JeffB

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.

Agree with @Jill. I have no position I wish to articulate here on whether or not people who want to cruise should get vaccinated. I do believe the concept of choice in most matters should prevail. The RCL news that the company will not require vaccination to board and sail on one of their sailings (not from Seattle .... yet) is probably a smart choice ..... and I have no doubt it is a calculated risk as I posted elsewhere. RCL has run the numbers. Anecdotally, we know the risk of transmission aboard a sailing with a hybrid passenger manifest is low, not zero but low enough. We also know that a single infection aboard any sailing could result in outcomes we fear. OTH, RCL seems to be betting on damage control that will prevent bad, yet predictable outcomes, i.e., rigid protocols for containment and passenger handling should a single infection be discovered. I can argue that the path RCL and most cruise lines have followed - compliance with the provisions of the CSO - should isolate the lines from those potentially bad outcomes. That's the bet it would seem. I'd also argue that RCL, and others, want to sail out of FL because that's where the money is and have chosen a conciliatory instead of confrontational path with Governor Desantis. Could RCL challenge the Desantis prohibitions in court and prevail? I'm almost certain they could ...... but why muddy the waters and tie up operations for months doing that? This is decision to not defend the high ground. Looking around the US at state's plans to incentivize vaccination, e.g., tickets for a concert featuring a popular music group were $89 for those vaccinated and $999 for those unvaccinated. There is not doubt that RCL has figured that onerous protocols (yet to be published!!!) for the unvaccinated compared to complete freedom for the vaccinated will produce somewhere around a 90% vaccinated passenger manifest. Smart move. I wonder what Celebrity will do with it's July and August sailings aboard Edge from PEV? I'm booked on an August sailing.

I think we'll see that 80% Bailey/Fain threw out there as having a preference for sailings where everyone is vaccinated right here. My take on the best reason to NOT sail if you're not vaccinated is that out of the gate, the microscope will be on the cruise lines. There's an increased risk of SARS2 infection in a mixed crowd. Even though it is small, it isn't zero. One case ..... ONE, will very likely shut down cruising no matter how well it is handled..... and it will be handled well and it won't matter. That may be and exaggeration but man, it would be a bummer if it happened.

As a matter of comparison to how RCL is handling COVID protocols, I'm sailing from Athens on July 9th on Celebrity Apex. Celebrity's mechanism for disseminating global health and safety protocols and policies - by the term "global," I mean the basics that will be applicable on all Celebrity ships sailing in July - is through a Celebrity Home page link to the Healthy at Sea page. This page explains the global protocols, provides links to country travel advisories and entry requirements and procedures as well as CDC advisories and notices. There's a link to a FAQs page which covers most health and safety questions. Celebrity requires the use of their App. It isn't new and is fully technology integrated with Edge class ships and mostly integrated with Solstice and Millennium class ships. If you don't use a smart phone, you can check in at the pier manually as before and take care of business at guest relations but that's going to take you a lot longer. The App is very good and makes boarding, especially on the Edge class ships a breeze. You can complete all your check-in tasks on the App or at the Celebrity web site. Your boarding pass can be printed or, like an airline ticket, your app has a QR code to display on your phone. You can make your app your room key, see all daily activities on board, make spa, dining and shore excursion reservations and keep track of your spending once on board. You can also complete your muster drill within the app. The days of going to your muster station and lining up by your life boats are gone. You can also chat via the app if you want to set that up. You must complete a pre-boarding health questionnaire the day before or on the day of sailing before you arrive at the terminal in Athens at your reserved time (reserved on the app). That health screening form will be sent to your phone app. You'll be physically screened at the terminal before boarding and must present proof of vaccination at that time. This will slow down an otherwise contactless check-in process using just the app but check-in times are assigned and staggered. From the Celebrity on-line web home page, when logged in, you can go to the page that lists your cruise. Click on that to manage your reservation and there are links there if you want to buy single excursions or a host of packages pre-sail. Sometimes these are discounted and for my Apex sailing, they appear to be. They also appear to be demand pricing controlled. You can also review the extensive changes to your cruise contract that contains rules and regulations. The new stuff there pertains to COVID. The rest is boiler plate and unchanged from pre-pandemic rules and regs. Interestingly, on the Athens cruise I'm booked on, there is an obvious omission on mask policy. It's there on the Millennium cruise out of St. Martin and what I would expect it to be for an all vaxed pax manifest (masks are not required on board, but may be required ashore if local regulations stipulate) but not on the Apex cruise, also all vaxed, out of Athens. There is a statement that passengers will receive additional safety protocols, if applicable, as the sailing date approaches. I suspect this is still being worked out with Greek health authorities. Mask guidance also isn't present on the Edge sailing out of PEV on the 26th. All-in-all, I've been satisfied with Celebrity's approach and how they've provided all the information you need to be informed and prepared. I get the pickle that RCL is in and understand how hard it is to not know what you need and would like to know months before your cruise.

