JeffB

Not new ........ I am interested in the mechanics of achieving their % vaccination goal. It definitely is not out there where we can see it. If they are still working on it, it's getting late in the game. If they simply intend to sail with whatever they get, they potentially run afoul of the CSO requirement to sail without a CSC ...... then again, that CSC is likely to disappear on July 18th as it would become a recommendation after that date if the CDC does not submit an updated CSO to Merryday and/or there's not some kind of agreement reached on a CSO between the CDC and FL. Merryday did send the case back to mediation. That's supposed to occur between July 2nd and the 18th. The Edge booking that sails out of PEV on June 26th, from what I can tell, has the standard vaccination required to board policy. After July first from FL, they're hedging. One thing worth considering is that RCL and Celebrity are co-brands. At the level of RCG is it corporate policy that RCL and Celebrity will follow identical vaccination policies? Alternatively is RCG deferring to the CEO's of RCL and Celebrity to decide on vaccination policy? I have no idea or gut feeling on this. Celebrity CEO Lutoff-Perlo seems to me to be the kind of CEO that might insist she'll make vaccination policy for Celebrity. RCG may be considering that two policies are complementary on a number of levels (booking, pax comfort levels, financials). The hint that this might be the case is the report (assuming it's accurate) that during a conference call with TA's last week she said (paraphrased), "we (corporate after July 1st) for sailing from FL ports, we'll take care of getting the ship to the required vaccination rate by managing bookings." That means to me that requests for bookings coming from a TA or directly to a Celebrity CSR, there would be something like, check here if your're vaccinated, you are not required to provide this information but if you don't you will be treated as un-vaccinated and be unable to book based on CDC imposed required vaccination rates. Meanwhile RCL goes it's own way. I could see Celebrity's approach working or blowing up in their face. It's a tough call for Lutoff-Perlo.

When I made my post providing links to the CDC and US State Department, I did not realize you were from Canada - entirely different ball game. My apologies. One travel related thing Canadians, unlike Americans, have to worry about is that Canada has been slow providing vaccines to it's citizens. Obviously, this complicates travel in the short term and probably for at least another 90-120d before that situation improves and I am reading that it is. Outside of that, you might be in much better shape although I expect testing is going to continue to be a requirement for unvaccinated travelers entering most countries and may continue even for vaccinated travers entering other countries well into 2022. Out of my own interest, I found this information from the Government of Canada web site. It's current: https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/flying-canada-checklist

While consolidators don't have all the available cabins and RCL holds some back, two web sites I frequent, just checking out of curiosity wrt your question, both of them show 3 of 4 Odyssey sailings in August show sold out. The only one on offer is the August 28th sailing out of PEV. I think its a safe bet that if RCL hasn't already sold all the cabin space they want to sell for August sailings on Odyssey, they're close.

This is a really good read of a TIme Magazine reprint of an interview with Celebrity's CEO, Lisa Lutoff-Perlo done by a pay-walled web site, Leadership Brief. I'm not a subscriber but the web site presents interviews with top CEOs and business leaders. After Michael Bayley, long time Celebrity CEO, moved on to RCI, Lutoff-Perlo took up the CEO role at Celebrity Cruises. Bayley, for a long time, resisted change in Celebrity cruise lines that involved up-scaling the brand to compete with "Luxury" (loosely defined) lines and trends across the cruise industry. The Chandris tradition of X was strong, appealing and filled ships. But as the Celebrity fleet modernized with Silhouette class ships in the early 2015-17 time frame, Lutoff-Perlo arrived on the scene (2017) with a pretty aggressive plan to change all of that. No question her approach was to appeal to a higher spending cruise cohort, something most of the major lines were doing in some form or the other. I didn't like that. some of my favorite and traditional X experiences vanished - the Golden Era of Cruise lines themed specialty restaurants disappeared when ships went threw refurbishment. More high rent Concierge Class cabins were added, suites were lavishly updated, restricted restaurants for suite guests and most recently restricted access areas in what Celebrity calls The Retreat showed up on Edge Class and the latter Silhouette class ships on refurb. Cabin pricing rose substantially with the lowest cost suits not much differnt than a balcony cabin and penthouse/two story suites fares out of the realm of most people's sensible vacation costs ..... but the money is there to be spent and right now, as cruising returns, there's a lot of it to spend and people are spending it on cruises in these phenomenally expensive cabins. Celebrity, as an RCI brand, is really well positioned for the surge in cruise spending over the next 3 years as the company tries to pay-off the huge debt they took on to survive and return to the golden years of 2019 profitability. Lutoff-Perlo deserves credit for that. Here's the article: https://time.com/6073915/celebrity-cruises-ceo-lisa-lutoff-perlo-covid-19-travel-rebound/

