JeffB

This is so blindingly obvious as to bring RCL's selection of and approach to a hybrid passenger manifest into question. It seems to me that RCL"s objective is to make it so onerous for the un-vaxed to cruise that they won't. That's putting coercive policy above health and safety. I applaud the rest of the lines for saying you have to be vaccinated to board. Period, final. Clean, plain and simple.

Nope ...... and I've been watching Court Listener daily. I meant to post an update earlier. Sorry. It does not appear to me Merryday is any hurry to rule on the FL law suit. I'm speculating but I don't think Federal judges are purposeful fence sitters or like to wait around for something to happen that might shape their opinion and ruling. These guys didn't get to the federal benches they sit on because they weren't smart. They climbed a complicated ladder to get to the Federal level. They know the law and they have several clerks around them that do the scutt work if they need refreshers. The reality is that his is very complicated case with far reaching implications. I've already opined that I think Merryday will make a narrow ruling that sticks to the original 5 claims the state made. FL's strongest claim, IMO, is the one that involves the failure of HHS to notify (and by implication, consult) with state health and commerce authorities before they acted. It is my understanding that a PHE does not relieve HHS of that requirement before imposing what amounts to federal policy - another claim the state makes that this sort of thing is in the congressional domain not the executive domain. This is where the legal issues get cloudy. I don't think that the CDC acted unlawfully or even over-reached because they imposed the NSO and the CSO via the VSP. It's possible that they exceeded their authority and of course that is another one of FL's 5 claims. Again, I'm speculating but has everyone noticed that many issues involving cruise ship restarts seem a bit chaotic - just sort of treading water to see who throws the cruise lines, ports and ancillary service providers in the US a life line? Not sure but it seems like involved parties are waiting for clarity to emerge with a ruling - one way or the other - so everyone can get moving ahead. For now, we're at a standstill. What I find interesting is that the uncertainty involving all aspects of a US restart has an impact on what's going on in Europe. I have two cruises booked from European ports. One is in July and the other in October. Both itineraries and/or sailing dates were recently changed. No question both of these changes are a result of shuffling ships around repositioning them. Strangely, on a June 9th update to Celebrity Apex's safety protocols sailing out of Athens, masks were identified as being required, indoors, outdoors and with the only exception being while seated and eating or drinking. Masks are are not required on or off Millennium sailing out of St. Maartin. I checked to see about any health policy changes in Greece that might have precipitated this change. Nothing official although I was advised by email from Celebrity that a tour I had booked through the ship in Lamissol Cyprus dropped an indoor dining stop to sample Souvlaki. All a little strange and somewhat suspicious ...... but as my policy is at this point, I'm going with the flow, whatever it is.

Clearly this is in interesting discussion that highly informed folks are contributing. Fundamentally, a debate might boil down to whether or not RCL values their image as a company with ethics - in this case a willingness to place public perception over profits. I have two good friends, both lawyers. One is a trial lawyer the other interprets regulations as they apply to operational considerations in a large company. When they approach a debate like this the first thing that has to happen is that the system within which the debate is undertaken must be defined and bounded. If it isn't, it usually gets our of control and gets the two sides nowhere. Often, while the law is helpful, the debate hinges not on it but rather on the more vague aspects of morals and ethics. We can probably answer the legal question easily: Is RCL obligated to refund a cruise fare? The answer is found under the rules the company has established in the cruise contract every passenger agrees to. IMO, knowing what I know about cruise contracts and the circumstance at hand, the answer is no. Immediately, that defaults the system within which this question is being debated to the realm of ethics and morals. IOW, is it unethical or amoral for RCL to not refund a cruise fare under the specific circumstances we have at hand? In the strictest sense the term Caveat Emptor applies. OTH, that response avoids the question of how much good will is RCL willing to purchase. One can dance around all the niceties of should and could do this or that, but it's going to boil down to the question that RCL execs are going to have to answer. I have no doubt, they know the cost and how much they are willing to pay for good will, PR, retaining loyal customers and grabbing up customers from other companies who will pay less for those things than RCL might, losing some of them in the process that then switch over to RCL I think big corporations of today care much less about the ethics and morality of their choices than they do about share prices, profits and executive pay. That trend has been ongoing for a long time. Those are the hard truths that underlay this particular debate. The weight of those truths tend to tip the scales of justice in one particular way that isn't favorable for the OP and those who post in support of him as much as his position - give the man his money back - is ethically and morally appealing. That, and what @CruiseGus has to say about this.

This thread topic caught my eye only because my wife uses it with good effect for osteoarthritis in her hands. If I hadn't seen this, I never would have thought about whether or not one can travel with it. Domestically, the simple answer is yes. Internationally, you have to check in-country laws for CBD products. Keep in mind, CBD products are not the same thing as a bag of MJ or a few joints you try to stick in your luggage. That's a no-no. I only looked at the laws in one place - Greece. Googling it was easy and I got the information I needed and in general, yes, you can legally have it in your possession in Greece. I have my doubts that an RCL CSR will know about CBD products in countries they visit. I suspect they might know if there is a cruise line policy that prohibits carrying it. My research indicates it's not a prohibited product by domestic TSA or onboard ship. However, I'd pack it in clear sight with other toiletries in your luggage where you usually put such things, don't try to hide it and then don't ask if it's OK. You'll find out if it's not on inspection. I also read that dogs trained to smell cannabis products don't alert on specific types of CBD products available OTC in a store. In my google searching, this article popped up. Its a good read on the subject: https://www.smartertravel.com/traveling-with-cbd-oil/

