JeffB

The reality is that PH authorities like Walenski, Fauci and others are not in the business of risk analysis. They are in th business of evaluating disease risk and then PH policy should spring from that ....... after the costs of various mitigation measures are evaluatged. The object is to maximisw bang for the buck. With SARS2 that never happened. It's that failure of the last two administrations to evaluate the benefits v. costs of a PH policy that has to be corrected going forward and I beleive it will be. The CDC, in the case of the cruise lines, fashioned PH polcy that clearly exceeded their authority given outcomes. That can't happen ever again. I think PH authorities can make a case that regulation of the cruise industry's health and safety procedures and protocols is needed to prevent profit from driving operations. But, there is plenty of regulation that's already on the books that could have been tweaked short of what happened from March 2020 onward for the CDC to fulfill it's regulatory responsibility. The NSO and now the CSO were way overboard, some of it legal, most of it not. We're left with the ashes that were once a vibrant, growing and important industry that contributed heavily to the global economy. It's shameful that it happened in the first place, moe shameful that it hasn't been corrected wholesale. That could have happend with a ruling from Judge Merryday and could still happen if mediation fails.

A capacity limited ship may be able to sail immediately, without test sailings if unvaccinted children comprise less that 5% of all pax. Not a hard bar to get over ....... around 75. But I take your point. RCL May not want to risk running up against that number during the booking period and then before to limit that cohort.

Just curious ..... none of the screen shots of the advisory on vaccinations shows who the sender is. RCL? I'm remain distrubed by the poor, often confusing and/or contradictory information being promulgated by RCG. As I posted earlier/elsewhere, it isn't hard to make sure that offficial policy is coming from one source, is accurate and is reflective of current federal and state guidance. I've also said this: RCG has to have some level of insight into what CDC's stand is on the CSO or they would not be making plans to sail from Seattle in July, completing logistical and staffing reuirements for the ships that will begin revenue sailings and taking bookings. The announcments of and the bookings for an Alaska season from Seattle and promulgation of a policy that vacination will be required to board any RCG sailing from a US port signals that (A) RCG knows they are going to sail in July and (B) they aren't going the test sailings option route to restart. Given this logical reasoning, there is no reason at all for RCG to not open check in for bookings inside 90d and publish COVID protocols and procedures that will be in place when the sailing occurs on the check in pages. Cruisers understand that ports in countries being visited on a sailing may have addional COVID requirements. Just state that in announcments of the ship's COVID protocols and procedures and then reinforce them with announcments, adding any updates, the evening before the port call. This isn't rocket sicence. As well, it's a call for RCG to get it's act together with regard to the critically important aspect of information dissemination involving passenger health, safety and comfort.

I agree with this @smokeybandit. What distrubes me is that if RCG knows they can sail out of FL per @AGSLC5 then why don't they say so? Why doesn't the Governor clear this up by saying his no proof of vaccination policy does not apply to the cruise lines? I think it's pretty clear cruiselines will not be subject to the Desantis no proof of vaccination requied when sailing from FL ports. So, tell us that in clear an uncertain terms. Instead there's nothing in writing. Cruisers, businesses that rely on the revenue crusiers bring to town, port service providers are all asking this question. The fog of uncertainty, the tittilating slow release of critical information by RCG seems to me to be unnecessary.

Agree. The entire Alaska thing is pretty uncertain at this point amid what I consider putting the cart before the horse.

The first Alaska sailing from Seattle is 7/19/21. That's just inside 60d. Two obstacles to that sailing are the one I pointed out (compliance with the CSO v. easing of it v. PHE ends or CSO is enjoined and Port of Seattle/Seranade are cleared to operate) and the one @12thman points out ( logistics). I have trouble with cruise lines taking bookings and I'd assume full payment given those obstacles. OTH, the lines could have what Matt called an "understanding" and I called a guestionable "hand shake" agreement with the Seattle Port Authority and/or the CDC. As I previously advocated, this is where I believe the cruise lines owe customers more transparency. I'm unaware of any memos released by RCL that provides a semblance of reassurance that "we got this." Instead, we've got "trust us on this." Not that I don't trust RCL but the last 3-4 months have seen future outcomes as anything you could call clear. It's mostly foggy with visibility near zero. And RCL wants our money? I don't think so, not mine anyway.