Look at the big picture to assess how one's future cruise is going to go down. The West and most of the Northern hemisphere is either controlling or gaining control (a positive trend) of COVID. Pre-COVID normalcy is returning with post COVID hesitation on the part of people and PH authorities. Depending on the COVID risk assessments of both individuals and governments, varying degrees of hesitancy and/or mitigation measures will pertain depending on where you go. The good news in the US that the most restrictive measures of the CSO are going to fade. JMO. The Southern Hemisphere is a different story and I hate bad news so, won't write about it here. I posted about this before but individuals can find any number of resources to evaluate how well a particular port or region the port is in is doing by looking at the rate of rise or fall of new cases (an indicator of transmission or control), percent positivity of new cases (an indicator of virus presence) and make an informed assessment of the likelihood of your cruise sailing from the port you are interested in right up to the weeks and days leading up to your cruise - this works best for foreign ports because, in the US, the certainty is high and increasing every day that if you are sailing R/T from a US port, your sailing won't be changed or cancelled in the US because of COVID. Caribbean Port calls are going to be iffy due to varying COVID circumstances and local PH regs. But for the most part Caribbean ports are open GC being the outlier. But vaccination rates in this par of the world are low - things could change quickly I think sailing from traditional European ports is going to occur just a bit behind sailings form US ports but it already evident that EU PH authorities are granting cruise ship port access. In comparison to US sailings beginning in July and expanding from there, EU sailings, some that have already begun on a limited and restricted basis, are more likely to become more numerous and unrestricted, in the August/September time frame. Ships sailing on East bound translants, transpacs, Panama Canal itineraries and most places in the Southern Hemisphere, the ME and Asia are less certain. Because vaccination rates are low in this region of the world, I see significant restrictions to cruising persisting well into 2022, possible early 23. In the case of the ME political instability will contribute to hesitancy on the part of cruise lines to sail itineraries there.

The US State Department web site (linked below) says this about testing and entry to the US for US citizens after foreign travel: "You will need a viral test (NAAT or antigen test) to determine if you are currently infected with COVID-19."  A NAAT - Nucleic Acid Amplification test - includes the PCR - also referred to as a molecular test. These are different from antigen tests (considered more accurate) but a negative antigen test which also tests for the presence of the SARS2 virus is fine for reentry to the US. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/before-you-go/covid-19_testing_required_US_Entry.html I'm booked on Celebrity Apex out of Athens on July 9th that returns there on July 17th. We'll be returning from Athens to Miami on the 17th as well. Regarding return to home testing, the Celebrity web site says this: "An additional test will be administered onboard, free of charge, if required for homeport, or home country re-entry." I'm reasonably certain that Celebrity's return to home, required reentry testing will be accomplished with antigen tests as a priority but may use rapid molecular testing (rapid PCR). I'm not certain about this. Antigen tests are less expensive and easier to process and handle. As far as I know the fleets of cruise ships sailing from US ports have been equipped with fully US certified laboratory's for processing molecular tests. I'm less sure about ships cruising from foreign ports who would be subject to the PH guidance of that country. Anyway, the antigen tests will be fine for US entry. The CDC recommends that after foreign travel you get a viral test 3-5d after returning to the US. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/international-travel-during-covid19.html I actually feel that this is reasonable as vaccinated people are more likely, if they catch COVID while traveling, to be asymptomatic. The goal of PH authorities as control of SARS2 is gained in the US is to limit the potential for new COVID outbreaks. If you've been vaccinated and then get infected with a variant while traveling you may be asymptomatic but still shed virus and spread it to others who are not vaccinated. If you test positive, standard protocols pertain.

A poll like this seems to be overly focused on vaccination protocols for cruise ships. Maybe that was @nate91objective. Subsequent posts seemed to add sanitation considerations. I think these are two discreet areas. The VSP (a CDC developed program) is intended to assist the cruise ship industry to prevent and control the introduction, transmission, and spread of gastrointestinal (GI) illnesses on cruise ships. VSP operates under the authority of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 264 Quarantine and Inspection Regulations to Control Communicable Diseases). With the advent of SARS2, the CDC greatly expanded the VSP and the CSO is actually a document enforceable under the VSP (not any more). The VSP says nothing about vaccinations - the CSO should have and probably will if the CDC bothers to update it by next week, present it to Merryday and be a part of any future mediation to take place before July 18th. We all want the cruise ships we are on to be sanitary and we've developed our own expectations about this. The cruise lines are attentive to these and I think they do an outstanding job. Do they need the government breathing down their necks to insure the ships are sanitary? Some would argue they do. I'm not among them to the extent it is done presently. Vaccinating passengers and crew to prevent the transmission of SARS2 is a different subject separate from sanitation - although I can see how there is a relationship between disease prevention through vaccination and disease prevention through sanitation measures. One posters points out that where you stand on cruise line vaccination protocols is largely dependent on the level of risk of getting COVID you are willing to accept given your own assessment of the myriad factors that impact that risk. In daily life with COVID I've seen the whole range of behaviors that involve risk taking. We're going to see that reflected in any poll asking the question as it is framed. The more COVID risk averse a person is wrt cruising, the greater the likelihood that person is going to chose cruises with the entire cruise ship vaccinated and masks required on board. The opposite is also true. One thing I think the CDC has failed at badly is developing the tools and advising us on how to use them to make rational individual COVID risk assessments.

You are 100% correct @ChrisK2793. The constitution does not say that ..... not even close. The point of that portion of my post was to demonstrate how foolish the CDC's attorney's made themselves appear by taking stands like this in oral arguments before a very constitutional law savvy federal judge. How much authority the 2020 CDC had to issue the NSO and the CSO was determined by case law going back 150 years. That is all in the 124 page Merryday ruling. In summary, before the 1930s the feds largely left it to the states to regulate free pratique (ships coming and going from US ports). During the 30's and beyond Roosevelt's New Deal programs shifted PH programs from state control to federal control - this mostly a result of federal grants to state run PH programs and the emergence of expansive federal entities such as the NIH, and now the secretariat level HHS. The net result was more federal presence and "guidelines" but, according to Merryday's review of the case law, not more statutory authority. He concluded that HHSS/CDC simply assumed they had the power to issue what Merryday characterized as inappropriate defacto laws governing free pratique that violated separation of powers provisions in the US Constitution between the legislative and executive branches of government.