@JasonOasismakes a strong case for fairness on RCL's part given shifting rules and restrictions not present at the time of booking. Like any business, cruise lines are sensitive to public perceptions of their character and honesty. We see them embracing all sorts of popular movements, e.g., Save the Seas, among many others, to advance the companies public image. That's the easy part. The hard part is actually delivering, it is especially hard when it comes to the impact on profitability of any particular customer friendly or image polishing policy they might adopt. I'd be wildly guessing what the cost of offering full refunds would be to RCL if a whole lot of customers meet specific requirements to obtain one. @JSB_Z51's argument, based on his particular circumstances seems to fall within reasonable circumstances for him to be offered a full refund. I have no doubt, however, that RCL's existing cruise contract is water tight with respect to their obligation to accept special circumstances as a reason to refund a cancelled cruise fare. What's going on now is, indeed, new territory and I would agree that customers who have stuck it out with Royal over the last 16 months should be recognized and rewarded. But I can see the blue suits with calculators telling their bosses a widely applicable refund policy, even for limited and very specific COVID related reasons, would be too costly. My bet is that RCL calculates a wave of dissatisfied passengers will ebb and hard core Royal customers who chose to bail will be replaced by others. Not saying this is right or ethical. Just saying capitalism can be ugly. Workers and customers are routinely disempowered and often treated unfairly..... at least that was Carl Marx and Vlad Lenin's claim.

@UNCFanatikI looked and can't find a unambiguous statement in the applicable crew section of the CSO that requires a ship to retest a vaccinated crew member after they have gone through the required new crew embarkation protocols that include receiving a vaccination. It may be there and you may know where it is. Please share. It's nearly impossible for most of us diving into the CSO as it is displayed at the CDC web site and make sense of it. I think if you'd been following the evolution of the CSO and it's updates like I would expect all levels of medical staff - corporate and operations - to be doing, its probably more understandable. I do know that as a routine screening measure, the CDC does not recommend testing vaccinated people. I realize there's a difference between congregate setting and those that aren't that as the CDC defines them. Odyssey was apparently tesing vaccinated crew members and it may have had something to do with the complicated color coding system that's been around for a while. No telling. If for some obscure reason in the CSO it's required, fine. If not ......???? In my post above I applauded RCL's step above and beyond to test vaccinated crew but on further review, if it's not required, doing it sets up an unending circle jerk of testing, quarantine, testing as @LizzyBee23 points out. That's not helpful at all.

@CruiseGus good catch. Your math seems to support that RCL has obtained and is using the J&J vaccines. One might ask, is the J&J vaccine ( a carrier or traditional vaccine) less effective than the two mRNA vaccines, Pfiser's and Moderna's? First I want to be clear there is a difference between efficacy (a term used to evaluate how well a vaccine provides protection from it's intended target - SARS2/COVID - in clinical trials and effectiveness or how well a vaccine protects against both the acquisition of infection and its transmission to others in the real world. These two terms cannot be used interchangeably and they frequently are. In clinical trials the mRNA vaccines blow away the traditional or carrier vaccines, like the J&J product in terms of efficacy (95% and 75% respectively). The bottom line is that in terms of effectiveness in the real world in preventing unwarted outcomes from a SARS2 infection they are all effective, none more effective than the other based on rather short term data. Accuracy of that assessment grows over years. Right now, it's impossible to correctly conclude any of the currently approved vaccines are less effective than another. Two points: Influenza vaccines are, on average and over decades of measurement somewhere between 35% and 50% effective. At this level, they keep flu from becoming a pandemic trouble maker. Even flu epidemics are rare. Controlled outbreaks with minimal disease burden are common. The approved SARS2 vaccines are miles ahead of flu vaccines and over the long term we should expect them to perform better than flu vaccines in eliminating pandemics and epidemics but not local outbreaks. Hopefully those outbreaks won't stress medical care systems like SARS2 did initially. The J&J vaccine has significant advantages over the mRNA vaccines in terms of handling and administration. We know what these are so no need to repeat them. I have no problem with cruise lines using the easier to handle and administer J&J product. If people are thinking that RCL should have used the mRNA vaccines to get better protection for its crews, that's the wrong way to look at it. As many shots into arms as quickly and as easily as possible should be any agency's guiding principle in vaccine administration. So far, taking that approach has not diminished the overall effectiveness of global vaccination programs in protecting against hospitalizations and deaths as well as reducing transmission rates. This is true regardless of which WHO approved vaccine is being administered.

