JeffB

I don't follow RCL as closely as others here but the CSO, before several provisions were eased just recently in bilateral discussions between the CDC and the cruise lines, limited sailing to 7d. Right around that time, I had changes to two Celebrity cruises I booked in the first quarter of 2021. They went from 8 to 7n. I was kept fully informed of these changes by both my TA and the cruise line. Then they were cancelled. Fine ..... I still can't flesh out whether this provision stayed in the latest guidance update on May 26th or was eliminated. As far as I can tell the original CSO released in October, 2020 restricted passenger cruises to 7d and that remains. Updates in April did not discard this restriction although it was rumored here "8-10n itineraries were back" at some point after that. I'm not sure. Maybe someone else has a solid link. I can't find one. Anyway, you're not alone in wondering about cruises longer than 7n and I find it troubling that customers on RCL cruises within 90d, more troubling within 60 or 30d like yours still don't know what's happening. I've whined plenty about this so, done with that.

Sailing typical European cruise itineraries is very much up in the air. My take is we know more about what is going to happen in the US than we do in Europe. Part of that is the obvious bias in media coverage - I read less news about cruises in Europe and Asia than I do about the US. Still, there's plenty out there. We know they are on-going with hardly any outbreaks aboard ships sailing the med. Lot's learned there that can be applied to September sailings. In February, I thought the best chance for a June cruise would occur in Europe and a restart from US ports would be messy - and it is. I chose Amsterdam as a starting port. Most of my pursuit of an earlier European restart was based on COVID data in February. The US was in a mess, the EU wasn't. Oh, how times change. Vaccines. The US has them and a great distribution plan. The EU? Nope. It's a mess although improving as vaccines get procured and rolled out. Anyway, after the European surge in new case in the March time frame along with more friendly EU governments opening the travel and leisure sectors of their economies in Italy and Greece, I cancelled the Amsterdam booking and booked out of Athens in June. That's a Celebrity cruise, it's locked in, I've checked in and I know exactly what to expect. Everyone has to be vaccinated to sail, kids are no exception. Fine, good for me. What about you and Harmony in September? Well, Spain is doing a lot better (along with most EU countries) in getting jabs into arms (Close to 30% of Spaniards). As you'd expect, deaths and hospitalizations are trending sharply downward but there are still regional hot-spots and Barcelona is one of them - big city, lots of people in close quarters, etc. https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/spain/ Personally, I think your cruise is a slam dunk to happen. That is because if you look at what vaccines achieve in terms of a returns to normal in countries with vax rates above 30% and climbing, new cases drop precipitously right around that point. I expect that to happen in Spain overall and in Barcelona in particular. Normal returns shortly after. See US, UK, Israel, et. al. The EUC has announced that boarders within the EU will be "reopening in June" ...... depending!! ..... no hard dates yet. What EU country's public health officials are looking for is the exact kind of thing happening in Spain and other EU countries as vaccines are obtained and rolled out. I won't speak for port stops on your route. I expect there will continue to be restricted passenger manifests and if RCL embarks on European itineraries with a hybrid mix of vaxed and unvaxed like we are hearing they will do, I expect there will be plenty of inconvenient health and safety protocols and policies in place. Gird yourself. The cruise will go but I think most cruise lines doing European itineraries will have mitigation measures in place that none of us are fond of well into 2022 possibly earlier if vaccines continue to be the miracle they have been so far. But, hey, its cruising!

