Will the CDC add more? Will local governments return to mandatory masks, and mobility restrictions? Here's why PH policy makers should carefully consider the costs of doing any of those things weighed against the potential PH benefits:

My take aways from the this morning's NYT's article:

Policy makers need a strong dose of humility when implementing COVID mitigation strategies. To wit: humans can intervene with prescribed mitigation measures that can theoretically reduce transmission but thinking that only human interventions can end the pandemic is foolishly naïve.

There are no plausible explanations involving human interventions alone for the peaks then precipitous falls of new case numbers. Virologists agree that after steep climbs, the steep drops in new case numbers in India and the UK are NOT a result of imposed mitigation measures. They are mysterious.

Drops like this - the petering out of the spread of a virus - has repeated itself in almost every viral outbreak in the history of the human race. We simply do not know why and our efforts to impose measures to stop this thing pale in comparison to the behavior of the virus we do not fully understand. Noted by @smokeybanditabove.

The article nibbles around the edges of stating masking and social distancing mitigation measures, including lock-downs (Australia and China are in the midst of re-imposing them) don't really do much and might be unnecessary imposition of inconvenience - actually unlawful restrictions on guaranteed liberties in the case of mobility restrictions - on those affected by these mandates.

The one human intervention that does work? Vaccines.

PH policy makers would be well advised to carefully examine the cost of further mitigation measures in the face of the Delta "surge" balancing the social and economic cost of such measures against what are emerging as questionable PH benefits.

Vaccination should be at the forefront of PH policy aimed at stemming the pandemic.

In FL, Governor Desantis is getting hammered for his stand against counties mandating masking for kids in schools. I suspect he is a staunch adherent to the concepts that have been articulated in this rare NYT's piece that actually questions the role of mandated mitigation measures. In the end, I don't think there will be any question that Ron Desantis is one smart dude wrt to the current pandemic.

The pre-boarding negative COVID testing requirement is within the bounds of reasonable when viral prevalence in the community hosting a cruise port is high. Last time I checked Broward Co., home of PEV, % positive was hovering around 15%. That's up from a sustained 3-5% a month ago and that percentage signals high levels of community transmission.

Not many vaccinated people are getting "breakthrough infections." You'd not know that listening to the news reports. According to the CDC, a total of 5,492 cases of fully vaccinated people were hospitalized or died from COVID-19. That's out of 160 million people fully vaccinated in this country. Let me do the math for you. That's 3.43%. 96.6% of you vaccinated folks have no chance of serious illness if you get re-infected and your chances of that appear to be even lower. Though the CDC only tracks breakthrough infections that lead to hospitalization and death, some states are keeping track of every case, even the mild ones. In Massachusetts, there have been about 4,450 confirmed breakthrough cases or about .1% of all vaccinated people. Read that again 0.1%

Almost all new cases are among the unvaccinated - 94% to 98% is being reported. Unvaccinated account for 98% of Hospitalizations and 99% of deaths

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-delta-variant-and-covid-19-vaccines-what-to-know-11627079604

Here is a compilation of all the case studies done for each of the approved vaccines in the US

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant#Key-takeaways

The Delta variant is causing local hyper-accelerated rates of infection. The tendency is to generalize that to a massive nationwide outbreak. The NE and CA have the highest regional rates of vaccination and accordingly the lowest number of new cases. Fl and TX are about in the middle and FL is considered by the CDC to be a hot spot. So, yeah, get tested before you board.

28 minutes ago, danv3 said:

The chances of the CSO not being extended are probably less than 2%.  The bigger question is what new requirements are the CDC and cruise lines going to impose on the vaccinated between now and then.  

My take is this: No large cruise ship operating anywhere in the world has experienced an outbreak. Have there been isolated infections? Have these been handled without creating an outbreak involving other guests, crew members or local communities. Yes to both questions.

I don't think there is an appetite among the deciders at HHS or the CDC or a scientific basis upon which to place more restrictions, via the CSO, on cruise ship operations. The CDC isn't mandating anything on any state government or business entity. Outside of the mandates, now enjoined, contained in the CSO, that's it. They recommend and states are free to ignore them. 

I've held for a while now that your own experience with further mitigation measures is going to be based on the political make-up of the governments at both the state and local level that you must deal with. 

52 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I agree, but it is not clear to me how they can tread lightly.  It would create a whole new round of appeals if they were stopped from exercising powers that are not in question. 

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

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

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

52 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Whether or not you like the CSO or the CDC, I think this lawsuit has been and will continue to be harmful to the cruise industry by continuing the  uncertainty and negative publicity for the foreseeable future.  That is why I continue to feel this is an important legal question, but I really wish it had been framed around an issue other than cruising.  My biggest fear is that Florida will win this suit and appeals, ships will relax their rules and there is an outbreak on a ship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 minutes ago, griffinjam22 said:

If sailing out of the US and are vaccinated are they testing passengers upon returning? Or just unvaccinated?  I know things change all the time. Just curious

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.

4 hours ago, BrianB said:

The cruise lines don’t need the CDC or any other government entity to force them to do that. It’s just business. 

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.    

20 minutes ago, jticarruthers said:

I'm hoping its relaxed before i cruise again in October .. I would probably book another one in between if it was

 

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.  

1 hour ago, dswallow said:

Once a COVID vaccine is approved for use for 5 to 11 year-olds, the 95% vaccination rate of passengers onboard should be attainable in every sailing.

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

50 minutes ago, Matt said:

Right now, the CSO is a recommendation in Florida due to the win awarded by Merryday (and subsequently denied stay for the CSO).

Could the CSO go back into effect if one of the CDC's appeals wins? Absolutely.

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.

2 hours ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

Is Celebrity allowing B2B now ?  I thought they had disallowed B2B's.

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.