In this environment cruising is risky ..... travel is risky. Our goal should be to mitigate those risks so that whatever risk one is taking is acceptable. That starts with anticipating and identifying them and then determining if you're willing to lose a pile of money because of a bad outcome on the risk you took. Buying insurance with a rider that allows cancel for any reason is something cruisers should be anticipating the need for and getting it even though it's expensive. I think @JSB_Z51 is correct that no one was thinking this thing was going to last for 16 months and nearly scuttle the cruise industry. Vaccines were wishful thinking even by late summer 2020...... but they were on the horizon. It just tuned out we got them sooner than expected and, wow, they work waaaay better than expected in controlling SARS2 transmission. We know this but it bears repeating in this context: People that are vaxed have a probability of death from COVID that is ZERO, serious illness < 1% and catching it at all around 2-3%. The risk of unvaccinated asymptomatic spreaders increases those probabilities in a hybrid pax manifest, albeit it is still low but apparently not low enough for most the cruise lines that have, for the most part, gone with a requirement to get vaccinated to sail. At this point, folks wanting to cruise have a choice. Get vaccinated or don't. If one choses to not get vaccinated and a cruise line allows you to board but with restrictions, you have a choice. Put up with them or don't. Not a single cruise line is forcing anyone to get vaccinated. Choice is the byword in all aspects of vaccination policy. What the lines are doing with current vaccine policy (subject to change) is pursing their self defined moral and ethical responsibility to create a safe onboard environment for crew and passengers. Their definition of what constitutes "safe" is debatable. That they can do that lawfully is not. IMO, if one is eligible and able, choosing not to get vaccinated to board a line that requires it is a choice to not cruise. Choosing to not get vaccinated and not to put up with mitigation restrictions imposed on un-vaxxed is a choice .... to cancel actually. I do agree with @JSB that RCL has an obligation to do what is right, not withstanding @Ampurp85 quip on right and wrong being "moral constructs that have no business in business." I don't think asking for a refund is inappropriate given the past and present circumstances. You did not say, but if RCL is offering a FCC - and I believe this can be an option in your situation under RCL's Cruise With Confidence program - and you turn this down, you're turning down an accommodation that makes barriers to you receiving a full refund difficult to over-come. Not saying the right TA or CSR won't go to bat for you and make it happen. If that's what you want you should try for it. Hearty clap for good TAs.

Some data ...... 130M mRNA vaccines have been administered in the US. 283 cases of myocarditis (inflammation of cardiac tissues) and pericarditis (an inflammation of the pericardium - the sack that enfolds the heart) have been reported. The concentration of this adverse event is in the under 30 age cohort. The normal rate of occurrence of this condition for all age groups, often associated with viral illnesses, is 102. This means that excess cases of this inflammatory condition are in the 200+ range. Excess case reports of myocarditis beyond the expected number of these case reports, is the driving factor for the FDA. It is also a routine process when any new drug is introduced in the US. Side effects are carefully studied over the first 1-2y. It has been reported that more than 80% of the cases reported to date have recovered - no long term damage to heart tissue is expected from this condition. It remains uncertain if there is causality. You'll recall the AZ vaccine went through the same process with blood clots. After more rigorous review, causality was still not clear and benefit of vaccination was greater than the risk. Right now that is the CDC's position on mRNA vaccines for young adults, in particular under 18s. I remain supportive of individual choice to forego vaccination. I also support a businesses or government agency's right to require them to enter or receive services from said business or agency in an effort to create a safe environment for employees and customers. As long as such a policy does not run afoul of EEOC regulations that prevent discriminatory policies, it has been lawful for a long time and recent legal precedent has reaffirmed that it is. I personally don't see Desantis as a bad guy holding up cruising. He is pursuing a reasonable objective - there will not be two classes of FL residents: the haves and the have nots. Obviously, that policy objective potentially conflicts with federal law. It hasn't been settled in court and may not have to be but I respect the Governor's stand though I don't agree with it. IMO, Governments should be doing everything they can to get as many people as possible vaccinated. The West is on the verge of getting SARS2 under control. That it has approached a level of control so quickly was unexpected. That the virus has a decreasing pool of hosts it can infect is good news. That there is still a pool of hosts where the virus can percolate and become more survivable isn't good news. Considering the availability of safe vaccines to reduce the population of that group, with minimal risk of adverse outcomes, advocacy of vaccination for everyone who is eligible makes sense.

Some details ....... already mentioned, 8 positives, 6 asymptomatic, 2 with mild symptoms. Noteworthy that crew were vaccinated on 4 June with 2nd shot on the 18th so vaccine had not reached full effectiveness. There's no fault here on RCL's part for appearing to rush into this, IMO. Evidence suggests that 1 dose of any of the approved vaccines provides some protection. These 8 were just unlucky and among those that didn't mount a robust immune response after one dose. No big deal. As we know, the CDC does not recommend screening of vaccinated people. However, this is a special case ...... congregate setting designation applies. I'm glad crew are being screened even after vaccination. What this approach demonstrates is how on top of the science RCL's medical advisors are. The 14d quarantine is also above and beyond. CDC recommends 10d for asymptomatics, 10d after resolution of symptoms for symptomatics. There are advocates in Europe for a 7d quarantine. While in most settings, infection among the vaccinated is rare, potentially a higher probability with just one dose (to my knowledge RCL is not using the J&J vaccines) but still, this is a above and beyond for health and safety. You have to love that for us, hate it for positive crew who it is reported are confined to cabins. This absolutely sucks and I believe the entire Odyssey crew (probably non-essential types) are also confined. Cancelling Odyssey sailings also sucks but this demonstrates how the cruise industry and RCL in particular does not want any damaging PR. This has not become a major story. It's back page news. Fortunately the press is occupied with the Biden/Putin Summit. If that wasn't the case cruising would be getting pilloried by the uninformed. I too favor a fully vaccinated passenger manifest. RCG has chosen a hybrid approach for sailings from FL ports while most others have chosen to require full vaccination to board - the Desantis ban being ignored. One has to be careful, though, of saying this is an unsafe approach. It is low risk and the recent Odyssey's circumstance doesn't apply to that protocol. What does apply is specific locale (best by county) viral prevalence. The metric to assess that is % positive. For those traveling to sail from PEV here's Broward Co's numbers: County 2021 population People vaccinated Percent 12+ vaccinated Cases Case positivity People vaccinated Cases New case positivity Cases per 100,000 population Broward 1,965,657 1,042,256 62% 243,765 16.0% 21,720 1,243 2.7% 63.2 This data is through 6/14/21 - 2w after the Memorial day weekend where experts were concerned about a surge in new cases - didn't happen. The 62% vaccination rate is the primary reason. RCG has chosen a path to restart in FL that does not confront Desantis. The strikingly low viral prevalence in and around PEV (Miami, Tampa Orlando and Jacksonville are also all under 5%) makes RCL's choice reasonable. If Carnival and NCL ignore the Desantis Ban, that, IMO, opens a can of worms for both companies. To avoid penalties, they'll have to go to court. They will most certainly prevail, and they may be leveraging the TX case to force Desantis to back down, but I can see RCL's approach being a reasonable option to proceed.