First, there is no federal mandate for vaccination nor is the state of FL (or any other state to my knowledge), mandating them. Quite the opposite. On the federal level (CDC), they are recommended. For those that don't get vaccinated for any reason - personal choice or medical - and want to board a cruise ship operating from a US port, then the CSO comes into play REQUIRING cruise ships sailing with a mix of vaxxed and unvaxxed passengers to implement a litany of no-fun inducing requirements. Two other important points: First, if a business mandates anything to enter/ receive service, it must accommodate "disability" (narrowly defined and excludes religious reasons) and not be discrimnatory in the usual sense of that word. Courts have found that there are many ways outside of actually letting the "disabled" person in - accommodating them - that do not involve letting them in, e.g., in the case of the cruise industry offering a refund or another sailing further down the road. Second, is the recognition that it is not unlawful for cruise lines or any other private business to mandate vaccinations to sail despite all the nonsense floating around social media platforms (not here) that say it is unlawful for businesses to require proof of vaccination to enter/receive services. Most legal opinions I've read on this hot-button issue say mandating anything by federal or state agencies authorized to do so and private businesses during a public health emergency would uphold the right to require reasonable mitigation measures. Can states then turn around and ban such measures? I don't think so especially in the case of the FL law that does just that. As a matter of law, it is understood that federal authority to regulate safety and sanitation of all ships entering US ports ends at the water's edge ..... unless the port is federally operated port. Most US ports aren't that and activities from the water's edge inland are regulated by the state and/or port authorities. That is true of all 5 of FL's main ports where cruise ships operate from.

I had to read this post and your response @dswallowa couple times. There's a lot going on in the FL lawsuit v. HHS/CDC and FL's Proof of Vaccination ban for businesses operating in FL. I've raised the issue that Desantis can't very well back away from including cruise lines in "businesses operating in FL" in his poof of vaccination ban and at the same time argue in the Federal court hearing the FL suit that the CDC's CSO imposes onerous and costly regulations that are preventing cruise lines from sailing from FL ports and the attendant economic harm this over-reach has done to FL. His attorneys will get laughed out of Merryday's court room. That's one issue. The second issue involves cruise lines being prevented from operating from FL ports and against the law in FL but, seemingly, that FL law being in violation of existing Federal law and how this will be resolved. Specifically to allow Celebrity for sure and possibly other lines to sail in July after the FL law comes into affect. I've already opined that the FL anti proof of vaccination law would not survive a court challenge. The question remains, will it come to that? I think there's enough chatter that there will be a compromise reached before July 1st. IMO, this is the first really dumb thing Ron Desantis has done during the pandemic. He may be betting that his constituency, not knowing anything about cruising except the Diamond Princess debacle, will see Desantis as standing up against cruise lines and their disease breeding cruise ships and forget or not understand how incredibly stupid including cruise lines in his anti proof of vaccine law that cost jobs and money in and for FL. I dunno. Could have easily exempted cruise lines and made everyone happy by citing the Commerce laws that prevent states from interfering with legitimate commercial activity in and around US ports. I think I've got these two issues right. It can be confusing.

100% Sure, I get the family thing but what a PITA to have to deal with the most rigid and no-fun inducing CSO requirements for a hybrid passenger manifest of both vaxed and unvaxed. The risk of becoming infected from the unvaxed in that age cohort is low but not zero (we've covered this) and that is the circumstance that RCL has unwisely, IMO, decided to work with. The cautious cruiser without kids e,.g @TXCruiserisn't going to sail on an RCL ship in June or July for sure, probably into August. If I'm Fain, I cringe when I hear about CSRs in my sales department telling people to "go with Celebrity."

...... or perhaps it's a clown show. Sorry ..... I just can't countenance the degree of confusion I'm seeing, not just from RCL, but from a lot of lines. RCL seems to me to be very bad about this although admittedly I don't follow NCL or Carnival that closely. I'm sure there's the same kinds of bitching about lack of clear information flow among those loyalists.

I stand corrected by omission. I failed to mention there are "credible" reasons, a medical condition, including pregnancy being one of them. But it's an error by omission not one "ignoring the science and the data." Speaking of which. the data is not sufficiently robust at this point to conclude that if you've been infected with COVID in the past, you don't need to get vaccinated. The opposite is probably true and that is the CDC's position at the moment. Anecdotally (meaning there are no peer reviewed studies supporting this view), it is thought that if you had a asymptomatic or mild case of COVID, you are more likely to become infected a second time even though the occurrence rate is very low. You'll probably be asymptomatic but, if you do become infected and don't know it, you will carry and shed virus particles. The reason for that is that it is believed that your immune response, in particular Memory B cell response (humeral or adaptive immunity) is weaker than it has been found to be in serious cases of COVID or those that have been vaccinated. For infected and recovered people that don't get vaccinated one can expect the body to mount a weaker overall attack of the virus, still unknowingly carry it and be going places with the risk of infecting others. I still hold it's personal choice but to say there is science and data behind choosing not to get vaccinated if you've already had COVID is not accurate. Anecdotally and at this point in time, most experts would argue you should get vaccinated even if you've had COVID - unless you are Rand Paul - he's had COVID, thinks he doesn't need to get vaccinated and does not plan on it.

