JeffB

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.

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.