JeffB

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.

I've sailed on both of them, Summit after refurbishment that added cabins and Millennium before that. The are identical in terms of features and deck layouts. There may be some small differences that I'm not aware of between the two but they aren't show stoppers.

Really hard to say. Another important aspect of this FL case is that it was filed under Administrative Procedures and Agency Action. Also at play is that FL requested and received and expedited hearing in Merryday's court. FL lays out a strong case, IMO, that HHS/CDC didn't follow it's own notification of parties rules contained in applicable law. Under Agency Actions, FL claims the NSO was illegally implemented, most notably to it's extent and failure to notify and consult at each review and renewal. Same for the CSO - just a continuation of the claim I mention above. I don't think there is any question that the NSO and CSO did immense damage to FL's economy but that argument has more to do with establishing standing and harm. Even though it's a pretty impressive argument, it has littel to do with what Merryday has to sort out. Merryday will probably provide a narrow ruling on this one way or the other. I like FL's argument but things change in a PHE and there's that buggaboo of overlapping state and federal regulatory authority Merryday has to wade through. It's not out of the question that Merryday won't really rule in the sense of that word. He could write an opinion that faults congress for not clarifying this in existing law and says it's not clear. You guys need to fix that. OK, if he does that, and he might, what happens to the CSO? It could stand or he could enjoin it pending Congressional action or he could let it stand pending Congressional action. As I think this thing through, I could see Merryday granting FL the benefit of the doubt on the stregth of thier arguments, enjoin the CSO, sending the issue back to Congress to unwind the mess that the current law is in. We know how long that might take given the Biden Administration's hot-button issues. Restarting cruising from US ports is probably not among them.

It's important to remember that mediation reached an "impasse." The two sides couldn't agree on a settlement. To me, that signals FL is going for an all or nothing ruling. It also implies that FL's attorneys feel that HHS/CDC exceeded it's statutory authority with the NSO and subsequently with the CSO. My take is that in a PHE, HHS/CSO probably acted within the provisions of U.S.C 42, section 264 that deals with the VSP. But that is definitely debatable. The law is complex and there is overlapping federal and state regulatory authority. Merryday will rule on this. It's hard for me to imagine he'll deal with the CSO in parts. I think the state of FL already knows he won't and are very confident in their position - all or nothing. HHS/CDC lawyers haven't helped themselves with their recent motion that FL has called absurd. I think Merryday will agree with FL's position (because it's an end run and entirely absurd, IMO) but it's up in the air how he will rule. Good stuff.

FL's law suit moves forward. Here's what's happening today: First, Merryday approved entry into the court record of HHS's/CD's motion, "in light of changing circumstances ....." This is where HHS/CDC attorneys argue that (1) with Congress ratifying and the president signing into law the Alaska Cruising Bill, which contains a provision that Alaska sailings from Seattle must obtain a CSC, it follows that the CSO is now law. (2) If the CSO is enjoined, as FL has requested, the Alaska Sailing order will be voided and will essentially end any chance of an Aalskan cruising season in 2021. HHS/CDC has until 6/7 to supplement the motion but limits the supplement to only the single issue rasied in the motion itself Contained in that approval from Merryday is direction that FL has until June 9th to file a motion in response. We pretty much know what FL thinks of HHS's/CDC's position. "It's absurd, a delaying tactic and isn't a correct interpretation of the Alaska Sailing law." FL may add to that position in response. The hearing will continue on Thursday, 6/10 at 10am. Attorney's will present their arguments. What would be nice is that the court recorder's notes taken during the hearing were published. This way we may get a clue about how Merryday will rule based on the questions he asks the attorneys. At the first hearing they weren't (both sides get a chance to correct the record). I don't think we'll see the record of the court proceedings on June 10th in the public domain for a while. What bothered me last time around is that reporters either weren't present, it was not a public hearing or they were just lazy and didn't consider the issue as important to cover as we do. Maybe this time - the case is getting national press coverage. Every issue we are concerned about with the exception of vaccination policies, that is affecting cruise restarts, hinges on Merryday's ruling. If FL prevails, even in part, e.g., overly burdensome parts of the CSO, like the ancillary hoop jumping, is enjoined, a ruling like that will speed things up, clarify protocols for the cruise lines and, in turn, the cruise lines can release those protocols and procedures to us as well as firm up schedules. On vaccinations: It gets complicated but first, this is not a direct part of FL's lawsuit. There are indirect implications though. Let's say the 98/95% requirement is enjoined. IMO, RCL will benefit if they can cruise with unvaccinated kids and/or not require anyone to be vaccinated and be in compliance with FL's ban on them to enter a business/receive service. Lines that are already requiring guests to be vaccinated will probably change to recommend them. This to be in compliance with FL law and sail from FL ports. Alternatively, lines that want to require vaccinations to board could sail and challenge FL's law in court - IMO that law is illegal and unconstitutional as businesses, being ethically and morally bound, and in some circumstances, legally bound, to provide customers and employees a safe environment. That is well established in the law. It will be interesting to watch how all this unfolds. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/70/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