TBH, there is no credible argument for not getting vaccinated. However, it should clearly be a personal choice. I have no issues with a person telling me they aren't getting the vaccine. I don't care about the reasons - that's that person's business. OTH, I have no problems with a public or private entity requiring a vaccine (or a mask, or social distancing or shoes and a shirt) to enter or receive services. Nobody who is rational and sensible and knows the law and US court precedent upholding it (including the Supremes) should take issue with this. It's lawful to do so. The Desantis BS on banning any business from requiring vaccinations to enter or receive services (among other States Governors who have done the same) is not legally defensible. It is unlawful to do so and could be unconstitutional (another story). It is undeniably FL law that will be tossed as soon as it is challenged. So, I just don't get the kerfuffle between Desantis and Celebrity Cruise lines. The only area where personal choice involving the kinds of things we're talking about here is abortion although it remains unlawful to prevent a woman from choosing an abortion generally under state defined limits ...... for now (Roe v. Wade and all that). I'm not here to preach abortion rights but it is illustrative about freedom of choice and it's limitations in our laws. Read-up. This is an excellent article on falsehoods passed on social media platforms, like it is illegal for business to ask for proof of vaccination to enter or obtain services within. IT's NOT. Know the facts. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/05/25/no-it-is-not-illegal-for-businesses-to-require-proof-of-vaccination/

I know there is a lot up in the air but the lines, not just RCL, seem to have problems with consistency to some key questions like: When are you planning to sail your first US revenue cruise and from what US port? PS: I know things remain fluid but what is your plan as in plan A, B C? For RCL: I understand you will not be requiring proof of vaccination to sail, right? I see you are going to have a mix of vaxed and non-vaxed passengers on US port originating sailings. What will be your protocols for masking and distancing, inside and outside your ships? For Celebrity: I understand you will require proof of vaccination to sail on your initially announced sailings from St. Maartin, Athens and Fort Lauderdale. What will be your protocols for masking and distancing, inside and outside your ships? These aren't hard questions nor should they have not been pretty much locked down at this point with it appearing that RCG ships will sail from both foreign and US ports in June/July. Count me among avid cruisers who find teaser press releases and videos annoying. Get you S### together ..... please.

As scheduled a "Settlement Conference" was held yesterday, May 27th via Zoom. According to the docket item posted today, only three people were in attendance besides the Judge and the court recorder. It went on for 11h!!! and the conference will reconvene on June 1st. I suspect there is a lot of technical issues to get through if the docket from the time Merryday sent it to mediation and today is any indicator of that. Bunch of motions filed asking for this and that to be included followed by motions as to why it shouldn't ..... mostly involving the ATSA document, which IMO, is really good. So, I suspect a lot of the discussion involved agreement or disagreement, acceptance or rejection on all of this. After I thoroughly read the Federal Register which goes back and lays out the facts that supported CDC's lawful duty to develop and implement the CSO, I thought how the CDC went about doing it was well supported, seemed completely lawful. The Register laid out the options the CDC considered. Not a lot different from my understanding of those options but it did seem to make sense. IOW, they did consider options, which is one of the claims that they did not in the ATSA Amicus filing. I don't think mediation will produce a result. I think it's more likely that both sides will harden thier postions both beleiving they are going to prevail, kick it back to Merryday and let him rule. In that case I think, based on what I read yesterday, that FL will lose. JMO, YMMV. I'd add as I commented yesterday that Desantis can't claim his FL anti-vaccination passport rule trumps whatever the CDC says (Federal Law) when his law suit v. HHS/CDC says the opposite. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.66.0_1.pdf

Point taken. Do you think the entire cruise industry is culpable in this regard? I do to varying degrees. Frankly, Delrio may turn out to be the most honest CEO by saying, we can't do this (my words) and planning restarts late in 2021 and not competing in the race to "be first." I think we're seeing how shaky the restart is shaping up to be under the provisions of the CSO. My takeaway is: keep government out my business. The costs of regulatory interventions infrequently produce the desired benefit.