So, nothing formalized thats in the public domain? A hand shake? I would not put any money on any July Alaska cruise out of Seattle until the CDC formally and in writing green lighted sailings from Seattle. That any cruise line is accepting bookings under circumstances where this is not the case seems to me a bit shady.

Wait. Has the CDC waived the CSO for these ships and has RCL negotiated all its contracts with the Port of Seattle per 2A? I don't think so. All of these sailings are truly in limbo until these obstacles are cleared. Amiright?

Does this CDC rejoinder mean that once the "statement of non partipation" signed by Rivkes is obtained by RCG and sent to the CDC that RCG no longer has to obtain contracts from port service providers such as hotels, hospitals, etc. that might have to deal with COVID crew or passengers being debarked in a FL port? I don't think that's accurate but what do I know? Another question, is RCLs port agent - the one always named in your cruise contract - a single POC for all port services? If so, is the Rivkes letter applicable to him/it as a means of relieving RCL from all the port services contracts 2A calls for?

Frustrating and a huge deal to people that have to arrange flights, transfers, excursions & tours, etc. We do this to and amongst ourselves here but the lines have been vague and to some degree less than transparent. Sure, they have cause but the uncertainty is really bad PR. I don't buy the excuse they can't plan because the don't know. There are clear indications they know a whole lot more than the cruising public does. I think we have a right and reasons for complaining to the lines .... not that it will do any good.

A rhetorical question to support a view that there's a lot of talk, a lot of it inconsistent and/or confusing and little action. I knew the answer before I asked it. BTW, I can't check in to my Apex cruise out of Athens where there's no CDC to deal with but rather a more reasonable Greek government and PH authority. It's 56d from today!

I'll add this Question? For cruises sailing from US ports in July you may have booked, has check in opened?

All of these announcements this week are easy to group together, conflate intent and meaning and think RCG is getting close to a restart. For my own peace of mind, this is my list of what is known: There's a lawful CSO. RCG appears to be complying with its provisions and has communicated intent to start test cruises. FL's request filed with the federal district Court to enjoin the CSO has been assigned to mediation. Congress passed a bill temporarily suspending portions of the Jones Act which will temporarily suspend requirements for cruise ships enroute to Alaska from a US port to stop in Canadian ports. It's not the law yet. FL has stated it will not participate in 2A requirements of the CSO regarding coordination with local health authorities. No permission from us is required to sail from FL ports. I'm not confident that the CSO's requirement for contracts between service providers who would deal with infected crew/pax e.g. hospitals, local hotels for quarantine, etc. Are covered by the Rivkes letter. IOW, there are indicators things are moving toward a restart but not much has changed in terms of known start dates. Still all speculative and tentative.

Mark me as confused. The CSO stipulates two options between cruise lines and port service providers to meet the CDC's requirement to obtain contracts for such services: (1) negotiate contracts (I assume legally binding) (2) obtain letters from these service providers saying they won't negotiate contracts. The Rivkes letter does not address this. It simply says from a public health standpoint, RCG does not need to seek permission to sail. That's a ways from saying no contracts required. Moreover, the state PH director has no say regarding how RCG and port service providers interact.

Officials within the CDC are so hugely invested in their 15 month old narrative, mostly at odds with emerging pandemic and vaccine data, that it's not hard to understand why the CSO hasn't been ended.

This.....and more. A good example of government overreaction to case counts, probably out of context, is Singapore's imposition of stricter mitigation measures on Quantum. What was the disease burden? Likely quite low but governments base line goal in some cases appears to be eradication rather than control. What's going on in Australia is another example of a PH policy goal that appears to accept near eradication, zero deaths, zero serious illness. None of those PH goals IMO are realistically achievable. So, yes, a "shift" is necessary. TBH, that's going to be hard. 15+ months of hammering our brains with images of death and suffering, narratives of "dire consequences" isn't going to go away. It's baked into the minds of policy makers. I'm just not seeing the shift that's needed with PH officials who are likely to carry the pandemic trauma for years with that trauma influencing the issuance of bad PH policy in the future. I am seeing authors and scientists writing about a post pandemic world with the next virus pandemic just out of sight for now and the necessity of living with that, controlling it but not locking down to the extent of it for SARS2. That's encouraging but that's a long way from convincing governments to act rationally in the face of a fading SARS2 pandemic and the next viral threat that will most certainly come.