Some details ..... the two passengers that tested positive for COVID obtained those results through required pre-debarkation testing protocols for return to the US from St. Maartin by air (a requirement to re-enter the US at an airport traveling from abroad). It was not reported but I assume they were asymptomatic and the test was a rapid antigen not a molecular (PCR) test. Side note: Never get an Antibody test to determine if you have COVID after being vaccinated. It will test positive for ABs. There is a chance that these positive results are false positives. A retest by PCR should be done to confirm the positive. This would or should be protocol either by RCG or St. Maartin authorities but it is not being reported and probably can't be reported by either Celebrity or St. Maartin authorities publicly. I'm not sure what port agreements Celebrity has with St. Maartin health authorities for handling positive COVID cases debarking from a cruise ship. I assume that the two positive passengers were placed in quarantine in a agreed upon hotel in St. Maartin. The US guidance is 10d if asymptomatic or 10d after symptoms end. Per my understanding of Celebrity policy all expenses associated with this, including rearranging air transport, are paid for by Celebrity. Obvioulsy if a confirmatory PCR test was negative, they will be released from quarantine and fly home using that test to reenter a US airport. CDC does not recommend surveillance screening for vaccinated people using rapid molecular or antigen tests. So that's not at issue here. That's not RCG policy and that's not what happened aboard Millennium as might have been implied in earlier posts. The only time testing is warranted for a vaccinated person is if defined contact was made with a confirmed COVID positive person or if COVID symptoms are present or if state, federal (e.g., arriving at a US transportation hub from abroad) or local regulations require it (it's an exception if they do - not many do). Otherwise, no. A CDC recommendation for fully vaccinated travelers returning to the US from international destinations is that they should have a viral test (molecular or rapid antigen) 3-5d after arriving back in the US. I think this is reasonable given essentially unknown levels of viral prevalence where you have visited and the presence of variants. This is especially true for higher risk cohorts. Although experts think the currently known variants are covered by vaccines, that's not yet fact and new variants continue to emerge. You don't want to come back and be an asymptomatic spreader of the Delta variant. Carry on.

Cruisers are experiencing first world problems. Meanwhile much of the world is either trying to find safety amid horrible violence or find enough food to survive. Thousands continue to die from COVID for lack of adequate medical care. Perspective. Every business operation tries to control the variables to the extent they can do that. The more control of them the more predictable achieving desired outcomes become. I cannot imagine the difficulty RCG, with a huge number of moving parts, is dealing with the variables and uncertainties attached to most of them. There are some constants for sure, like fuel and food planning, maintenance schedules but those constants or controllable variables are outnumbered 10:1 by factors that have direct impact on the customer experience and are changing daily. Most of them involve on board health and safety policies and procedures - what is the requirement from the feds and the states today? Some of them have to do with changing port regulations, again, these are country and state specific - a lot of them completely different. My view is that RCG principles - Bayley, Fain and Lutoff-Perlo - have done an outstanding job of getting ships ready to sail, actually sailing already in Europe or are soon to sail there, and are about to restart with dozens of ships sailing from several US ports under the most arduous business circumstances I think any major company has had to deal with. Therefore, I can excuse what may be perceived as a lack of transparency, a CSR dropping the ball or often unclear and frequently changing health and safety policies. I'm not going to worry if a future sailings check in doesn't open when I expect it to. I'll follow every rule both at check in at the pier and onboard that as a passenger I'm expected to follow. I can't advocate for RCG doing more than they already are or much differently than they are doing it. I'll be sailing on Celebrity Apex out of Athens on 7/9/21. Once aboard, my mission will be to locate every department director - because these are the guys/gals where the buck stops - and tell them what a fantastic job they have done getting us back to cruising. On my last day, I'll find them all again and tell them how much I enjoyed every minute of the cruise. Then I'll get ready for my next cruise out of PEV in August aboard Apex ........ grateful and thankful to have the opportunity to cruise again.

In a tangentially related court case in Texas where employees sued a hospital over their policy to require all employees to be vaccinated was dismissed by the judge hearing this case. What the ruling reaffirms is that employers in "at will" states like both Texas and FL are (employed at the discretion of the employer and according to the employers rules) have the right to terminate employees who don't follow established rules. That the ruling reaffirms a businesses right to mandate vaccines in the pursuit of their moral and ethical responsibility to provide a safe environment is critical. The reaffirmation of a businesses right to mandate vaccines set by this ruling in a Federal Court in TX is going to weaken the ability of Desantis to continue insisting that cruise lines can't mandate vaccinations to board. No one with a brain thought this Desantis law would stand up to a legal challenge and a challenge in another state gives weight to the assertion it won't In the reaffirmation of an employers right to mandate vaccines for employees by extension, and in pursuit of creating a safe environment for both employees and customers, it would seem to me to extend to cruise ship passengers (customers in name). IMO, this plays no role in how Merryday will rule on the FL Law Suit but it's chipping away at barriers to safely restart cruising from US ports in FL and Texas when a line wants everyone that sails to be vaccinated. Note Carnival has announced that it will be sailing ships from FL ports with only vaccinated guests. Seems like they knew this was coming.