People reading Merrydays ruling last Friday may not have caught this but Merryday noted that Trump was offered as an option and reportedly considered shutting down air travel. Instead he exempted it as essential. Cruising didn't get that exemption. Merryday brought this up in a Q&A with CDC attorneys where he was making the point that presidential power is limited both in the Constitution and in congressional legislative action. He went on to suggest that it was likely that Trump knew or was advised that he couldn't shut down the airlines and not exceed his presidential powers by doing so. Merryday then asked the CDC attorney, "you mean, you are telling me that Secretary Bacerra could come back after the president and shut the airlines down because that's what he did with the cruise lines?" After the CDC attorney perceptibly paused at the implications of that question, he said, "yes, the CDC has a constitutional duty to protect the public health and carry that duty out under USC 242." Of course that response was laughable and Merryday moved on but sighted this exchange in his 124 page ruling. My point is that it wasn't the airline unions or lobbyists kept that airlines operating. It was appropriate limits on the executive branche's powers, something the CDC attorney arguing his case before Merryday was clueless.

@smokeybanditI went back and looked at the study. The CDC is the sponsoring organization. It was the Greek Health Ministry among others that provided the data and did the analysis. They are credited in the study. TBH, after going back and reading it, I'm not really clear on how many pax and crew were on board. If you look at Appendix 1. I'm lead to believe that there were 383 positive cases on board among all passenger and crew - the specific number not named. In the abstract, it says there were 383 crew members on a 2000 person capacity ship so ????. Admittedly the abstract leads you to believe there were 123 cases of COVID among 383 passengers and crew. Is it just coincidental that there were also 383 crew and the exact number - 383 - cases? I don't know. Despite this confusion, the data demonstrated at R(0) of 2.6 on board a cruise ship with naïve hosts as pax and crew and limited (masks and hand hygiene) mitigation measures in place. I'm more interested in this figure than I am the confusion over numbers of passengers and/or crew although I grant this is not unimportant. After re-reading the study, I didn't get that it was a 40 year old passenger ferry on a work charter. Admittedly, I assumed it was a cruise ship. I'll also defer to your view that nothing can be taken from the study although I disagree with that assessment. There is ongoing debate on this forum and elsewhere about the degree of risk that sailing on a cruise ship presents to passengers and crews. There are many who say the risk is small such that it is no more risky than getting in your car and driving to work. I don't think the evidence supports that view but it is widespread. If you are among that group, I'm not going change your mind. The problem with debating it is that it is hard to define the system for the debate and deal with all the variables in an on-line forum. From retrospective data we have available, I do think it is safe to assert that cruise ships can and probably do produce higher rates of SARS2 infection, among naïve hosts, over a defined time span than other congregate settings (by CDC definition). That is just because of the nature of living, eating and socializing aboard a cruise ship. Assessing the risk to one's health of that higher infection rate is much more complicated. I'll leave it at that. Here's the study: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/7/21-0398_article

Not to mention a cruise like this where your objective is determine what the occurrence rate of COVID is among passengers and crew on a cruise ship without any mitigation measures v. SARS2 would be unethical. Yeah, it would be interesting with that ship as a control group so to speak but if you're actually going to set up a serious study, it goes through peer review among a panel that is part of the sponsoring scientific organization, e.g. the CDC, JAMA, Science and Nature, Lancet. Here's some useful data that we already have: I linked to a study, released just this month I believe in JAMA, in another thread that looked retrospectively at this using a cruise ship sailing out of Greece and Turkey in early March of 2020. Recall that the WHO had not yet declared a pandemic and most countries in February and March hadn't imposed any mitigation measures or if they had done so they were limited. It had roughly 3000 passengers and crew. The estimated R(0) following the first detected and reported COVID case was north of 2.0 before the ship was quarantined in a Greek port and sick/asymptomatic infected passengers were debarked. This means infections on this studied ship grew at an exponential rate very quickly ...... doubled (X2), then X4, then X16 and so forth. If I remember the data over 30% of the pax and crew on that ship became infected within a matter of days from recorded case #1. Infections were highest among crew that had higher rates of per-person face to face contact among each other at their bars, clubs and quarters than paying passengers. A cruise ship with zero mitigation measures and a passenger manifest of unvaccinated naïve hosts would be a SARS2/infectious disease nightmare. Even now. Infections are infections even though we are dealing with them much more effectively than we were 18 months ago. if anything, the virus has become more transmissible over time. I have heard that there are on-going studies looking at large gatherings and trying to model a safe vaccination rate. Is it 50% of 1000 people, 80% of 2000? Hard to say but that's being looked at. My gut tells me the cruise lines have an idea of what vaccination rate produces and acceptable level of positive COVID rapid antigen tests over a range of numbers of pax on a ship's manifest. Variables are hard to control but one could come up with something to go on that is better than nothing.