I found today's Desantis statement interesting: (quoted from Matt's story on the Home Page): Earlier today, the governor's office told WFTS, "The CDC has no legal authority to set any sort of requirements to cruise. Moreover, the CDC has acknowledged, on record, that the federal government chose not to make a legal requirement for vaccine passports. Now the CDC provides coercive guidance” in the absence of any federal law or congressional authorization, requiring cruise ships to violate state law. The first line is a fundamental claim in FL's law suit against HHS/CDC. He gives up on this, HHS lawyers will be all over it. If I'm the judge in this case listening to oral arguments, the defendant is going to have a point. How can you argue the CDC has no legal authority to impose requirements on the cruise industry. For the record, I think he's wrong. There's an abundance of U.S.C. that under specific circumstances (up to the water's edge), the CDC, for the most part, can do what it is requiring cruise lines to do in the CSO. A federal declaration of a PHE appears to be key in that authority. Bring that to an end and the CDC's CSO is dead in the water. This is really the proverbial shit-sandwich for Desantis. I don't fell bad for him at all. IMO, it was completely avoidable. All he had to do was exempt the cruise industry from compliance with state law offering that internationally registered companies can file for an exception and we'll look at it on case by case basis considering the benefits to the state. Nonetheless, I don't think his legislation will survive a court challenge, he knows it and all this is no more than pandering to his conservative constituency.

I'm surprised Desantis publicly stated Celebrity Cruises will be in violation of legislation he orchestrated that prohibits business operating in FL from requiring vaccination to enter and/or receive services from that business. He could have just remained silent. I hate it that there will be controversy and will be in the news. But the reality is that Federal Law trumps state law in this case as @StayFrostynotes. Here's how this might go down: A compromise is reached and both sides demure not wanting to make the other look bad. No compromise is reached, Celebrity sails on 6/26 (not yet under the provision of the new law) and after (where it will be), FL fines Celebrity who then goes to court and slam dunks the FL law that pertains.

It is absolutely correct to note that the risk of contracting COVID on board a cruise ship is very small and that risk is only slightly higher for a hybrid mix of passengers than it is for a fully (95%) vaccinated passenger manifest. I think we all know this and most of us, including me, are willing to cruise in the hybrid setting. Where the risk is the highest is for the lines themselves. The bottom line is that they can't afford ANY infections for reasons that have been discussed here. So, for them, they are trying to build a zero risk environment. Hats off to all the cruise lines for all that they are doing to achieve this as closely as they can. We are all going to be a lot better off from an infection control standpoint as cruises slowly but steadily return.

