JeffB

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.

Yesterday evening multiple docket entries appeared for June 8th. The actual document at the entry is not yet available. The one important motion where the title gives away the content is HHS/CDC asking for an extension to respond to FL's response to one of their motions. Merryday approved an extension to 1 July. This is standard lawyer stuff - ask for extensions, especially when a side thinks their arguments on the law are questionable or that Merryday is going to pull thier pants down in his court room. As I track this case and move forward, I can't avoid the feeling that I really don't care, at this point, what the outcome of the FL suit is. Are FL's attorney's, the Governor, getting tired of being strung along? The defendants probably surmise this is happening - a loss of resolve to pursue an outcome - by the claimants. The docket does not show that the Judge has delayed the hearing scheduled for tomorrow. That might happen today. We'll see.

Good questions. I'll try by offfering my two cents: 1. When someone books with Celebrity on a 95% vaccinated sailing, are they asked about their vaccination status? No, not as I understand it. I think that kind of approach runs afoul of the FL law which RCG (all brands sailing from FL ports) seems to want to comply with - or at least avoid a confrontation with Desantis (the not a hill I want to defend approach). I remain 99% certain the law would fail a court challnge but as I've also opined, why challenge it in a costly and time consuming court battle. Maybe Delrio wants to do that - fine - let him. RCG? Nope. 2. Will there be a CDC or health official in the terminal on embarkation day verifying that the sailing is indeed 95% vaccinated? Probably not but I suspect there will be federal PH officials there to observe operations as the CSO allows for. There will also be CDC health officials on board during the sailing to inspect records the CSO requires. Among those are going to be a record of passengers who did not volunteer their vaccination status. Total Pax, minus that number, divided by 100 determines if Celebrity achieved what they said they would ..... if not it won't end the cruise but the CSC could be revoked preventing future revenue sailings on Edge out of PEV. 3. If so, what is the criteria to authorize a sailing to commence to verify 95% of passengers are vaccinated? No red-light, green light at the terminal. See above. 4. How will CDC/health officials verify at the terminal if the cruise passengers are truly vaccinated? Do they take the word of Celebrity? Will they require guest to show vaccination record at the terminal when checking in? Without verifying vaccination status of guest, can the CDC actually confirm that Celebrity is meeting the vaccine threshold? Not at the terminal but aboard ship and during the sailing verification. I don't think the CDC (or FL State Troopers!) will be there to play bad guys. See above. 5. what happens if the sailing is 90-94% vaccinated for instance, game over? After the fact. See below. In summary, regardless of what Celebrity does, how does the CDC enforce and verify the condition of the CSO is being met? How does the CDC enforce this in the terminal prior to sailing without running afoul of FL vaccine passport law? Determining the actual count of unvaccinated pax aboard isn't difficult given records that the ship is going to have and are available for inspection by CDC officials sailing with Edge. It is clearly in Celebrity's interests to accurately know whether or not the ship reached the 98/95% threshold. That is because their application for and approval of Edge's CSC is dependent on proving that they reached that threshold. Since any CDC enforcement action would likely be after the fact, terminal enforcement isn't necessary. After the fact enforcement would be in the form of revocation of Edge's CSO and a need for Celebrity to reapply for one potentially under a test cruise pathway.

There's some excellent comments following Matt's home page post on Celebrity's updated policy of not "asking for proof of vaccination." I'd recommend you go to the home page and read them. One has to be very clear when stating what Celebrity has decided to do. They aren't asking for proof of vaccination. Statements made by Celebrity officials indicates this is to comply with FL's law. These officials also state that Celebrity ships will still sail at 95% of passengers being vaccinated. It appears that this is a carrot and stick approach and in Matt's report at the home page, Lutof-Perlo states it's on Celebrity to insure they sail at 95% for health and safety reasons and the sailing will be "managed" at the corporate level to accomplish that. I can see exactly how they can do that: (1) If you do not volunteer that you've been vaccinated and prove it, you'll be considered unvaccinated. (2) If unvaccinated and you are over 18 you will be required to undergo an RT-PCR test at the passenger's expense; under 18s, under 16s after August first will be provided an antigen test at Celebrity's expense....... around $200-$300 for the RT-PCR test for adult couples, then sit and wait for the results before you can board, probably for a long time. If you become uncooperative guess what? Denied boarding. (3) If you clear check in screening and testing protocols for those that by their unwillingness to volunteer vaccination status and are therefore considered unvaccinated, once you are aboard, you will be subject to the rules of the ship's master and protocols he may require that those who volunteered their vaccination status and could prove it will not be subject to. Masks, distancing, potential for denied disembarkation in ports of call, cabin reassignment/restrictions, regular testing, dining and activity restrictions, etc. (4) This is what Perloff means by managing the sailing for the purpose of health and safety - and it's in the cruise contract that steps like this can be taken by the Master of the ship. But, but, but, I'm being treated differently which is what the FL law is fundamentally about. Well, nope. The approach above is entirely legal aboard a vessel that is working to provide the safest and healthiest environment for guests and employees. Back at ya, CSO and Ron, you can't touch this. I'd call this a work-around to comply with the FL law and to invoke the powers of the vessel's Master. I would not call it "backing down."