In a general sense, federal judges have enormous power to interpret the law and make sure it comports with the US constitution. In this specific case (1) Judge Merryday interpreted the current laws governing Free pratique ..... essentially the license given to a ship to enter a port on the assurance that she is free from contagious diseases. (2) He ruled that HHS/CDC is neither granted the extent of power they usurped by imposing the CSO on the cruise industry in the US Constitution or by congress (3) He concluded the CSO is a defacto law and CDC can't make laws. Congress does. Next on the basis of the argument above, he enjoins the CSO then suspends it to July 18th giving the CDC a chance to clean up their act. He has leverage. He sets conditions including a demand that the CDC present an updated CSO that contains requirements that are within the law that limits what the CDC can and cannot do. He adds that the CDC can't just come up with requirements that aren't based on the current science, something they did in the CSO and have done frequently since the start of the pandemic. For example, the CDC offered a lot of stale science (i.e., not accounting for vaccines) as the underlying basis for many of the non-sensical regulations they imposed on cruise ships. The judge is not making an "interpretation of the science" he is applying accepted standards that determine if a study is scientific. For example, the CDC presented as evidence to the court a report that a cruise ship is 62% more likely to experience a COVID outbreak than similar congregate settings like a prison, nursing home or a hospital. That study was not in the public domain or published, had not been peer-reviewed, two of several requirements for a study to be properly identified as scientific. It's simply not valid as proof or fact under those circumstances. On the role of the judiciary: if you have the time and are interested you can go here and brush up on your civics. https://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/challenge/The-Role-of-the-Judiciary.pdf

Some more information on specialty dining and cruise planner ........ if you are at all interested in specialty dining, you'll do yourself several favors by booking in advance. First, the packages save you money - about 10%. I booked a 3 specialty dining package for an upcoming 8n cruise in Greece. I did this knowing that there are actually 4 main dining rooms on Edge class ships each with unique decor, roughly the same menu for the main course selections with perhaps a unique side, salad or dessert. We love these. Food and service are great and it's part of your cruise fare! I've been told the chefs love to do this. It's fun to have a little variability when you're cooking up 3000 Chicken Cordon Bleu ..... anyway, we'll have 3 specialty dinners and 4 dinners in each of the 4 the mains ..... unless we find one we really like. You can book single specialty dinning tables on the day and time you want (if available) but its the usual price. With the packages, you cannot reserve a table in advance, e.g. if you purchase the package for 3 at a discount in advance you can't book exact dates and times in advance. I thought that weird. I asked about this and was told yep, that's correct not a mess up on the web site. But, I was also reassured, not to worry, the maitre d's in the specialty restaurants are advised of advanced package bookings and plan for these so you won't get told no room. Best bet though, is to make your reservations within the first couple of hours after you board. There are restaurant staff all over the ship selling packages. They'll make bookings for your package at the places, times and dates you want. Even though there are going to be fewer guests, Matt mentioned there seems to be an unusual push for specialty dining among guests doing these early cruises. Get you tables. One additional thought: On Edge class ships with the 4 mains, you are much better off selecting anytime dining. Prior to the introduction of Edge class ships to the Celebrity's fleet we were fans of fixed seatings. (1) we have our routine. Bar, show, eat and (2) we like to meet new people at dinner. Confusingly, Celebrity now calls the dining time choices select early or late and select anytime. I can adapt. If you select early or late fixed dining on a fully booked cruise, you can get stuck in one of the 4 main restaurants becasue your guaranteed your seat at the chosen time but in the restaurant you are seated at on your first night. Staff will move you but expect to wait for a table if you want to dine in of the othe 3 mains.. These days and probably for a good year with COVID still a threat, there's going to be table spacing and limits on who can sit together at one table. So, for now, we'll get tables for two (I'm told there will be more of these and less 4-12 tops) but probably adhere to our usual 8:30 preferred dining time. If you do Select Any Time dining and have a routine, make sure to make your reservations in advance- you can do these on the app once you are aboard and logged into Celebrity wifi.

Zero. FL has the CDC on the ropes if not down for the count. But I'm not ruling a compromise out. Judge Merryday made it clear the CDC has a role in protection of the nation's public health and the case law is pretty clear that it does. I don't think he wants to emasculate the CDC. They just have to act within the law that involves issues of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. i.e, Congress writes the laws and the executive branch carries out implementation strictly within them. CDC didn't do that out of the gate. In fact, Merryday makes a huge point of this failing. Has the CDC been chastised? No question. Can they get up off the mat? I think this will say a lot about Dr. Rochelle Walenski's leadership skills. Good leaders get up when knocked down and keep fighting. Things the CDC does - the good parts - are worth fighting for and regaining the public's trust. Right now CDC's rep is in the shitter and not just with it's management of the cruise industry as it relates to the public health. Long way to go to get out of that spot. It starts right now. Let's give it a couple of weeks. I don't think the public has the degree of interest in this that we do so, maybe the CDC can skate even though they've screwed up a lot in the Pandemic. But among us, their cred is shot all to hell and Judge Merryday just affirmed FL's and our views that they aren't the agency we want telling the cruise lines how to operate safely and healthfully. The Healthy Sail Panel is an entity to be trusted in this matter, IMO. The problem with that is the Healthy Sail Panel is not a congressionally empowered agency like the CDC is. It really is too bad the CDC made such a mess of this.

