JeffB

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

This is a good question. When I was looking at this a couple of weeks ago and reading the CDC's and FL's arguments on this, I thought the CDC was FOS. In reading Merryday's opinion, the part were the CDC claims that if the CSO is enjoined it will negate the PVSA, he thought that was a weak argument. I guess he's implying that the PVSA is an act of Congress and unlike the CSO that isn't and should have been, the PVSA will stand. JMO. This could get complicated but I think the PVSA stands.

I need to address this. When it comes to Federal Court and Supreme Court rulings like the one we're talking about here, how the ruling is framed is as important if not more important than the ruling itself which @ConstantCruiser correctly observes that Merryday has enjoined the CSO (ruling in FL's favor) and that's all he did. Importantly, Merryday has reinforced the notion of federalism and the dangers of creating the administrative state. HIs opinions buttressed by thousands of words citing previous case law - how he has framed his decision to enjoin the CSO - works to inform future disputes that involve the kinds of claims FL made. He basically slammed the CDC though. Does that amount to a ruling. It does in one sense but the reasons he slammed the CDC are more important in the evolving law on this matter of the constitutionality of unclearly defined executive authority. He's basically telling Congress, you guys might want to do your jobs and look at this. The CDC took a bite out of your law making authority and you ought to be concerned about it.

Welp, I just read all 124 pages of the ruling. My key takeaway has nothing to do with a return to cruising for us. I'll get to that: In rendering his ruling, Merryday focused right in on the CDC's authority to issue both the NSO and the CSO. There is probably 80 pages on this subject alone yet it is only one of the five claims addressed. Why? The central issue for Merryday in this case is ruling on whether an executive agency (the CDC) has the constitutional authority to impose what Merryday characterizes as an unlawful exercise of law making granted to Congress. He goes on to say, the CSO is, for all intent and purpose a law. It looks like a law, is filed like a law in the Federal Registry and is enforceable with penalties under the law ...... ITS A LAW - the CDC has no authority to make laws under any of sections or subsections of US Code that the CDC asserts is the basis for the CSO. In fact, he absolutely blows out of the water the arguments advanced by CDC lawyers, quoting them and showing exactly why they are wrong interpretations of previous and pertinent rulings that address the authority of the executive to make laws. His ruling therefore has significant implications on limiting the administrative powers of the executive branch. He bemoans the undeniable drift towards an administrative state over the last 150 years that has become inappropriately ruled by administrators who are accountable to no one. HIs words in this regard in his ruling are compelling, powerful and far reaching. Merryday is putting his stamp on stopping this drift where Congress is unempowered and the executive is empowered. He rightfully states that this is not what a constitutional republic is about. OK, having got that out of the way lets address some of the other more mundane but nonetheless important issues: If I'm reading the ruling correctly, it is so sound, so based on documented legal precedents going back 100s of years wrt to the limited powers of health authorities to act in the public health's interest (and there is a ton of case law on this), that I don't see what the basis of an appeal might be. Federal judges don't like their rulings over-turned by the USC. They'll go to great lengths to make that so. See my paragraphs above. It is foundational to Merryday's ruling and makes it very hard to appeal. The government might try but the next step is the Supremes. They'll get laughed out of court. While Merryday enjoined the CSO it remains in force for FL sailings through July 18th. IMO, that means there won't be any immediate changes. Let's see how this percolates over the weekend. I'm speculating but I think the lines may politely but very firmly work with the CDC to come up with something that looks way more like the Healthy Sail Panel's recommended scheme. Stuff like port agreements, test sailings v. 90/95, passenger limits at least at the extremes they are currently set may disappear as requirements and remain as recommendations. If that happens, it would be to advance the speed by which the lines can ready their ships and start sailing. Vaccinations? Merryday goes a long way in his ruling touting them as a basis upon which the cruise lines should be able to get safely rolling again. If anything, In FL, I see a continuation of the requirement to be vaccinated to cruise because that approach is working elsewhere to contain outbreaks and make them manageable if they occur - Singapore sailings policy not withstanding but there are other reasons vaccination requirements are eased there. The Desantis ruling continues to run afoul of the blitheringly obvious benefits to vaccinating travelers on cruise ships but, if anything, the Merryday ruling bolsters FL's claim that state authority trumps federal authority unlawfully enacted. There is no federal mandate for vaccination. Its recommended. Therefore, the applicable law get down to EEOC regulations that permit businesses to establish their own policies for regulating work place halth and safety as long as it isn't discriminatory. So far, that's been upheld in the TX case. My view that the Desantis bad won't stand up to a court challenge. Hard to say how this will pan out. It's an open question. As of now, it appears RCL isn't going to confront Desantis. That could change. Only cruise line sailings from FL ports are affected by the current Merryday ruling. The CSO remains in effect everywhere else .... but I suspect not for long. State's AGs will move to have the CSO enjoined where the states have maritime regulatory jurisdiction; the Merryday ruling goes a long way in establishing that federal agencies need to tread lightly on federalism and state's rights. Merryday did not rule on Alaska's and Texas' request to join the suit on the basis that the grounds for inclusion "were unclear." Not for long but both state's AGs will move in a different direction as above. I could see a rapid but very controlled expansion of sailing from all the other non-Canadian ports we've been talking about. Expansion will be logistically limited but I'll bet the corporate wheels are already turning. I may have more to post on this but right now my brain is tired.