You are correct. However, the epidemiologic term, "herd immunity" has fallen out of favor. That is because technically the term implies eradication of a viral spread - a hazy term at best. It's been replaced by the concept of manageable disease burden. That is obtainable in a given region or country. Herd immunity wrt SARS2 is probably not obtainable. But your observation that herd immunity could be a "real thing" aboard ship is possible. That is because the cohort potentially achieving it - cruise ship pax and crew - is relatively small. Some cruise lines, for all intent and purpose, are trying to create a "bubble" by requiring vaccinations to sail. IMO, this is the best way to achieve the absolute lowest risk of an infection occurring aboard ship - let alone an outbreak - in the critical restart period (the first couple of months). It is also the very best way to not incur the exorbitant costs of having to cut a cruise short due to an outbreak aboard and have to deal with refunds, medical and air transport costs, etc. One can argue about whether this is good policy or bad considering all the aspects of a cruise line choosing revenue sailings through the 98/95 path or the test cruises required for a hybrid pax manifest path. But there is no arguing that a requirement for all crew and passengers to be vaccinated for a revenue sailing reduces the risk of a SARS2 infection or outbreak to as close to zero as is possible

There are two separate issues here: (1) The FL Lawsuit which is based on the failure of HHS/CDC to comply with Administrative procedures required by law that stipulates or limits what the CDC can due through it's Maritime unit. Matt's link (and mine) details the head of the CDC Maritime Unit's position. It provides a decent historical rational for the CSO and outlines the steps the unit has taken since it's implementation in October, 2020. (2) Lifting travel bans. There's probably an indirect relationship here with (1) above but functionally they are unrelated. As I understand the "pressure from the G7" you mention it is primarily related to air travel and how the US and G7 countries will manage flight arrivals, existing mitigation measures for passengers boarding or debarking from international flights in and out of the US/G7 countries. However, again as I understand it, sea ports are part of both EU and G7 transportation infrastructure so, yes, there's this indirect relationship between opening airfields and seaports to global travel and the outcome of FL's law suit but technically they aren't related. .

One more filing by the defendants today (an attachment to the motion I note above) is a statement from the head of the CDC's Maritime Unit that, IMO, has enormous impact on the Desantis ban. What this tells me is that the CDC's Maritime unit is asserting that it, and it alone has federal level authority to determine what goes on in ports for which federal authority extends - that is all the ports in FL to the water's edge. Cruise ships operate outside of the water's edge in federally controlled waters. If a line chooses to require vaccines to board that becomes a federally authorized action for the protection of the health and safety of passengers and crew aboard. If I have this right, Desantis' vaccine requirement ban is toast. There are questions of overlapping state and federal jurisdiction that I'm not sufficiently skilled in the applicable law to render an informed opinion. But common sense seems to point toward federal law trumping state law in this instance. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/72/1/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Sure and I don't have a problem with that and I don't think the cruise lines do either. They've been moving along as if the CSO as it has evolved was a workable if not somewhat cumbersome way to get revenue sailings from US ports - primarily from FL - going again. In a couple of months, maybe sooner if rich countries can figure out how to get around 30-50% of citizens of countries in the Southern hemisphere vaxed, the WHO declares an end to the global pandemic and the CDC follows, all of this will be moot.