No worries - I know what you mean @WAAAYTOOO. The correct word is "since the injunction" or since Judge Merryday ordered the CSO enjoined. That means it is unenforceable....... after July 18th, not before. The CSO is still in force and will remain so for now. The simple answer to your direct question, therefore, is no. Merryday has given the CDC a chance to offer an alternative CSO. The parties have to talk about it through mediation between the FL's State's Attorney and CDC lawyers. If a suitable alternative agreeable to all parties arises, Judge Merryday has approval authority and can reinstate the CSO in it's new form if it checks all the legal boxes. Before mediation begins, the CDC has to submit its alternative to the court by July 2nd then mediation starts again with Judge Porcelli. Anything the CDC might mandate in it's modified CSO - again, only within their authority under applicable law to do that and it has to be backed up by scientific studies - the Judge has final say on whether he is satisfied and the parties can move forward with mediation. If he is satisficed with the outcome of mediation between the parties, he can vacate the injunction, ostensibly before July 18th, allowing a new CSO to take effect. If the CDC gets over that really high bar in the time frame Merryday gave them to do that, I'll be surprised. If mediation produces an updated CSO that FL agrees with before July 18th, I'll be surprised. Lawyers will lawyer and FL's smell blood in the water. They'll go for the kill (the CSO that is). I think that outcome (the CSO is unenforceable in FL and no alternative CSO that both parties agree on has arisen), has the highest probability of occurring. But, I repeat for emphasis, enjoined (unenforceable) only in FL. For cruise ships sailing out of FL ports, barring a new CSO that has legal and enforceable mandates under existing US Code, the CSO will become a set of recommendations and guidance. TBF, there is some good stuff in the CSO. Not all of it is malarkey. A good deal of what's in the CSO is the same stuff that is in the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations minus the regulatory hoop jumping and unworkable enforcement authority usurped by the CDC. That's the key issue for Merryday. In looking back at all this it is having the government unlawfully breathing down your neck when other factors provide the impetus for the cruise lines to set reasonable safety and health standards and comply with them.

I'm not an RCL guru but have been to Europe to catch Westbound cruises back to the states multiple times. These are great BTW and a pre-cruise stay is what we do, usually about a week to 10d traveling Europe. You will not be able to pack your bike as part of your luggage on your return cruise and have it stowed for you somewhere in the ship's hold. I'm 99% sure of that but out of the 1% chance, call RCL and inquire. I've never read of anyone doing that. You can definitely check your bike as excess baggage on a flight over or, if you have nothing but time on your hands take a cabin on a freighter - it's done and I've read they are adventures. So, what are your other options? Rent a bike while you're there, ship your bike there and back. The cheapest option is going to be rent a bike. Europeans are fanatic cyclists and hikers. Do some google searching and drill down to the kind of bike you want to rent. I don't think you will be disappointed and will find what you might like. If you are dead set on using your own set of wheel - and I can understand why as I am an avid cyclist too - there are plenty of companies like DSL, Fedex and UPS to name 3 of the biggest ones, that will ship your bike and deliver it to a hotel or hostile you might want to stay at then they'll be glad to ship it back for you. My bet is that's a pretty pricey option even if you chose the cheapest option - by ship - which would require some pretty careful advance planning. A while ago, I checked pricing on shipping two suitcases from Atlanta to Rome. We were flying to Rome and cruising out of Civitavecchia but had a pre-and post cruise stay. I don't remember exact pricing but it was outrageously expensive. Rent one.

So have I. What I enjoy the most is the respectfulness of it here. That doesn't happen everywhere within on-line forums. Having said that, you wouldn't think this to be the case but there is lot of nuance to the question of privacy. Protection from unreasonable demands from employers or business and so forth exists in the law. Context is important and we don't need to deal with that here. I'm not a lawyer skilled in interpreting the case law and then presenting oral arguments before a Federal judge or in this forum to make the case, in this narrow example, of whether or not one has a right to refuse to divulge their vaccination status. To be sure, this question is actually yet to be settled - you can read below at the link. The case law on this question is also interesting and I learned by reading the link that the the case involving the Texas Southern Methodist hospital employees suing to protect their right to refuse vaccination, where the case was dismissed, doesn't relate to the enforceability of the Desantis Ban at all. I thought it might and would make FL's claim that they can ban a business operating in FL from demanding proof of vaccination as a condition of receiving services. I will offer one point on discrimination. My reading of the law in the context we are dealing with it here is this: an employer or business has the right to implement policy that aligns with a legitimate effort to make his place of business safe. It isn't discriminating and does not create two classes of employees or customers, as long as accommodation is available to those that do not want to comply with said policy. Employers and business owners may want to consider options such as continued masking, social distancing, working remotely, etc., for those employees or customers with valid medical or religious reasons for declining a vaccination. As I read through the link, it became apparent why RCL has chosen the path they have chosen. Their legal team has decided that they don't want to challenge the Desantis Ban because the outcome is uncertain. Once again, the complexity of the case law and how it has been applied in different states pertains and it is upon the law, not our personal opinions, that an outcome in this matter will depend. I have a gut feeling that while NCL and Carnival may talk tough, I think they will come up with a way to do pretty much what RCL has done recognizing that a 90% or so vaccination rate will produce a probability of an outbreak to be so low that the risk is entirely worth it. We'll see. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/mandatory-vaccination-policy-lawsuit-update-nurses-take-shot-against-hospital-judge