That is my understanding as well. When states started throwing curveballs at the cruise lines with the no mandatory vaccine questions stuff but the lines figured out that these laws made it ok to have pax volunteer that information, that was a new kind of hybrid mix. OTH, I think it makes complete sense that if you hit that 95% threshold, masks become a personal choice for everyone aboard. I don't think there is a study that reveals risks of infection as a function of % not vaccinated in a congregate setting. The CDC's guidance for review is here, a link much better than the CDC web site for the purposes of clarity and brevity is below that: With the new CDC recommendations (Box), fully vaccinated people can share a meal or movie night in their private residence, without masks or physical distancing. Fully vaccinated people can also do these things with unvaccinated family and friends; however, prevention measures (such as wearing masks and physical distancing) should be maintained if any unvaccinated people are at risk of severe COVID-19 or if multiple households of unvaccinated people are mixing together. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536 IMO, the risks of an unvaxed person, not masking and transmitting the virus to a vaccinated and unmasked person is so low as, under normal circumstances, to not worry about it. But aboard ship, officially classified as a congregate setting and with the lines wishing to keep risk as close to zero as possible for obvious reasons, I'd not be surprised that any hybrid mix of pax will precipitate a mask mandate in selected venues, not all, but selected ones. I won't speculate there. Lets see what comes out of the Edge sailing on the 26th.

I cannot overstate the importance of vaccines to dampen R(0) - you'll recall this is the rate of acceleration of virus prevalence. Below 1.0 its receding, above it its proliferating. You'll also remember the term "flatten the curve." This was used early in the pandemic to change behaviors to accomplish a decrease in R(0). Promoting science based mitigation measures is still a meaningful objective. We've come a long way in determining what works and what doesn't; which costs to implement them are acceptable and which aren't. Vaccinations, along with good mitigation measures and herd immunity WILL work to dampen R(0). The cruising public is particularly aware because we've been following the CSO and Healthy Sail Panel recommendations. We know some of the CSO is pretty wild and it would be nice if this just disappeared and the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations replaced it. We know how well things can go under the right set of circumstances. Either way, the lines are ready to sail with an onboard environment that is safer than anywhere else I can think of where there is regular human interaction and contact. The US's cruising states may reach a level where as many vaccinations as possible have been administered and it may not be enough to fully dampen whatever rise is likely to occur seasonally. That does not mean cruise lines will again be shut down like they were in an all or nothing move by HHS/CDC in March 2020. I'd offer that even a rise in new case numbers without a rise in deaths and hospitalizations may not negatively affect cruising from US, European and Asian ports. That is because, as you say, we are entering a phase of new normalcy with respect to infectious diseases like SRAS2. These aren't going away. At the same time, a panic induced economic shut-down is not likely to be in the cards. Too costly on multiple levels. A rise in new case numbers absent an increase in disease burden - what we're seeing right now in the UK - allows officials making public health policy to accept more risks. The cruise industry is exceptionally well placed to deal with the new normal - better than other places for sure. Despite the generally poorly informed public regarding the actual risks of accelerating COVID infections on board a cruise ship and the risk of introducing large scale community spread at ports of call, all levels of government including public health officials understand that cruising can continue even with a reasonable up-tick in new cases - EU and Asian experience since June of 2020 has demonstrated it can be done conditionally and with that proviso safely. There is no question that here in the US, HHS/CDC has become better informed about the risk-benefit-cost calculations involved in shutting the cruise industry down last year. I don't see that happening again going forward...... but I'm unabashedly a glass half full person.

Yeah, I kinda hijacked the thread ...... it's the only one talking about vaccines, don't want to start another and raise anxiety levels over this touchy subject. But your point is taken. I think the difficulty associated with onboard enforcement of separate protocols for the unvaccinated (anyone who does not wish to disclose vaccination status) is tricky. The cruise lines seem to have no problem with requiring those considered unvaccinated to pay for an RT-PCR COVID test, be tested and then wait for results before boarding. There are Rapid molecular RT-PCR tests and Rapid COVID Antigen tests with results available in < 1h. Still, a negative test result does not guarantee an unvaccinated guest hasn't been infected within the last 48-72h before antigens or viral particles are sufficient to register a positive. That's where the likelihood of a requirement that everyone sailing from US ports be masked increases. I like @WhiteSoxFantake on Apex. We need to be watching that boarding evolution and mask protocols.