We may be thinking about vaccines the wrong way just like most, and even the experts, thought as the pandemic burst onto the scene that everything and everyone needs to be locked down. Well, that was wrong headed thinking for a number of reasons that have become more and more apparent as time passes and data gets refined....... not everyone needed to get locked down to mitigate the pandemic. Likewise, not everyone needs to get vaccinated to control the pandemic. SARS2 will never be eradicated and it is a fools errand to try to do that by vaccinating everyone. We are not trying to obtain zero risk of getting infected. We should be trying to control it so that we can medically deal with people who will get infected reducing the risk of serious illness and death. The data: Death rates and hospitalization rates have plummeted (regional exceptions pertain - I'll get to that). What that means is that the vaccines, even with a global average of around 30-40% receiving at least one jab, are more effective in preventing serious illness and death than experts thought they would be. Death rates in the US from COVID are very close to pre-SARS2 pandemic death rates experienced from seasonal influenza. New cases of COVID have decreased dramatically (regional exceptions). What this means is that vaccines slow, do not stop, transmission even at the low vaccination rates some regions, US states and countries are experiencing. It is important to remember that only a small portion of the word's population (3-5%) is at risk for serious illness or death. The rest may get flu like symptoms but can essentially go about life normally ...... that reality was completely lost early in the pandemic and catastrophic economic and social damage have been wrought because of that. As more people get vaccinated R0 (R naught) for that population trends well below 1.0. Remember that metric? It was king as a measure of "dire consequences" way back then when the virus was spreading rapidly. The media used it incessantly - above 1.0, the virus is spreading; below 1.0 it is receding and therefore controlled. I don't believe a single US state or county in the US has an R(0) > 1.0 - its not even reported any longer for that reason. Another less used metric these days, % positive, was also used to scare people. At it's height, some regions/states had % positives ranging from 10-20%. It's not scary anymore so the media doesn't report it. Below 5% is considered as an indicator that the virus is not spreading/is controlled; below 3% is ideal. In the US and EU, it's hard to find a sustained % positive > 5%. In fact, many US counties don't have any new cases or deaths and haven't for weeks Regional exceptions are occurring with the impact of disease burden in those regions varying. The primary underlying cause is a lack of vaccines and poor medical infrastructure in India, and countries in Asia and Latin America. We can't do much about that individually. Collective plans to deal with that are emerging. It will take time. Meanwhile populations in poor countries are going to suffer. In the US, vaccine hesitancy plays a part in what amounts to small scale local outbreaks with little to no impact on disease burden (hospitalizations and deaths). We can live with this and that is the point. My take is that at the point around 50-60% of any selected cohort becomes vaccinated, the virus will be controlled. Not eradicated but controlled to the extent that disease burden is nil. . IOW, we are already at the point where a return to normalcy in the US is underway. While vaccinating more people will help keep case numbers very low and the risk of serious illness and death right along with that, not getting that final 40% probably isn't all that necessary.