Whether you have a right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution is not debatable. The Constitution doesn't provide that right. However the question of whether you can be asked about personal information that would be considered by any court to be private is addressed not in the Constitution but rather by the courts - of course, that means it's complicated: Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, questions regarding vaccination will surely surface again. However, a question not necessarily addressed in Jacobson, but heavily overlaps with vaccination inquires is, privacy. “Virtually every governmental action interferes with personal privacy to some degree. The question in each case is whether that interference violates a command of the United States Constitution.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 367, 350 (1967). The Constitution does not explicitly give the right of privacy; rather, it has been the courts who have read privacy into clauses of the Constitution. TBF, I don't think we know if the Desantis ban is lawful or not. A lof of case law is going to apply just like it did with Merryfield. My view is that the right of businesses to require vaccination as a means of improving workplace health and safety is going to be the winning argument. Of course I thought FL was going to lose it's law suit. It's interesting case law bearing on the right to privacy if you want to wade through it: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/confusion-over-privacy-hipaa-constitution-and-covid-19

The local Sunday papes are always interesting following a event (in this case the Merryday Ruling on Friday) that has a major impact on the state/region. I was let down. Since Friday, I've been looking for commentary on the issues of constitutional law and the separation of powers Merryday raised. NADA. The Sun Sentinel did a piece that covered the basics and, for the most part, had everything right (not always the case with them). The importance of Judge Merryday's ruling on issues that go way beyond the cruise industry either aren't fully understood or are, writers feel, just to complicated to write a focused news story on. We did have the usual negative commentary from the infamous Jim Welker - not a licensed attorney but portrays himself like he is (he's not listed as member of the FL bar). His pertinent comment was that cruise ships will have infections. Stuff like that isn't useful. It will be interesting to see this coming week how Alaska and Texas react. I can't imagine they'll sit on this opportunity to eliminate the CDC's grip on their state's cruise economies via the CSO now that Merryday made it crystal clear that the CDC enacted both the NSO and CSO, creating them as de-facto laws, without the lawful authority to do so - IOW, they can't be enforced...... in FL for now it seems but I suspect his ruling will have much wider impact over the short term. I think the stand-out big question over the nest two weeks and going into July is this: Will Governor Desants cave on his vaccination ban? Certainly RCG is working around the Desantis Ban but it appears Carnival and NCL will challenge it. Others who have scheduled sailings out of FL ports in July/August (Disney, MSC, ?) haven't stated their positions clearly as in they've only publically stated when asked, "we're working on protocols" or like statements. I've argued Desantis is on shaky legal grounds with his ban. For now, he's 1-0 with his stance that has him focusing on his efforts to "limit government over-reach and intrusion into our lives." I'm 100% behind him on this objective ..... but not when it comes to vaccinating Floridians and especially those, both residents and non-residents, that want to cruise out of FL ports. You may not have caught this but one of CDC's arguments they advanced in support of the CSO and that appears in Friday's 124 page ruling was a study that showed the likelihood of a SARS outbreak on a cruise ship is 62% higher than in other similar congregate settings. That study is not in the public domain and Merryday chastised the CDC for arguing this point without offering proof that it was actually scientific .... in fact when asked to produce such proof to the court, they couldn't. I assume it was an internal study without peer review and the usual scrutiny on methods and conclusions that such studies undergo before they are considered valid. Side note: this has been the CDC's MO from the start ...... making PH policy recommendations based on unsupported insider opinions not subject to appropriate agency review and oversight. That is going to change going forward. A huge benefit to Americans created by Merryday's ruling. The fact that cruise ships are inherently environments where disease spread is more likely and that EEOC laws protect business' right to establish policies that conform with their ethical and moral responsibility to create a safe workplace for employees and customers make the Desantis ban highly questionable on multiple levels. My take is that Del-Rio and Duffy, along with their legal teams, are taking this into account and will be at the tip of the sword of a challenge to the ban. RCG has chosen a different path - much to my disappointment in both the intent and the details of it, I might add. July will be an interesting month for cruising from FL ports.

You can only L&S once on a booking. You still have options though: https://creative.rccl.com/Sales/Royal/General_Info/CWC_Enhanced_FAQs.pdf

So was Mark Felt ..... also known as Deep Throat. People talk sometimes casually in social settings sometimes they are purposeful leakers like Felt was. Trump sent Justice Department folks to track down leakers in his administration. It's kind-of a thing these days. I should have been more selective with my description of "clerks" generally implying they were law clerks - and you're probably right. Lawyers close to their Federal or District Court judge aren't going to risk their careers getting caught leaking. The gal or guy answering the phone or entering documents? Maybe. I still hold that there is "high" probability that upper level cruise line execs knew what was coming down after oral arguments concluded. I also could be wrong.

Yes, plus > 18 and fully vaccinated. My crystal ball says, "you'll be fine." Barring a major setback in the UK's vaccination program or unexpected new COVID surges, I don't see any reason the UK won't be fully open by October to US citizens. Yes ........ this is the advantage to booking air thorough RCL. At this point in time, if I'm traveling by air to go on a cruise, I'll book through the cruise lines air department. Occasionally airfares are lower due to incentives paid by the cruise line to the carrier. Not always though - you may be able to find lower fares but without and guarantees that you'll ever see your money again in any form if your flights get cancelled. You mentioned your booked flights are with Delta and they offer a credit. You won' tneed that protection becasue booking though the air department guarantees you'll get dollars not credits back. It actually works. I've had two full refunds due to shi cancellations - one I got in 2 weeks the other a little longer than that. The questions you're asking coming up to final payment involving should I pay or not, come up a lot. Given your guarantees for air and cruise fares, I'd recommend you pay and see what happens. I can say with some certainty that if you Lift & shift your cruise to 2022 you'll be saving money. Bookings are going to be tight though 2023 at least. Demand is huge and lots of people have already moved cruises from 2020/21 to to 20222/23 with L&S. If you take the refund and rebook at a later date you'll likely be shocked at what you'll have to pay compared to what you did pay.