Something worth understanding re SARS2 Variant, Delta ....... Something interesting has emerged in COVID reporting. The MSM is providing balance. Some folks here are aware becasue you look for it but the folks who don't follow cruising like we do on the periphery, the ones who really need to know, don't. Cases have stopped falling in the US and the Delta variant is thought to be part of the problem. The other is regional low vaccination rates. Alone this news could be more of the dire consequences stuff we've become accustomed to from the press. But no ......for the first time since I've been watching (and bitching about it's absence in reporting on COVID) deaths and hospitalizations are loudly proclaimed as continuing to drop. The NYT had a graph that showed a steep rise in new cases in the UK - all of it due to Delta which describes 90% of new infections there. Superimposed on that graph of rising case numbers is deaths. That graph continues its steep decline. The UK is one of the few countries globally that has a high vaccination rate among it's population and the continuing steep decline in deaths is attributed to that. The message here is that falling vaccination rates in the US could slow a return to normalcyNot mentioned in the NYT's piece is the path that Boris Johnson chose to pursue which was to get more shots into arms by significantly delaying administration of a second dose - that was recently reversed and at risk Brits are getting their second dose on an urgent basis. There's a good chance that the lack of a second dose is behind an increase in transmissibility and attendant steep rise in new cases. The takeaway here, also not mentioned in recent reports of this circumstance is that you can't draw parallels to the circumstance in the US which is approaching 60% of the population vaccinated at least once and 50% twice. The US also has a high per capita rate of SARS2 infections which is known to confer some degree of immunity - the level of it over time is unknown for now - but the US is theoretically closer to a level of herd immunity that may, by itself, tamp down R(0) [the rate of increase of infections) in the coming months.The takeaway here is that the vaccines plus high levels of herd immunity are capable of restoring normalcy to cruising more quickly than most expected. However, those who are able and refusing to get vaccinated are hindering that effort. Those are the facts; this isn't about the politics or emotions surrounding vaccinations. The science does support that if you had COVID and developed detectable ABs, you're likelihood of contracting COVID is about 10X less than uninfected persons without ABs. However the data is preliminary, not peer reviewed and goes out to only 120d. After that the question is, how long does natural immunity last? We don't know - studies are ongoing but any loss of natural immunity might stoke a seasonal jump in infection prevalence this fall. We also know that the unvaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic viral shedders to what degree others may become infected is not known but it is theoretically possible. We do know this: 6 months of vaccine availability has allowed small studies following people that got vaccinated in December. This group shows a stronger AB presence than those with natural immunity only. Vaccination significantly boosts an AB response from previous COVID infection IOW, vaccines produce a more robust immune response than natural immunity does. That unquestionably relates to lower rates of transmission across all age cohorts.We know that relying on new case numbers as a measure of disease control and disease burden or lack of it is unreliable, there are better measures, right? Do politicians who ultimately make PH policy decisions know this? Is there a risk of an uninformed public putting pressure on these politicians andHHS/CDC officials to "do something" when case numbers rise in the US? Is shutting down cruising a highly visible, easy to do thing and is cruising at risk? The answer is obvious. Ways to reduce risks of that happening?: Keep case numbers low. Get vaccinated. BTW, FL is in good shape. If you're interested this is the state report through 6/4/21. The graphs showing vaccine impact by age group says it all ...... http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid19-data/covid19_data_latest.pdf

On getting aggravated by the uncertainty of it all ........ put it in perspective. Since probably sometime in late fall of 2020 it became apparent the pandemic wasn't going to go away and would be around for a while messing with our work, our play and every social aspect of our lives. We started feeling despondent about a return to cruising - that was the case for me. Those feelings were confirmed by rising rates of infection after the Christmas Holiday with eased restrictions. Vaccines started rolling out in December and those early vaccines were available only to at risk groups. Then came a series of hopeful events: targeted vaccines were reducing overall transmission as well as deaths and hospitalizations among all groups and this wasn't by just a little bit. Rates declined almost miraculously. The State of FL sues HHS/CDC and that prompts similar, tagential congressional activity. Reports from Europe and Asia indicated conditional sailings were going off without a hitch in terms of SARS2 outbreaks. Moreover, if there was a positive case on board, it was handled - the health and safety protocols on board these early sailings worked, most of them coming from the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations. These without any government oversight in design or implementation. Free Enterprise ONE, Government regulation and oversight ZERO. Europe, the Caribbean and Asia were looking good for cruises to restart and be available for bookings by US citizens. Many of us booked cruises from those regions when they started showing up on RCL's and Celebrity's web sites. @Mattis on one now and reporting back to us. Celebrity Edge will sail from PEV on June 26th barring any unforeseen changes. The line-up of cruises after that is substantial. So, what's the point? Well, cruising has restarted and although it's slow going to start for US Citizens and shipboard passenger protocols are still missing for cruises now scheduled to sail inside 90d, momentum is building. The FL Lawsuit and State's Governors implementing laws that essentially are preventing cruise lines from sailing from US ports and requiring all passengers to be vaccinated, while a bump in the road it seems, these laws HAVE NOT stopped RCG and others from pressing ahead with work-arounds to those laws. I feel confident that missing, vague or unclear passenger protocols will emerge after Merryday rules this coming week ..... one way or the other. To the cruise Iines, how Merryday rules probably doesn't matter. They are prepared for any outcome at this point. That preperations allows wide-spread restarts without compromising the lines obligations to provide a safe ship-board environment wrt infectious disease. Dozens of ships are scheduled to sail from US ports in July and August and passengers and crew will be safer than ever from becoming ill on board. .......a silver lining so to speak. Personally, and I'll repeat, I don't think a Merryday ruling not in favor of FL will be disruptive to sailings cautiously scheduled and open for booking now from any of the FL ports. You have to congratulate all the cruise lines for where we are today, June 14th 2021 ..... ready to go. You have to take into consideration that the two pathways that will probably emerge next week following a Merryday ruling - (1) a restart under the provisions of the CSO or parts of it or (2) a restart under the provisions of The Healthy Sail Panel Recommendations, unanimously adopted by CLIA member. The most significant difference between these two restart options is that there is no governmental oversight to assure compliance with the provisions of the Healthy Sail Panel's recommendations. When the cat's away, will the mice play? Not IMO. Free Enterprise TWO, Government regulation and oversight, ZERO. The risk of an outbreak that accelerates aboard ship and spreads from disembarked crew or passengers to local communities would be financially devastating to the lines. There's adequate protocols and processes in place to prevent that occurrence -some of them already adapted from both the CSO and the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations. Pressure on the lines to play it safe and the financial costs of screwing this up are just too great to restart cavalierly and without self imposed methods of assuring compliance with any non-government implemented health and safety protocols and procedures. Happy sailing ?