I just got ahold of the Judges ruling. It's going to take me a while to get though it assess what is going to happen. Standby

...... best place as any to post this. I'm a geek about this stuff but to me it's fascinating. There's been this ongoing debate here about why cruise ships appear to be treated much differently by the CD than other venues by folks who think they aren't really that different. They are. This is an early release study dated July 2021 on a cruise ship that sailed from Piraeus (Athens) on March 20th, 2020. It was an unnamed, 2,500-passenger and 1,606-bed capacity with 33 crew members that sailed from Piraeus, Greece, to Cesme, Turkey, where an additional 350 crew members embarked on March 8, 2020. For 21 days, the ship sailed without any disembarkations or embarkations until the first suspected coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case was reported to the health authority of the Piraeus port on March 28, 2020. The Title of the study:COVID-19 Outbreak on a Passenger Ship and Assessment of Response Measures, Greece, 2020. I'd offer the CDC may have a purpose for releasing this early study right now. Ya think? Abstract We describe response measures to an outbreak involving 128 (33.4%) coronavirus disease cases (46.1% asymptomatic) among 383 persons onboard a passenger ship. Multivariate analysis indicated that dining in certain rooms and bar areas, nationality, working department (for crew members), and quarantining onboard the ship were significantly associated with infection. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/7/21-0398_article

This is the first time I've seen this link below. I believe it just popped up within the last few hours. It's from the Celebrity web site under their "Healthy at Sea" section and emboldened in the text ........ For an overview of protocols by homeport country, click here. It is very precisely and clearly done and easy to read. https://www.celebritycruises.com/content/dam/celebrity/pdf/celebrity-healthy-at-sea-protocols.pdf I was hoping for no masks at all but it seems the Greek government has both an indoor and outdoor (go figure???) mask requirement still in place. Man, would I like that to be relaxed before I had to Athens on the 8th of July. Greece is moving ahead with vaccines but they're not there yet and I can see the masks indoors thing (not outdoors though) until vax rates get higher. Last time I checked the rate was in the low 40% range. I wasn't able to drill down to the area where the cruise port is but can see viral prevalence country wide is low and very low compared to other EU countries. I'd judge Greece is pretty safe wrt COVID. That may be because they've been hardliners about masking with what appears to be pretty good citizen compliance. I can adjust.