Another poster asked, "I wonder if (name your cruise line executive) knew that the Merryday ruling was coming on Friday." I'd argue a select group of upper level execs already knew as much as 10 days ago when oral arguments ended what the outcome was going to be. How? Lawyers involved in writing Merryday's opinions and rulings aren't sworn to scecrecy. Neither are the hordes of clerks in his office who get the briefs, oral argument transcripts and the actual wrtings of Judg Merryday himself. Stuff like this leaks out. I took from the quotes that Merryday placed in his ruling that were made by CDC's lawyers that the Judge didn't think much of their oral arguments. At the Federal and District Court levels if one has access to exchanges that go on between the judge and the attorney's presenting arguments on both sides (these were not in the public domain) you'll have a very good idea of where the Judge hearing these arguments will come down. IOW, people outside Merryday's office knew and probably talked innocently about it with colleagues who then talked to cruise line people who then ......you get the idea. Cruise execs knew. Maybe not specific details but they knew the CSO was going to get enjoined and that for all-intent-and-purpose, it was dead. So, yeah, the lines have a head start on what they would like to do, how they will interact with the CDC between now and July 2nd in moving forward - like politely shit-canning most parts of the CSO. What is RCL's first sailing from a FL port? July 2nd? Hmmmmm, not only do I think we'll see new governing standards in some yet TBD form (I like the Healthy Sail Panel with mods but at this point it could be anything from a modified CSO to a completely no document, but, we'll see them pretty quickly. One question that I don't know the answer to or have any gut feeling about is what entity is going to represent a united group of cruise lines? CLIA? The Healthy Sail Panel in some form authorized to act on behalf of the cruise line's collective interests? Remember, the lines are competitors for market share and gaining it is absolutely critical in the short term. I'll be paying attention to this.