Sort-of ....... as of yesterday, there were 85 motions from various parties logged on the court docket. If you've been following this thread you know they involve third parties entering Amicus briefs in support of the FL suit, objections to adding them from the defendants. requests to join the law suit (TX and Alaska) as co-complainants and objections from the defendants to such motions. There's also several technical filings involving court procedure that have no bearing on the arguments/facts of the case. The case has become complicated and you saw in Matt's posts above that Merryday has said, "there are a lot of moving parts ..... and I can only make one ruling." This signals to me that FL has crossed all the thresholds for Merryday to rule (e.g. standing). That is something HHS/CDC has argued against .If you go back to the original claim that was filed by FL it was under Administrative Procedures and Agency Actions. That probably makes it possible for Merryday to consider a rather narrowly defined case that might not take not account the harm FL, TX and Alaska claim as substantial economic harm. At the initial filing, I felt FL had a very strong case from the arguments we saw in filed motions. To wit, FL was never given proper notice or consulted. In response HHS/CDC lawyers filed their motions pointing out they did do both of those things. I thought this was weak sauce because, well, the didn't. They just charged right in, considered doing something or nothing and without consultation with the state PH or transportation officials closed all FL ports to cruise ship traffic. If that was it, FL wins. But it isn't and that became known to us as the motions and counter motions unfolded. HHS/CDDC claim that they acted within their authority given the PHE and granted in U.S.C. 42, section 245. The VSP is within those documents. I read all of it and at that point, felt the FL case had been weakened but still had life. Life came in the form of FL's response that cited the laws that regulate commerce within ports. It's here that I think a case can be made that the HHS/CDC didn't have the authority to do that without consulting both FL and it's involved agencies and the US Department of Commerce - a federal agency that should have been in on the CDC's decision to shut down legitimate commerce in the form of cruise ships. If this were a complete and accurate recap of both sides arguments, the CSO gets enjoined. But it's been pointed out to me that both the law and the spirit of the law help to inform a federal judges ruling. This is where I think it gets very complicated. I also think that as the case unfolded, even though the CDC was scrambling, they made a decent argument that the CSO is a reasonable path forward. We can argue the details but the spirit of the CSO has served a purpose and the cruise lines have complied. Timely? I don't think so and that equates to points in FL's scoreboard. Too arduous so as to make it as difficult as possible to get cruising started faster than the CDC wanted it to? Clearly it was They based this hesitancy to grant an unconditional restart of cruising, correctly defined as a potentially high risk of disease acceleration based on it's definition as a congregate setting. You can disagree with that, you can argue but, but, the Healthy Sail Panel!!!! Wasn't that just as good and much more workable? The ultimate agency to green light the industry once the NSO was lifted is properly the CDC ...... back to the original question - did the CDC exceed it's authority in implementing the NSO? I can see Merryday's ruling going either way. Certainly, his ruling is going to contain questions regarding the clarity of the applicable laws. He'll write in the form of a question, to what extent does existing law grant the CDC authority in a PHE and opine it's not clear. He'll add clarifying vague laws to make them clear is the role of congress not his. I think based on the economic damage the NSO and subsequently the burdensome CSO wrought on the travel and leisure sector of the global economy, because it was so extensive, economic interests WILL come into play although HHS/CDC has worked hard to argue they shouldn't. What else might come up is an opinion that there should have been better oversight through cross agency consultation at the federal level and that isn't covered in the current law - at least not that I can find. It's a tough case and I'm going to fence sit. Regardless the outcome, I think the cruise industry is well positioned to adapt to however Merryday rules.

Personally, I'm comfortable with what Celebrity appears to be doing. I have three cruises booked through October, two of them from EU ports and both having vaccine with proof required for boarding and one from PEV and I'm assuming this will sail with the vaccination strongly recommended proviso. The EU appears to be trending toward vaccines required for entry to businesses and services from them. So the Celebrity sailing from EU ports comports with this trend. As well, if traveling from the US to an airport located in an EU country you're going to need a vaccination with proof to enter unencumbered with health protocols. While you can enter most EU countries as of June 1st without being vaccinated, if you choose not to, the pandemic/health related hoop jumping is complicated and varies. It gets really hard if you are traveling by air to one place in the EU and make a stopover at another in a different country your going to face different health protocols at each. The one concern I have with a hybrid pax manifest, not shared by my wife, is the potential for conflict/confrontation between vaxed and unvaxed guests. Vaccines and requirements to get them are obviously a hot button issue. I remember guests becoming seriously aggravated when diners didn't dress up for "formal nights" and visa-versa. Disagreements over vaccines are at an entirely different level of staked out emotional positions than dress codes. Hopefully everyone will be cordial and accepting of the choices of other travelers on my August cruise out of PEV but I have a feeling that's fanciful thinking ...... of course lots can change between now and August on this issue. If given a choice, I think Celebrity, at least, would like to require vaccinations. The choice for those eligible but not vaxed if Celebrity goes back to that policy is to choose RCL or lines that won't be requiring vaccinations.