Here's the quote and, correct, its from the author and does not reflect Celebrity policy: All Celebrity ships will sail with a vaccinated crew. U.S. guests ages 16 and older must be fully vaccinated and, as of August 1, 2021, all U.S. guests ages 12 and older must be fully vaccinated. This is from the Celebrity web site in the section Healthy at Sea: All guests ages 16 years and older must be fully vaccinated with all Covid-19 vaccine doses administered at least 14 days prior to sailing. As of August 1, 2021, all US Guests age 12 and older must be fully vaccinated. For UK residents, all guests 18 and over must be fully vaccinated with all Covid-19 vaccine doses administered at least 14 days prior to sailing. Crew members onboard will be vaccinated. No distinction is made at the Celebrity web site between US and non-US guests. Everyone has to be vaccinated to sail Another point: Regardless of which path a cruise line choses to purse between 95/98 and test cruises, the CDC requires each ship to be approved to sail by applying to, in fact, sail. There are two sources that apply to and define what this means. They are the Federal Register that contains the actual Framework for Conditional Sailing and Initial Phase COVID-19 Testing Requirements for Protection of Crew and Passengers (October 20th 2020) and the COVID-19 Operations Manual for Simulated and Restricted Voyages under the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order at the CDC web site (last updated May26th 2021). I've provided links to all the applicable documents below. If you really want to be informed about what is behind the CSO and the re-start, I recommend you at least scan them. The Framework for Conditional Sailing Order at the CDC web site (last updated May26th 2021) is the most current source and I found it interesting that the section regarding permission to pursue the 98/95 pathway was just published yesterday via an update to the CDC source! Wow. The cruise lines have to be fully informed of both of these sources to establish what they need to do to apply to the CDC for, obtain approval from the CDC and actually sail. I've just read both of them. What I found interesting is that it appears that the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) is a central component to the CSO. A lot of the stuff in the CSO is just a regurgitation of the provisions of the VSP that cruise ships are already in compliance with. That does not mean there are not a lot of hoops to jump through. It means that many of the hoops have already been cleared. TBF to Mr. Fain and RCL, they simply chose another route not any more complex or burdensome than the 95/98 route. What it does mean is that RCL's startup is going to be slower and take longer and this may very well comport with RCL's operations plans and are different than Celebrity's. My post last night was too harsh wrt to RCL and Mr. Fain and to congratulatory of Celebrity's https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/04/2020-24477/framework-for-conditional-sailing-and-initial-phase-covid-19-testing-requirements-for-protection-of https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/10/2021-09895/conditional-sailing-order-technical-instructions-and-operations-manual https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/covid19-operations-manual-cso.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/desc/aboutvsp.htm

This is the way a great cruise line does it. Deliberate, aggressive, transparent. There's been none of the silly teaser videos, no confusion about sailing plans, just straight forward, this is business. I've posted on the Celebrity thread that I know exactly what's happening and how it will happen on my booked cruise out of Athens on July 9th. @Matt said: Unlike Celebrity, Royal Caribbean will not be able to reach the 95% mandate of passengers being vaccinated by the CDC to skip test cruises. That's not really the case. Mr. Fain, or whoever is running the clown show there, chose to go with a hybrid mix of vaxed and unwaxed passengers and to do the test crises to get certified by the CDC. From a practical standpoint that's potentially putting up unnecessary barriers, e.g., what if the CDC says on the first go, "not good enough, do it again?" From a health health standpoint, I think that creates potential for problems. Although the risk is small, an infection - just one or two - is possible, more possible with a hybrid mix of passengers and unvaccinated people on excursions, catching COVID, in a port with circulating virus and brining it back on board ship. That would be disastrous. I get the family orientation of RCL but get the boats with vaxed passengers on line and go from there. Egg on your face Mr. Fain.

Perhaps. My sense is that there is a degree of chaos. Maybe not getting the word out from the operations division to sales division is a better term. My take is that RCL has been less than transparent and know more about their plans than they release publicly. Why do I think that? Because preparing a ship to come out of warm storage in normal conditions is hard. In a post pandemic setting having to deal with CSO compliance, it is very hard. None of this happens in weeks but instead takes months. If the operations division doesn't have a plan, that doesn't speak well for RCL. If they have one, and I think they do, not letting the sales division and TAs know what it is very bad PR.

This is key. "Breaks you success criteria." Who is setting this? It's a combination or the highly unrealistic, zero risk approach the CDC took with the initial CSO and that RCL appears to be OK with it. It's not OK with lines that have directed everyone needs to be vaccinated to cruise. Period. Full stop. Look, this isn't an easy decision for a cruise line that courts families. I get the fence straddling. Nonetheless, I think it's stupid for RCL to pursue a strategy where you'll have a mix of vaxed and un-vaxed aboard. Complicates everything for the reason you site @LizzyBee23 . OTH, the risk of this happening...... the first cases of transmission detected on board will be among the older group, as they make up a bigger percentage of the passengers on Alaska sailings and it doesn't seem like they will be asked to socially distance onboard by virtue of having had the vaccine. It's also far.more likely someone in that group brings the virus onboard as they are unlikely to mount a fully sterilizing immune response and won't be tested (you could also say the same for anyone who mounted a less than ideal immune response for some reason, or who got J&J without a natural infection to boost). ...... is so low as to be dismissed. The political reality makes it an unacceptable risk to take and therefore the wisest course seems to me to be to require vaccination of all who sail over 12/16. In July and probably through September, you've got cover if you follow that approach. You don't if you accept a hybrid mix of passengers. Hopefully by end of September, none of this will matter.