I think we knew this was coming. If I recall it was last week or the week before where there were discussions about this during Celebrity's regular TA Zoom calls. After all Celebrity is a co-brand of RCL within RCG. I thought Matt's report on RCL's health protocols sounded a bit harsher in tone than this one from Cruise Critic reads. Maybe it was just me. This is the first time I've seen this link below. I believe it just popped up within the last few hours. It's from the Celebrity web site under their "Healthy at Sea" section and emboldened in the text For an overview of protocols by homeport country, click here It is very precisely and clearly done and easy to read. https://www.celebritycruises.com/content/dam/celebrity/pdf/celebrity-healthy-at-sea-protocols.pdf

You're correct. It doesn't. I'd argue that it is RCL behind on the current COVID science and, surprisingly, its the CDC that seems to have guidance for the vaccinated and unvaccinated pretty much spot on. OK, RCL could be wrong here, right? Well, there's no backing down now. The health protocols for a hybrid pax manifest from FL ports has been published. They've stepped in it and it's not going to scrape off very easily. RCL has about two weeks to figure out a graceful way to back out of this ...... or make cruising from FL ports awfully unappealing. I'm wondering if this isn't corporate planning for a worst case scenario that they feel has a low probability of coming to pass. The accommodation of families with this policy entices family bookings, even though it is an onerous process. While RCLs policy stands in sharp contrast with the rest of the lines, it could turn out to a brilliant move, especially if they know things we don't know involving Governor Desantis or the FL law suit outcome...... or it could blow up in their faces.

....... and this is as good as any place to talk about this. Most cruisers may know about the kind of information that is available to US citizens wishing to travel abroad at the US State Department's web site. Details of COVID risks in just about any place you want to visit or are passing through are available at the link below. I was able to drill down to very specific information about Greece. I mentioned yesterday in another thread that a cruise from Athens that I am scheduled to embark upon on July 9th had an update on health and safety protocols that said masks all the time while aboard except while seated and eating or drinking. I said What? I thought that ridiculous stuff only goes on in the US becasue of the crazy CDC. Well, it turns out that Greece still has an all encompassing mask requirement indoors and outdoors, as far as I can tell, vaccine status not withstanding. My bet is that while in port, you mask. While sailing masking will likely be more relaxed definitely on deck and probably within the ship...... I hope. It is ok to be unmasked on the Greek ferry system when top-side but masked in a ferry's enclosed spaces. But I can see why what was previously described as a no masks required sailing suddenl changed to masks required inside and outside. That's to comply with in-country Greek health protocols that some observant Celebrity employee caught. Of course this may change on all vaxed passenger manifest but better to start off with masks required than to all of a sudden say, well, we didn't tell you to mask before but now we are after everyone is aboard. There's a point here. First, if you do the research, you can find what you need to make you feel comfortable (or not) what country specific protocols are needed (or not)about where you're going. Second, think of what the cruise lines are having to deal with!!! Do them a favor and know before you go. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/before-you-go.html

As would be expected the CDC has made these kinds of "level" ratings as confusing as possible. The one in question involves ratings of levels 1-4 - these ratings can be found at the US State Department's web site and listed as "Travel Advisories." Here's the link: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html Your post seems to be implying, as has long been asked, why are cruise ships different than theme parks, sporting events, indoor casinos, etc.? The defined difference is that cruise ships are considered "congregate settings" wrt to health risk presented within them. The others, although they seem to be that, aren't. You can agree or disagree with the classification of a cruise ship as a congregate setting but it is what it is and with some justification. To confuse matters, the CDC has a section on it's web site, overlapping and confusing it appears, with State's Travel Advisories. At the CDC web site these are called "travel Notices." There are three levels of them. Travel Health Notices inform travelers and clinicians about current health issues that impact travelers’ health, like disease outbreaks, special events or gatherings, and natural disasters, in destinations around the world. Yea, they're subtly different in nature and intent. I find it confusing like most things the CDC does. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices#travel-notice-definitions So to answer your question, first lets define within which system the rating is being applied. In this case it is in the CDC's Travel Health Notices system - there are four levels of COVID risk; cruise ships have just been moved from level 4 (very high) to level 3 (high). The hazy, ill-defined definition is less important than the risks of getting COVID on a cruise ship are moving down. The CDC does not evaluate risks in any of the venues you asked about. Have a look around this web site and click on the link, Learn More About COVID-19 Levels.