That's a legit question and one that is raised by the HHS/CDC attorneys in one of their filings. They claim just that. FL's reply in a subsequent filing calls that claim absurd. And, no, Congress did not intend to define the CSO as a law. As pointed out in a FL filing to make the CSO lawful would require separate legislative action. OTH, that the claim is made by HHS/CDC attorneys leaves it to Merryday to rule on that claim - legally I think it is weak not to mention it makes the CDC look foolish. Our collective view that if the PHE ends, the CSO ends is probably correct. Like @wordell1I don't see that happening in the short term though. The US will probably go along with the WHO and we're along way from the end of a global PHE.

It's not just the FL lawsuit. It is a host of pressures from various quarters on the HHS/CDC. What is frustrating to me is that given the CSO's absurdity that these "smart" people with in the CDC haven't figured out a graceful way to back out of it. While the whole issue of the HHS's/CDC's approach to the pandemic has been questioned, it's absurd approach to the cruise industry and the risk of outbreaks on cruise ships is so obviously flawed, it stuns me that congressional inquiry and action isn't ongoing. When I think about it, nothing new, actually. On multiple issues not related to cruising legislative action from the federal level gets mired in politics and other priorities. It's easier for politicians to punt to the courts and hope a federal judge sorts this out. In case you haven't noticed for over a decade, this has been the modus operandi of our elected officials. It's not a good thing.

The "clown show" serves to demonstrate how big government fosters bureaucratic incompetence. While I have no doubt the CDC employs very smart people, the organization itself is so large and so unwieldy that it is simply not agile enough to effectively deal with the risk of SARS2 on a cruise ship. At this point, the CSO has been overcome by events - namely vaccine effectiveness. The complexity of it is unnecessary. If you can understand what's in the CDC's web site that deals with cruise ships, I want to talk to you. It is enormously and unnecessarily complicated, spread out over dozens of pages - a patch work project of utter confusion and contradiction. I'd argue parts of of the CSO - when you can locate them - are decent - I don't have a problem with those parts. Expanding the VSP, for example, to increase measures to mitigate airborne viruses like SARS2 are useful. The entire process involved in getting the Conditional Sailing Certificate is absurd. It is here that as vaccine became widely available and distributed that many requirements of the CSO could have been eliminated but, Nope. As posted above, what we've seen is glacial incrementalism - much of it adding more layers of complexity, some of it contradictory and creating confusion - in response to oral arguments presented in FL's law suit. This is our CDC. Shameful.

I can't wait for this to be over ....... I'm sick of everything and anything that has to do with the pandemic. The cruise lines seem to have done a good job preparing for any outcome in FL's law suit.