@Matt said, "I still don't know how a ship like Celebrity Edge, which requires 95% vaccinated, will operate from a legal standpoint." RCG has two brands: Bailey decides Celebrity cruises from FL with a vaccination requirement for pax. RCL, for legitimate reasons, eschews a vaccination requirement for pax, chooses not to confront Desantis and goes with a hybrid pax manifest and all the problems that is going to bring to the cruise experience. I am 99% sure the Desantis ruling is not lawful and I've explained why here and read plenty of legal experts who say it isn't lawful and can be challenged in court. Celebrity will cruise, now along with Del Rio's NCL adding some weight to defying Desantis, who announced his ships will sail from Miami with vaccinations required. Both lines will take FL to court if FL attempts on the pier enforcement or levies fines after the fact. Like many have offered, this is the dumbest thing Desantis has done among many brilliant pandemic moves he's made. It amounts to poorly chosen posturing to his base, probably on the advise of Trump connected political advisors. I suspect behind the scenes, there are face saving alternatives emerging for Desantis to gracefully back out of this. If he chooses to press ahead with is ban and the lines sail and challenge him in court, it is going to explode in a firestorm of criticism. If, after actively supporting efforts to restart cruising from FL ports and suing the CDC, he then blocks restarts he's going to look like a complete dumbass. That is because business, including the cruise lines, have a moral and ethical responsibility to create a safe environment for guests and employees. The absolute best way to do that, given the wide availability of vaccines, is to assure everyone on that ship that can be vaccinated is vaccinated. As I write that last line, I wonder if the governor actually understands how stupid his defiance is looking and will look if he tries to enforce his ridiculous ban at the pier or, after the fact, levies fines.

Today, defendants filed their memorandum of opposition to additional motions that FL, et. al have submitted and had approved for entry into the court record. This motion outlines HHS's/CDC's position with regard to the CSO becoming law when Congress approved the ATRA (Alaska cruising from Seattle). They cited case law to support their position. It's not laughable but it is, to me, after the fact antics. HHS/CDC knew the CSO wasn't lawful - or at least the entire thing was on shaky grounds because, well, they exceeded their authority. Now they're claiming, oh, its now codified. Better late then never. I think Merryday will see through this. The motion also claims FL has failed to establish harm. I find this laughable. If you read the motions from TX and Alaska to enter as a co-claimants and the travel association's documentation of the staggering losses due to the unnecessary shuttering of cruise lines and cruise related businesses in their Amicus, you too will find it pretty silly .....but, lawyers will lawyer. What do I know maybe defendant's claim in this regard is legit. Common sense, which the law usually serves pretty well, should factor. As well, FL has established a strong case that the CDC, as was their responsibility to do before implementing the NSO, failed to consult FL and consider anything other but all or nothing options, the former being unnecessary and the later inappropriate given knowledge at that time of the virus. I still hold that Merryday is unlikely to enjoin the CSO. If anything, defendants have built a decent case, even though its built on some interesting if not far fetched interpretations of recent events and new circumstances. I believe the lines have moved forward with implementing the CSO. IMO, that means their lawyers thought early on that FL would not prevail ..... they've been planning on that basis and that the CSO will stick. Fine with me. Lots of chaotic scrambling will ensue if Merrryday issues an injunction. My only regret is that the CDC will crow. I wish they'd be humble if it's a clear victory, e.g., dismissal, but they won't. The best outcome IMO, is if Merryday rules that the law is unclear, writes a narrowly focused opinion on some of the initial U.S.C/Federal law that was the basis of FL's law suit, and kicks it back to Congress to sort out the flaws uncovered in this case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/72/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

I'm not a fan of live blogs but I went to this one to see how Celebrity was managing it's first revenue cruise in over 400 days - Millennium out of St. Maartin sailed yesterday, Sunday, June 6th.. 27% capacity (580 guests), all over 16s vaccinated. Run of the ship, no masks for pax, crew fully masked, lots of safety/health signage, full buffet but servers plate your food. The check in, according to this blogger, went smoothly ..... if you had studied and read what you needed to do and did it. I have little patience for cruisers that show up expecting to have their hands held with not a clue of the simple pre-barding steps and terminal requirements pre-pandemic. During the pandemic, the requirements, rightfully so, are much more complex. Also reported by this blogger, staff were plentiful during the boarding process to point people in the right direction. Both Celebrity and the Dutch Government required entry and pre-boarding RT-PCR tests even if vaccinated. There are tips and a day/date calculator for you to determine the best approach to getting this test done either in St. Maartin or prior to leaving the states. This level of service and attention to detail is typical for X - at least in the over 40 cruises I've experienced with them. Glad to hear this routinely superior service continues and seems to be ramped up a bit for initial pandemic sailings. The link below has a lot good tips and links to some of the best stuff I've seen regarding COVID protocols and policies aboard various lines either pre-planned (from what we know) or actual runs, e.g., Celebrity Millennium. Have a look: https://www.cruisehabit.com/