Businesses, including RCG (RCL, Celebrity), undoubtedly model risk. They have an objective probability that a single COVID infection or multiples (bad outcomes by degree) will occur on one ship. All the variables, including mitigation measures like vaccines, risk of infection by age cohort, can be identified, put into a computerized model and out pops a probability. Given a uniform set of mitigation measures, the more ships you sail, the higher the probability of a bad outcome. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that RCG's operational plan - the number of ships that will sail, where they will sail from, which will be hybrids and which will be 95% vaxed - is based on an established threshold of risk. For example, one ship sails, 95% vaxed = <2% risk of a bad outcome. Ten ships sail, all hybrids = 10% risk of a bad outcome. Now pick a balance of ships defined by risk. Next, add in how much money RCG wants to earn in July, for example, establish a risk threshold of 5%, voila the computer spits out an operational plan for the number and passenger mix of ships that will sail in July. TBH, its likely this sort of business modeling is driving scheduling. It's not the CSO because compliance with it isn't variable. It's not the Desantis policy because that too is uniform. As well, models are a starting point. Executives then use experience, leadership, guts, whatever you want to call it, to fine tune what the model spits out. But make no mistake, how much money RCG wants to make in July, how much risk they are willing to take to get to some figure is a primary driver in what appears to us as chaos over vaccines or no vaccines, masks or no masks, etc., etc., etc.

The hybrid option is full of potential pitfalls to include guests who are vaccinated and confront unvaccinated and visa-versa, confusion among guests and crew, Titanic like class systems - these are already present to some degree but could be more problematic in this circumstance, who has to distance/mask and who doesn't isn't going to be clear unless there is a system like Hester Prynne wearing a scarlet A around her neck. I find these things bound to be problematic turn-offs to cruising and something I would avoid by selecting sailings where vaccinations are required .... but I'm old and don't bring kids cruising with me. I agree with @Josh CI don't envy RCL's choices either.

RCL's plan to not require vaccinations for most US port sailings pre-dates the Desantis kerfuffle. I wouldn't say it's a planned workaround to the Desantis threats. I'd offer that its mainly coincidental that it turns out that way.

Let's go back to Fain's videos/news of RCL's zoom calls with TAs 3-4w ago. Fain made it clear that vaccinations would not be required on most RCL sailings to protect RCL's commitment to families. Once the Alaska thing got ramped up, in order to insure ships could make the Alaska sailings, RCL chose to by-pass test cruises and go the 98/95 route. This isn't new. On ship board protocols for a hybrid passenger manifests: RCL released it's masking guidance for hybrid passenger manifest Bermuda sailings Friday. That precipitated a Home Page story by Matt and a message board post. In that thread, you'll find this: Here's what RCL says are mask requirements for unvaccinated guests: Masks are not required in open-air areas onboard the ship or at Perfect Day at CocoCay unless you are in a crowded setting. Masks are not permitted in the pool or for any activity where they could become wet. Indoors: Masks must be worn in all indoor public spaces onboard the ship unless seated and actively eating or drinking. Masks are not required in your stateroom as long as you are with your own travel party. In public ports: Local mask and distancing requirements at public ports of call must be followed. Guests under age 2 do not need to wear a mask at any time. @Jennifer Burke post above clarifies the boarding protocols. From all the previous info, you can surmise what RCL will be adding to it's pre-pandemic health and safety protocols for ships sailing with hybrid manifests from US ports.

Understood and agreed but, my post was pointing out that what is going on in the Bahamas can be reasonably assumed to reflect what RCL will be doing with all its cruises.

Unless I'm missing something, that would be true only on Alaska sailings from Seattle, right? From FL ports vaccinations are strongly encouraged but not required, right?