Its a small detail @TXCruiser but no..... thanks @LizzyBee23. Admittedly, unlike @LizzyBee23I wasn't aware of the connection you made between the PHE and the EUA until you mentioned it. When I looked it up, I found this: The Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act amended section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3, to provide more flexibility to the Health and Human Services Secretary to authorize the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The Secretary is no longer required to make a formal determination of a public health emergency under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d before declaring that circumstances justify issuing an EUA. So, it would seem that a cancelling of the PHE would not cancel the EUA as it was authorized directly by HHS to the FDA w/o the requirement to do that under a PHE ..... although, obviously, one was in effect. You almost have to be an attorney skilled in regulatory law to understand this. Interestingly, my son-in-law is one although he works in hospital compliance but we discussed the CSO and although he was not familiar with it, he said maritime regulation law is a highly specialized field wrt to how the CSO came about and added regulatory law in the HHS domain is also very complex. That's what he spends hours trying to sort out for his clients (Vidant HC in NC)

Good catch. When was that section added? If after the chatter from RCL and elsewhere that Seattle was going to be the place from which RCL might sail first and on Alaska itineraries, at least RCL recognizes the potential for confusion and clarifies it. Still lots of unknowns as it pertains to what I believe is imminent restarts from FL ports. But what has been the underpinning of RCL talk ...... there won't be a lot of ships restarting at the same time (July?) and it may be a hybrid mix of test sailings and full revenue sailings from FL, TX and Seattle, maybe others. Has anyone done a spread sheet yet that names/guesses what ships are most likely to sail and from which ports in July/August? That would be a nice project for Twangster, don't ya'll think?

This won't work for everyone but to avoid all of this what I call BS above, I booked a Greek Isles itinerary on 7/9/21 out of Athens on Celebrity Apex months ago. I was betting the restart from US ports would be slow and if it happened at all a confusing mess. Too many players, politics and moving parts. I was over-joyed when Celebrity announced just last week you have to be vaccinated to board Celebrity sailings from Athens (and St. Maartin). I was more over-joyed when I could check in for this cruise using the Celebrity App and doing so made it become pretty clear how all of this was going to go down when I fly to Athens (Celebrity Air) and board at the port of Piraeus. As I mentioned elsewhere, Celebrity's Edge class ships use some neat technology to get you aboard in a hurry and contactless - much like boarding an airliner with a few additions like a FTF health screening before boarding. Hopefully that's present at the port - I can't imagine Celebrity choosing Apex to sail from there on initial restarts without those techy features in place. We'll see. I like certainty and need closure ?

Golf clap ....... this is good news and a step in the right direction. I understand that RCL has submitted documents to the CDC to approve re-starts in unnamed ports and that was done last week. Seattle? Who knows and I think that sucks. I'd speculate that Seattle is one of those ports but, given Fain's vagueness about pertinent details that will determine RCL's authority to sail from there bothers me and I'm not planning on booking an Alaska itinerary anyway. It just bothers me. Are these sailings from Seattle going to be full revenue sailings at 95/98% cruisers or a mix of non-vax and vax passengers with a load of masking requirements? .... or not? If you're hoping to book an Alaska RCL cruise sailing in July- that lie just a few days more than 30d away, people - I'd be pissed at RCL for creating a very short window for your personal decision making and logistics. Then again, August may be more likely and the tease about a July sailing is pure BS. JMO, YMMV.