It's unfortunate that people who cruise and more specifically people who participate in or just read this blog don't know that RCG has Healthy Sail protocols in place. They are available at the RCL and Celebrity web sites - easy to read, clear and mostly understandable given what the lines are dealing with. Thursday as protocols began to settle down, I found a new table at the Celebrity web site that described vaccine requirements, home port requirements, rules for masking on board and ashore and travel home testing, all arranged in columns by the 6 ships Celebrity currently has in operations. Plain as day what I need to be prepared for and expect if I'm sailing on one of those 6 ships. As far as these particular protocols go, there's no chaos following the Merryday ruling. That ruling really does not impact any of the health and safety protocols ...... for now. I suspect things will change going forward but I also expect without the CDC directly involved and forcing square pegs into round holes like they seem to do, the lines will do a very good job of improving upon what is already pretty good stuff. I'm very optimistic. I expect the biggest changes to occur across the entire industry will be some degree of standardization of vaccination policy and requirements for adults and children. There are some notably different approaches among the lines to what they are doing wrt to kids and various state regs that prevent businesses from asking for proof of vaccination to enter or receive services. The Merryday ruling does not address any of this except to mention vaccines tangentially. IMO, CDC's mask guidance isn't as clear as it should be. There are lot of reasons for that; there are no excuses. The CDC has been putting out confusing information about masking from the beginning and it continues. One thing for sure is that a properly worn, properly constructed face mask reduces transmission of SARS2 - that is not debatable. Human behaviors make masking more or less effective but, they work in varying degrees depending on specific, controllable factors. I commend this plain, science based, easy to read and understand article from Nature for those who continue to think masking is ineffective and unnecessary aboard a cruise ship: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Great comments in this thread. only if to organize my thoughts on yesterdays impactful event I'm writing this: There seems to be several real concerns among posters on the entire blog about sailing with kids, vaccination requirements to board, masking and distancing. Did yesterday's ruling address any of these? Judge Merryday only touched tangentially on one of these concerns - vaccinations. He mentions them as being a means by which the re-start of cruising could have happened more quickly if the CDC had anticipated them and then reacted by adjusting sailing requirements as the vaccine roll-out accelerated and it became obvious how effective the vaccines were in blocking transmission - a critical concern in congregate setting like cruise ships. My reading of his comments seem to me to have been used to illuminate the ineptitude of the CDC in adapting to the changing science ..... something he mentions they promised to do and didn't. He mentions briefly masking and distancing in the context of those being effective mitigation measures aboard cruise ships. I'm going to default to the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations and list them below because I see these being fundamental in replacing the CSO. They are going to impact our cruising experience going forward. Below are the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations in red followed by my comments When returning to sailing, cruise operators should adjust guest and crew load factors in a manner that allows for appropriate physical distancing on board in accordance with applicable guidance, taking into consideration the size and design of each ship. This leaves a lot of wiggle room. My sense is that cruise lines will push this limit up without the CDC breathing down their necks with threats of fines or de-certification. I don't have a problem with higher load factors. From what I'm seeing there's plenty of room for more pax ..... if demand is there. I feel that the risk of disease spread as a function of numbers of pax and crew is over-blown. To prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, cruise operators should require guests and crew to wear cloth face coverings/face masks in accordance with CDC recommendations. That's a good way to present this Healthy Sail Panel recommendation. Most importantly they are modifiable to fit the health circumstance at any given time, At this point, the CDC has advised that for vaxed or unvaxed people, no masks needed out doors(unvaxed should mask if physical distancing cannot be maintained) Vaccinated persons do not need to mask indoors subject to local and business regulations. There are various rejoinders on masking that appear in different places at the CDC web site and are not entirely clear to me: mixed gatherings of vaxed and unvaxed indoors or outdoors where physical distancing cannot be maintained, children in summer camp. CDC currently recommends masking in "certain" settings but then don't define what those are, most notably not mentioning cruise ships. At camps where not everyone is vaccinated, the guidance says, vaccinated people do not need masks. But unvaccinated people are “strongly encouraged” to wear masks indoors, and they should wear masks outdoors in crowds or when close to others for prolonged periods. You can draw your own conclusions based on this less than crystal clear guidance from the CDC on how ships will implement masking guidelines. Based on the foregoing CDC recommendations, I'd like to see this simple set of mask rules: Vaccinated guests sailing from US ports do not need to mask aboard ship, indoors or outdoors. Unvaccinated guests sailing from US ports, including children 2 and older, as a courtesy to all guests, are strongly encouraged to mask when physical distancing cannot be maintained indoors or out doors. Masking is not required during meals while seated and eating or drinking. Please observe and maintain physical distancing of tables and bar stools placed as such for your health. Masking is not required when using pools or exercising in shipboard facilities where exercise equipment will be spaced to allow for physical distancing. When sailing from or visiting foreign ports compliance with local regulations for masking and distancing is required. You will be advised at least 24h in advance of arriving at a foreign terminal for embarkation or foreign port arrival for debarkation of country specific COVID restrictions along with masking and distancing rules for guest remaining on board or debarking. Cruise operators’ facilities on board the ship, at terminals, and at cruise line-owned and operated destinations should be modified to promote and facilitate physical distancing in accordance with the CDC recommendation of a distance of at least six feet. Pretty straight forward. The Healthy Sail Panel does not address vaccination recommendations. That's because when the panel did its work, vaccines were months away. Then the CSO took over. All the recommendations I listed above are described in column format with the first column describing the recommendations and the last two being marked with an M (modifiable based on current conditions) or K (keep as is). The three above are all marked as M meaning there is very likely some changes coming to this document, in particular about vaccination requirements to sail. If I have it right, the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations will become more formalized and appear as preferred standards going forward and will replace most if not all of the CSO. Here's the vaccination policy that I think makes sense - YMMV From ports where no vaccination policy has been established by either federal or state regulators or state regulations prevent us from requiring it: Vaccination is strongly recommended. If you are eligible and able, you should get vaccinated. You may voluntarily disclose your vaccination status. If you choose not to disclose your status or disclose you are not vaccinated, you will be subject to additional testing and screening protocols before boarding and during your cruise. Testing will be at the expense of the cruise line. As a courtesy to other guests we ask that you maintain physical distancing and mask indoors at all times except seated while eating or drinking or exercising in shipboard facilities where exercise equipment will be spaced to allow for physical distancing; mask outdoors when physical distancing cannot be maintained except when using pools, No other restrictions will apply while you are onboard unless local rules require them From ports where vaccine policy has been established by either federal or state regulators: Local vaccination policy will be followed. In cases where vaccination is required by federal or local authorities, during the booking process you will be made aware of this and attest that you have been vaccinated. You will be required to provide proof of vaccination before boarding and will be denied boarding if you are unable to do so. A full refund will be offered (conditions apply). If you haven't seen the Healthy Sale Panel recommendations, have a look. They are a model of clarity and simplicity and put the CSO and all the garbage in it to shame. I hope that thing gets completely scrapped: https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/healthy-sail-panel-full-recommendations.pdf?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=44e14835197c003e83ddb8bdf6d9ce579c4fc627-1624108474-0-AbAoaZV5nWautJlvQXaxWMW0boJtWNa5YcTsRY7L-nGUHd8aPhFl2JYOVne4sbTgbCvzFcblWuOstQQinCiDgEYPBkEIRXAHWgVdbIjMFMR_xPeNLC8uPhoKhOh9mHplBLDb_vxrDdX9MAoRLKZcZ2DVHIqVr7l2UXocJq310hKydaZA1D7kHq104SoBy1indVAu4ue9EcR9T-AFOysD1LJJVFMmCURJUQeAnDe6NlAW_s2OGbfrjK7FHpOPnLEntkQVYoZYWOASPBAdXyHZnGy1Y9o-h_5-klqLc4Cv6zNxgz6cj0KtcjRsjM4PwOwo9Ar6z4pTFEz_LrLhZXEzsQI635TRd-QabYWefEb647r2PVeJtsDevBxyFRisB_ztrpCxihSFwzFHVwKfWbwoJjeb5lOFV8WkFxkWQXf5Lu0LA3nXLWY7ADC1a6Nr-NgWR7LTs0GmiJ6Et9d-TsXOaxTTD3Mv-M_lGqKvFxXt5VkL