If you go to the link and read the entire page, I think you can figure out what RCL is going to be doing regarding mask requirements for all their cruises until the PHE or CSO expires. It would be safe to assume neither of these will expire before November 1st 2021 - assuming the CSO is not enjoined. They might be modified in ways that are beneficial to the cruise industry but they won't be cancelled. That is because multiple US organizations and agencies are connected to the PHE wrt to funding, budgeting, plans, procedures and policies. I posted elsewhere that it is hard to figure out what the CDC's guidance on masking actually is. IMO, they've dodged providing specific guidance and there are defensible reasons for that position. The CDC would argue that outside where they have been authorized to regulate, e.g., the VSP and CSO, the CDC recommends frameworks and leaves mandates, COVID policy and protocols to the states. Generally, states defer to counties and counties, at this point anyway, give substantial latitude to businesses to set their own SARS2 mitigation measures, including requiring vaccines. I think RCL's mask and vaccination requirements are pretty clear, less ambiguous than the CDC's, except in one area. That is large congregate settings both indoors and outdoors in a hybrid mix of vaxed and unvaxed passengers. Here's what RCL says are mask requirements for unvaccinated guests: Masks are not required in open-air areas onboard the ship or at Perfect Day at CocoCay unless you are in a crowded setting. Masks are not permitted in the pool or for any activity where they could become wet. Indoors: Masks must be worn in all indoor public spaces onboard the ship unless seated and actively eating or drinking. Masks are not required in your stateroom as long as you are with your own travel party. In public ports: Local mask and distancing requirements at public ports of call must be followed. Guests under age 2 do not need to wear a mask at any time. RCL has the same problem with more specific guidance on mask requirements in crowded outdoor settings as the CDC has. The anecdotal data is pretty clear. No matter the size of a crowd gathered outside, no matter that not everyone is vaccinated, the risk of SARS2 transmission is extremely low. That has been shown anecdotally but not in any peer reviewed studies I am aware of. That's why the CDC is vague, like it or not. I don't think staff are going to around to check your vaccination status to determine if you need a mask or not in any onboard setting. It is completely impractical. So, it's an honor system. Once again, if the dude standing behind you in line at the ice cream machine indoors/in the dining area isn't masked and isn't vaccinated, your risk of exposure is very low. Everyone has to make their own determination about how much risk of getting COVID they are willing to take while engaged in the entire range of shipboard and land based activities on a cruise. If you're worried about a hybrid passenger manifest on an RCL cruise out of FL or a foreign port, don't cruise on one of those sailings. Go on an RCL or Celebrity cruise where vaccination is mandatory.

Trying to keep track of all this is hard. My take is that in a hybrid passenger manifest of vaxed and unvaxed passengers worst case may apply - means everyone has to mask and distance in indoor congregate settings. Outside - no masks regardless of vaccination status. TBH, the CDC's wording on this is really slippery. They don't come out and say in one identifiable place everyone has to mask in a vaxed and unvaxed congregate setting indoors. They do say in one place that vaccinated people don't have to mask anywhere and if you're not vaccinated ..... "get vaccinated." That's plain dodging an important responsibility of the CDC. Something they have done time and time again or gotten guidance completely wrong. Later at the CDC web site at the page I'm looking at right now, they say, unvaccinated should take precautions and this is assumed, IMO, to mean you mask everywhere except outdoors. Even large gatherings outdoors get's slippery. In a crowded concert setting, for example, they suggest "taking precautions"....... I assume it means to mask but they don't say that anywhere I can find. Because, it would appear, the CDC has not laid out hard masking mandates defined by circumstance (that would seem easy to do to me), the cruise lines will have some flexibility and gives rise to the notion there will be a well defined masking protocol for the hybrid circumstance aboard ship. We don't know what it is. Patience. At least RCL has an operational plan and if you want to cruise in July or August, at least you can book. Makes Bailey's statement today that we will have further guidance on our safety measures on board before your scheduled sailing. I suspect they are working on all of this tying all available resources and data together to come up with a defensible, practical set of masking guidelines that keep them out of trouble should a SARS2 infection or worse an outbreak occurs.

I don't think this is anything new. Fain has been pretty clear that RCL is going to do test cruises to protect Royal's commitment to families and recognizing not everyone can get vaccinated. Test cruises mean a slower start and Bailey comments on that in the most recent announcement at the link above. To get the Alaska sailings going, RCL is going with a vaccination requirement. I don't think there are any misprints that have to be corrected going forward or hazy communications with regard to today's announcement by Bailey. All that remains unanswered are some of the details on health and safety protocols that will be different to those pre-pandemic. If you're going to cruise from Seattle and visit Alaskan ports, you need to be vaccinated. If you're going to sail from FL ports, you don't but it's highly recommended - and yes, dodges the Desantis bullet.