IMO, unless something bad happens (not likely) by December, in the US anyway, we could be seeing a complete relaxation of the current CSO wrt shipboard sanitation regulations (what the authority and jurisdiction of the CSO springs forth from). My view is that by early fall, the Public Health Emergency (PHE) in the US will have been ended, possibly even sooner than that but, I'll go with "early fall" for now. Depending on what happens globally with vaccination programs and roll-outs the WHO will declare the pandemic over but regional epidemics still a concern. What that means for Americans is that the CSO, as we know and understand it's provision today, will be cancelled by the CDC, significantly improved by the CDC and merged into updates to current sanitation and infection control regulations or ruled by the court in FL currently hearing FL's law suit against HHS/CDC as unlawful. That will result in the CSO being enjoined. Favor improved/merged .... that option may come out of the current mediation effort assigned by the Federal court hearing FL's law suit. BTW, I believe going forward there will also be Congressional hearings on lthe CDC itself and limiting the authority of the CDC to impose policy like the NSO and CSO. I doubt that will happen again. IOW, you (and the rest of us) won't likely be dealing with any of this in sailings from US ports. COVID vaccine seasonal schedules will be as common as flu shots. COVID as a disease will become influenza like. The difference bing more transmissible with a higher death rate but manageable. What we will be dealing with is significantly safer cruising when it comes to infection control and ship sanitation. Silver lining if you could call it that.

I think this is spot on. My take is that Fain knows something the public doesn't and that is something to do with relaxing of some of the stipulations within the CSO as we move forward. Fain talks about 1000% better dialogue between the CDC and the cruise lines. That's code for the idiots at the CDC are starting to deal with real world data and what RCL (and others) have offered all along as sensible infection control and risk reduction measures to allow a re-start is being adopted within the CSO. I've argued that Celebrity has a better approach than RCL and that Fain should take a page from Luttoff-Perlo's play book .... everyone needs to be vaccinated to board. That's fine for Celebrity that has a much older passenger demographic (late 40s is the median age) and rarely has a lot of under 16s. It's not fine for RCL who I suspect is providing the CDC with rational input on the risk of the under 16 cohort of transmitting the virus as in creating a large outbreak on an RCL ship. RCL may know it's going to get a break on that from the CDC, something exactly like you are suggesting. I'd add that a good metric for the CDC to throw in with what you suggest is that the county (make sure you read that as COUNTY, not country as this metric should be regional) the cruise port is located within have a %positivity below 5%. If that criteria is met, un-vaxed, under 16s as well as everyone else can cruise after a negative PCR. I'd prefer that a second test after 72h be performed to catch leakers creating as close to a perfect bubble that is reasonably achievable. Side note, Broward Co., home of PEV, has a % positivity rate of under 3% and has been maintaining under 5% for weeks. To my knowledge, Ports of Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville and Canaveral are all in counties with circulating virus metrics below 5%. Your still dealing with a proportionally higher risk of a COVID outbreak aboard ship if you allow a mix of vaxed and un-vaxed passengers, introduce questions of who needs to mask and who doesn't and introduction of COVID after a cruise port is visited. Maybe Fain has a plan to deal with that. If he does, he's not telling us.

@CruiseGus, things have more recently changed since Matt posted that. I live in FL and have followed this pretty closely. Proponents of the ban site the envrionmental damage done to the FL keys by the cruise ship industry. Some of those claims are legit but, for the most part, environmentalists aren't able to show much solid data to support that claim. TBF, the initial ballot initiative passed by a 63% margin indicating residents there support the ban. I find it hard to believe that business owners love the idea of reduced traffic in their restaurants and stores. I did see one article that claimed cruise passengers don't spend much when in town. The article claimed cruise ship traffic accounted for just 7% of Key West's revenue. I find that hard to believe. Whatever. Proponents of the ban have accused Desantis of favoring a developer in Key West by muscling the legislation through to his desk as an amendment to a larger transportation bill that would over-rule the Key West ban because the developer contributed heavily to the Desantis gubernatorial campaign. Who knows. Like I said. Political hot potato.