I think many of us commenting on restarts, when or if that actually happens, have concluded that terminating the PHE declarations, both federal and state, are key to limiting CDC's unlawful authority to impose policy. No one here, anyway, and growing numbers elsewhere, are asserting that the CDC's PH guidance is sound. Quite the opposite and especially as it pertains to its negative impact on state's efforts to return to normalcy. Government officials and the public are fed up with the confusing often contradictory CDC guidance. All of the authority in the CDC's guidance, both the appearance that it is lawful and when it might actually be lawful, goes away with an end to federal and state declared PHEs. And to be clear while the CDC issues only guidance, under the PHE that guidance gives life to every lawful pandemic mitigation measure still unnecessarily in place, including the CSO. It also gives rise to the COVID fear monkey narrative that is driving unnecessary risk averse human behaviors. Having said that, this mornings news is filled with announcements of lock downs in Asia due to rising new cases. It reminds that COVID outbreaks are going to happen going forward and be disruptive to mobility and travel until vaccines are more widely available globally. It brings up the question if cruising restarts from US and European ports, resumes soon in Asia, what happens in the middle of a cruise itinerary when health authorities controlling the next ports, close them? I suppose one adjusts but this circumstance is likely to be a big problem for cruise lines and cruisers alike. While in the short term we all want the CSO to go away and cruising from US and foreign port's to resume ASAP, there will be times going forward, even as the pandemic fades when there may be no place to go.

I just can't imagine this isn't happening as we speak. The CDC seems to be on Congress's s### list.

Just speculation but Norwegian knew this bill was going to pass days before it actually did. The cruise lines know stuff we don't. I suspect that applies to the status of the CSO. Lots of things happening this week.

That was quick. The bill relieving the requirement to stop in Vancouver per Jones Act just passed.

Huge on a lot of levels. Sort of shifts the politics of this in Washington in favor of a restart quickly. A positive for eliminating the CSO or easing it considerably.

Of course it is. Did you read FL's filing from yesterday? It's the first time I've seen FL's position allege the CSO is unlawful. It strips away 264a's assumed authority under which the CSO was undertaken. It's a very strong legal position that I've not seen unwrapped. I take it as an indicator. That's all.

I think FL has hardened its position if the filing yesterday in responce to HHS memo is an indicator. I think they think they can win, will not settle at mediation and press for Merryday to rule. If the CSO is immediately enjoined before mid June, sailings will start in July......lines have been preparing for that. At worst, the CSO will be significantly less burdensome out of mediation.

Thanks @twangsterfor that. For those that haven't made their way through the link, it is beyond question that the CSO is unlawful on multiple grounds. I stand corrected. What I find strange is that this is a rejoinder and additional complaint to the first filing. Not sure why they added this ..... possibly to argue that mediation isn't an option for FL. The court must enjoin the CSO to provide the relief FL, et. al. seek.

Yet the cruise lines are pressing ahead in what appears to me to be an acceptance that they will have to comply with all or part of it. That's because in all likelihood their legal teams have told them the CSO is lawful. None of the lines has alleged it is not lawful in any forum. Judge Merryday did not rule it was unlawful. People can be "ticked" that he punted to mediation but there's probably good reasons why he did that ...... one of them being the thing is lawful as awful and burdensome as it si FL is an exception and the grounds for their claim does not question CDC's legal authority to regulate. It questions the administrative process and procedures the CDC failed to follow in implementing the NSO and CSO. The ATSA's Amicus makes a case that the CDC could have imposed fewer, less onerous regulations, achieved the same PH benefits and not nearly bankrupted the cruise lines. It may appear to be "unworkable" to some, it does not appear to be for the cruise lines, Delrio's bitch about it notwithstanding. Lines that take a positive view of it and make an effort are more likely to start revenue sailings in July from US ports than lines that dig in their heels. I hear a lot of huffing and puffing about the CSO from multiple sources. I have not heard a credible legally based argument that invalidates it in its entirety. I don't care how stupid, inconsistent and contradictory it is. If it's lawful, and I think most of it is, none of that matters. It's gas bag, echo chamber, key stroke wasting hot air. The only part that might be on shaky legal grounds are the elements that the CDC is imposing regulations past the waters edge (e.g., the shore based service providers). Even that may be legal in the broadest application of the CDC's role to regulate sanitation and safety aboard commercial vessels sailing in US waters/porting in US ports. People who take the position that the CSO is unlawful can do better than that to support their positions.