I've had some time to digest what has transpired - limited to what the public can view on the Court's docket. I'll try to summarize. I note that Matt has written a piece on the front page that covers some of this. I'll try to contextualize it in a time line from the court's docket starting when the case was referred to mediation: Merryday punted the law suit to mediation. President Biden signed into law a bill that allowed cruise ships to skip the Jones act which requires foreign flagged vessels departing from US ports to make a port call in a foreign port. As it applies to Alaska cruising, that would be a Canadian port. There is a provision in the Alaska bill that states cruise ships cruising under the enacted law to Alaska must obtain a Conditional Sailing Certificate from the CDC. Today, Alaska has asked to join the FL law suit as an intervener -the entry into a lawsuit by a third party into an existing civil case who was not named as an original party but has a personal stake in the outcome. You'll recall that Texas also filed as an intervener early on and joined the law suit as a claimant. Alaska's argument contained in it's filing today questions what the provision in the Alaska bill for the CSC actually means and CDC's authority to require compliance with the CSO anyway. HHS's/CDC's lawyers filed a response claiming that since Biden signed the Alaska Cruising bill into law , including the provision that Ships sailing to Alaska must obtain a CSC, that ipso-facto makes the CSC law and if the CSO is enjoined the Alaska cruise season will be effectively ended. The Sun Sentinel reported this evening as I posted above - mediation appears to have ended. Alaska's filing neatly out points out how the CDC has issued updates to their guidance almost weekly in response to the litigation and trying to keep ahead of it. Certainly that's their right but it does make them out to be the clown show we have come to know that it is. I still hold that FL will not prevail but it seems to me their chances of winning their case have improved because of the CDC's unjustifiable delays in issuing guidance (pointed out in the Alaska filing) and, in general, their clown show trying to update guidance based on arguments that have been made during litigation. It's helped that Alaska has entered into FL's law suit along with Texas. Anyway, it's gotten complicated and hard to follow. I'm not sure I've got the time line straight and put all today' s news into context, but I tried. I've listed in order the filings that explain in greater detail what I posted above. I have no idea when Merryday will rule but I don't think it will be long. It's going to be a cluster for the cruise lines if the CSO is ruled unenforceable. That it might be, might explain why the cruise lines appear to have been holding back on restarts, the ships that might restart are only a few and guidance on what to expect on board has been sparse. We've all speculated that behind the scenes they know a lot more about what's going on than we do. Alaska files as an intervener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/68/state-of-florida-v-becerra/ Florida explains their position on the above request and the CDC's response: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/69/state-of-florida-v-becerra/ CDC's bewildering claim that when Biden signed the Alaska bill into law it made the CSO a law: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/67/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Article in the evening edition of the Sun Sentinel reports mediation has ended without an agreement. Few details but back to Court and Merryday it appears.

Not quite. The regulating document - the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) - is a CDC program authorized under U.S.C. 42, Section 264. This document is the basis for the CSO. Regulatory authority for safety and infection control measures rests within it. Regulatory authority extends from the end of international waters and up to "the waters edge." Between those two points, federal jurisdiction exists. Beyond it - on the land side - there is a mix of overlapping federal and state jurisdiction. Our interests lie in what goes on within and who has authority over things on cruise ships and cruise terminals. The VSP's and CDC's regulatory authority applies to a cruise from the point at which the ship leaves international waters including when it is tied up at a cruise terminal. WIthin that well defined space, IMO, the CDC is within it's authority to regulate cruise ship sanitation and infection control. i.e., the NSO and CSO are both lawful. Regulatory authority within the cruise terminal belongs, IMO, to the state. Both of these opinions of mine are not without debate and FL's law suit against HHS/CDC, is, in part, about getting a ruling from the federal court on the extent and content of the CSO/VSP.

There's a lot to unpack here. First, I'm not a lawyer versed in applicable maritime, state and local or constitutional law. I have friends who are. As well, I find the law interesting so, I read a lot to try and understand it. Second, my reading has led me to conclude that what the CDC has done in issuing the NSO and then the CSO was legal, given existing law as I interpret it and my understanding of the PHE. I could be entirely wrong. That is because here are so many applicable precendential court outcomes, so much applicable law bearing on what exact authority the CDC actually has that it is very difficult to sort out. The laws are complex and overlapping. Questions of state v. federal authority are present and complicated. Lawyers are trained in law school how to sort it out. It's not easy. If mediation fails and this goes back to Merryday, it's going to be a tough call for him. But Federal judges are appointed because they are good at sticking to the law, not getting tied up in knots over often highly emotional aspects of a case they are hearing. Since I think the law favors the government (CDC/HHS) in this particular case, even though the impact of the NSO was harmful on many levels, the CDC acted within it's authority. Even though the CSO is overly burdensome and potentially discriminatory, the CDC acted within it's authority. Therefore, the government will prevail. I believe that Congress recognizes that the law, as it currently stands in this matter, gives too much authority to HHS/CDC to make policy during a public health emergency - this authority should properly rest with Congress. That's water under the bridge. I think in the aftermath of the pandemic, it will change. I'm almost sure that it will and new provisions in the law for appropriate oversight and limitations to what the HHS/CDC can do in a future PHE will emerge