Some facts: Indoor congregate settings like cruise ships present an increased risk of becoming infected with both airborne and surface-born pathogens and subsequent acceleration among passengers. The CDC has established guidance that those people vaccinated for SARS2 can "resume activities that you did before the pandemic." Fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance. Masks are required on planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation traveling into, within, or out of the United States and in U.S. transportation hubs such as airports and stations. Travelers are not required to wear a mask in outdoor areas of a conveyance (like on a ferry or the top deck of a bus). CDC recommends that travelers who are not fully vaccinated continue to wear a mask and maintain physical distance when traveling. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html OK, so you've read the facts. I find them clear wrt the increased risks of infection on a cruise ship and a need to address that risk, unclear with respect to passenger behaviors on a cruise ship. There's plenty of wiggle room here with respect to masking. There's no CDC guidance that recommends masking within indoor settings. The CDC requires them on some federally regulated transportation hubs and conveyances but notably not in cruise terminals or on cruise ships. It leaves it up to businesses (cruise lines) to decide on mitigation measures inside their places of business.... and I'm still not completely clear on whether it is state or federal regulatory authority inside a cruise terminal (see previous comments on the FL law suit and what Merryday is likely going to have to deal with) or with respect to the VSP for cruise ships within a port. The determination of that question, if, in fact, it gets addressed and I think it will, is the wild cared in this discussion. IMO. If Merryday definitively rules or even suggests that the CSO conflicts with a businesses right or the state's authority to regulate cruise ship's and it's ancillary support operations and is, in part or fully unlawful, our discussion on this issue becomes moot. TBF, I don't think the CDC guidance presents any barriers to co-mingling of masked (un-vaxed) and unmasked (vaxed) passengers on a cruise ship. I think it is clear that if you are "traveling" and I assume this means on a cruise ship, if you are unvaxed, you should mask except outdoors and in all settings maintain social distancing. Having said that and just in case Merryday rules the CSO is lawful, it seems to me that RCL has unnecessarily complicated it's health and safety protocols on board their ships with what I'd call coercive policies (that they are severely onerous so as to discourage sailing) and unnecessary mitigation measures (e.g., segregation and restricted access). Sure, it's pretty clear RCL is choosing not to confront Desantis on the vaccine issues and is trying to conform to the rules of the CSO but, IMO, in doing that they've made a mess of it. If I were writing the protocols for RCL they'd look something like this: Vaccination is encouraged to board except for children under 16 to August first and under 12 after that. You may choose to not disclose your vaccination status. If you choose to not disclose, you must present proof of a negative molecular (PCR) COVID test within 72h of boarding. This requirement pertains to all passengers including children. Unvaccinated passengers will be listed as such on privately maintained rosters and be subject to randomly scheduled rapid antigen testing at the discretion of RCL. This requirement pertains to all passengers including children. Unvaccinated passengers must follow CDC guidance to mask indoors at all times, except when seated and eating or drinking and when social distancing cannot be maintained. Children under 16 to August 1st and under 12 after that are exempt from a requirement to mask in any setting. Admittedly I struggled with the kids. The science supports very low transmission rates in this cohort so, one could argue they don't need to be surveilled while onboard with a rapid antigen tests. I'm with others here who are vaccinated and don't worry about being among the unvaccinated. I think the risk of infection in this cohort followed by asymptomatic transmission is over-blown. TBC, while I'm in favor of surveilling unvaccinated passengers there are lots of ways to do this effectively without antigen testing everyone. In fact there's a sweet spot to hit with this sort of thing where you avoid potential for high numbers of false positives.

I agree with you. My point is that with RCL choosing a path to restart that involves a hybrid passenger manifest presents RCL with problems like the one you mention. It's going to be very tough to deal with them but apparently they have chosen to so so. I think it's a bad choice. I'll admit, I don't have children I want to take on a cruise right now so, I'm less empathetic with parents who do want to do that than I should be. I have a gut feeling - maybe just a hope - this is all going to be moot in about 2 weeks. I'll post why in a moment.