That two related law suits are pending - the one in FL v. CDC/HHS over the CSO and the one filed in Texas yesterday by hospital employees alleging they can't be forced to be vaccinated to remain employed at the hospital - is not going to stop the cruise lines from pressing ahead with scheduled/booked cruises from FL ports or even less likely they'll be interrupted by any of this, European and Asian ports. We have known for the last couple of weeks that the lines have been preparing for many contingencies and in the case of RCG (RCL & Celebrity) have plans with some flexibility. Both lines have been very careful to not release a host of detailed and specific health and safety protocols. They've been doing some publishing of them, e.g., both lines going to vaccinations strongly recommended instead of required and RCL and Celebrity appearing to take different approaches to that - but there is always the rejoinder - "subject to change." I have Celebrity cruises booked in July from Athens, August from PEV and Barcelona in October. So far, I feel about as informed as is possible by Celebrity and I'm taking the position that I'm going to adjust to whatever. It's not easy as I am an obsessive planner. Just was notified that my Barcelona East Bound Trans-Lant in October has been moved up two weeks and with an itinerary change. I've already taken steps to make changes to insurance, hotel and tour reservations associated with that cruise. I didn't book air .... yet ..... but when I do, it will be with FlightsByCelebrity.

Popping up today is defendant's response to the motion by Alaska to intervene (join FL's law suit as a co-complainant). You can read their argument in the link below. It is mostly related to dates of Alaska's filing - a technical matter. See @CGTLHlink above. Contained in the motion is a recap of FL's law suit history and the basic arguments that defendant's are offering. One of them is that FL (Alaska and Texas) have not established standing (harm). They argue that relying on economic damage to businesses operating in their state is not sufficient to establish harm to the state. You be the judge on this one. They also argue that the CSO is within the authority of the CDC and defendant's view of the applicable law. I've read those laws and to the extent that the CDC has operated within them, I believe they have NOT exceeded their authority. JMO ..... however, their argument ignores the issues of overlapping federal and state authority and implications of the term, "to the water's edge." Recently emerging questions involve the legality of the Desantis ban. This is only tangentially related to the FL law suit but it is driving a fundamental argument of FL's attorneys. That is that the CSO's options offered as the two paths to return to cruising from US ports is coercive in that it defaults to the logical conclusion that requiring vaccination to board is the easiest way to go. Given the Desantis ban, RCG appears to be abandoning that approach with work-arounds - either not requiring them and betting that sailings will occur at 95% (Celebrity) or going to test sailings from the start (RCL). NCL and others continue to say they will require vaccinations to board. The issue it seems to me is who is doing the coercion? FL or the CDC. Its easy to conflate what FL is arguing and what the CDC is arguing. The problem for Desantis and it is a very real one is that his ban run's afoul of recent interpretations of the EEOC's laws that deal with the right of businesses to require vaccinations for employees to work on that businesses' premises and customers to enter the premise to receive services. That this is legal under the EEOC laws was established by an official statement from the EEOC this week. There's a law suit in Texas filed by employees of a hospital in Texas challenging that hospital's authority to require them to remain employed. Governor Abbot's ban, like the Desantis ban is at issue. If that lawsuit fails and affirms the rights of businesses to require vaccinations, both Abbot and Desantis will be left on an island with little likelihood that these bans will stand. I think the suit will be heard quickly and dismissed. Hard to say how Abbot, Desantis or cruise lines will act when that happens but I think whatever governments do, the trend for the lines has been and will be going forward to require vaccinations to sail and that will reappear as a requirement quickly. JMO. I have no idea how Merryday ( a staunch conservative) will rule, if he will rule or when he will rule. It's gotten that complicated as interpreting the law usually involves complex laws and issues that spring forth from them. I do think if the CSO is enjoined RCG (and probably others) will default to the recommendations of the Healthy Sail Panel. I've read these as well. They're good because while they incorporate most of the pandemic/health related stuff the CDC has required, the Panel's recommendations do not include regulatory over-sight - the most onerous parts of the CSO. One can argue - and defendant's do - is that who's going to see to it that the cruise lines comply? My response to that is that the cruise lines have every motivation to make cruising safe - in fact make it as close to zero risk as possible. There are also heavy conservative (limit regulatory authority of governments) versus progressive (people and businesses need a lot of regulation) politics involved here.

It's in the 77 page CSO. No time to go back and find it but I distinctly remember that (1) the CSO specifies certain records that must be kept that appeared tome to be above and beyond what the ships would normally keep. (2) There is verbiage in the CSO that stipulates that the CDC at it's sole discretion can place PH personnel on the ship during a cruise to observe operations, check they are in compliance with the updated VSP and are not to be interfered with in the accomplishment of their duties ..... yes, it was when it was published and will be in practice pretty "gestapo like." The lines have become fairly comfortable it appears with CSO compliance in all it's spectacular regulation. It seems they've taken on the meme, "don't rock the boat." I'm getting used to the idea it is going to be a part of the new cruising life for a while. I can live with it. Getting back aboard, even under potentially less desirable circumstances, is my objective at this time. I'm done complaining about stuff. I'll adjust. Let me cruise.

You're going to exceed the knowledge level of most Fort Lauderale residents. Narrow your search using a web service like HotWire. You can put all the criteria you want to filter by and then see what's available. If you come back with your picks, someone here that is a resident will be able to give you a first had recommendation.