I write cautiously on this information because vaccination is a touchy subject here and we've been cautioned but this news is important because it is already getting sensationalized by the MSM after percolating for a week or so, mostly unnoticed. It is talk of a "surge" in new cases in the UK secondary to the Delta strain from India (new naming convention for SARS 2 variants). Here are the takeaways from the news and the scientific data I've looked at: New cases are rising in the UK and the increase is attributable to the Delta strain. The increase is tiny. Hospitalizations and deaths continue to decline in the UK and there has been no change in the trajectory of either. There is the possibility that vulnerability to Delta is increased by the path the UK chose to delay 2nd shots to insure more people got at least one thus, reducing immune response to variants. This circumstance may not apply to countries that stuck to a two dose regimen for most shots. At this point this is purely speculative. The number of new cases in a region or cohort by age, et.al, up until a few weeks ago, was considered a reliable metric to assess viral spread. It's no longer believed to be a good metric to do that or measure control of the virus or lack of it. What remains a good measure is that old R(0) because it measures trajectory and is more sensitive gauging spread/control, increases/decreases in prevalence. R(0) in regions of the UK being watched remains below 1.0. The press isn't reporting this metric. The debate among research scientists and epidemiologists involves issues of prevalence, that is, will SARS2 prevalence sustained by variants remain in the long run but be entirely manageable with respect to disease burden on both individuals and health care systems. Data is not yet sufficient to draw any conclusions either way. Anecdotally, this seems to be the case over the few months that vaccines have been available. This debate is the kind of reasoned approach to decisions on introducing mitigation measures that involve restrictions on human behavior - shutterings, and such. IOW, if the disease burden remains manageable, if R(0) doesn't rise significantly above 1.0 or shows a pattern of small increases and decreases, there is no sense in imposing draconian mitigation measures such as heavy handed restrictions on movement and contact. What might be the impact on global and north American cruising should PH officials take mitigation steps toward restricting movement and contact? Cruising in Europe ( a bit less so in Asia and South America) becomes increasingly baked in - i.e., governments are becoming less likely to restrict travel and leisure activities - as time passes and vaccine roll-outs improve. There is a direct relationship between the rate of vaccinations in a region and governments easing/not re-implementing restrictions. More restrictions in the face of rising yet manageable case numbers does not seem to be the typical government reaction to this when outbreaks occur. The public, in general, voices loud opposition to increased restrictions these days. The chance of shutdowns of ports becomes an unpalatable alternative ....... but, cruise ships remain in the crosshairs of the hyper-cautious, uninformed public. Government officials take in what PH scientists tell them and add that to political calculations. So, there's still a risk of a shut down of cruising. The risk will rise or fall over time depending on how the lines do on start-up. Bottom line: insure your cruise bookings and/or take advantage of cruise line air and programs that will refund in some form the cost of a cancelled cruise.

I think there is probably going to be a recency bias in most people's votes. After 8 months of no cruising, I would have seriously considered going on a cruise in October 2020 with the kinds of mitigation measures that were imposed for pax on Singapore sailings. From the start of lock-downs, I have been opposed to those on the basis of questionable PH benefits at enormous economic and social costs. Even with a lack of data, we knew enough to avoid shuttering everything. The vulnerable needed to be protected, the rest, well, sensible mitigation measures would have been fine while carrying on with our daily lives. Hindsight has proven we went too far trying to mitigate with isolation strategies. Now, we have a huge amount of data to suggest that with vaccinations the risks that were present before vaccines - risks I might have been willing to take to get back to cruising then - I'm not willing to take now given the alternative of getting vaccinated. So, I marked no, I wouldn't put up with those restriction now, I might have back then.

What of State of State of Florida v. Becerra (8:21-cv-00839) in the District Court, M.D. Florida? Impasse on mediation, right? Back to the court room, right? Sure, attorneys will be attorney's - they've made their cases, established their positions for their clients and will have their day in court. But this is a fast moving ball game with business interests seemingly driving some level of dialogue that appears to be moving the parties closer to a cruise start-up per the CSO. In this regard the feds and Desantis with his vaccine requirement ban probably have some leverage. It occurs to me that if Merryday enjoins the CSO.......chaos. Therefore, I don't think he will. He'll rule as I previously asserted, and make a limited and narrow ruling stating the law is unclear, I'm punting this to Congress to fix it. The bad news is that the CDC will publicly claim victory and no one will see it otherwise because no one will read Merryday's ruling. I do believe that post pandemic congressional changes to applicable laws will provide more oversight of the CDC's authority. But that's not assured. People have short memories. On to cruising.