JeffB

Completely on point. I don't know the details as well as I should but several of the bills introduced in the US Congress over the last month or so include rewriting applicable U.S.C. that tends to grant HHS this level of sweeping authority to regulate businesses without appropriate over-sight. I get the knee-jerk reactions in February to what was going on globally with the SARS2 outbreak. But within hours of what amounted to wholesale shutdown of economic activity in the US accompanied by severe restrictions to personal freedoms, Congressional over-sight and review should have commenced. I find it disturbing that it didn't and it was just assumed all these PHE declarations that authorized state and local governments to lock everything down were needed to contain the virus. There is a review process but it's internal to HHS and the CDC. No other government agencies appear to have participated. That this review process only occurs every 90d is shockingly inappropriate given the level of restrictions imposed.

@stevendom57 you're not alone in being confused. The entire US is confused about the CDC's new no-masking mandate for vaccinated people let alone the confusion that reigns wrt to the CSO's mitigation measures......even the new ones released on Friday. Matt, above, notes the "glaring discrepancies" even in the newly released CSO guidance. This is condemnation of our entire public health apparatus in the US. We should be pushing back on PH guidance coming from all levels that is patently absurd or inconsistent with publicly available data. On land, write your local county commissioners and keep hounding them until they reveal on what basis PH measures are being implemented or until they relent and issue appropriate guidance. In the meantime don't be an ass. Comply with the rules in place, until they are relaxed. Brings to mind the outrageous, pre-pandemic behaviors of cruisers who flaunt on-board rules that are designed to keep people safe or provide a modicum of good behavior or etiquette. It's likely to be worse once we start sailing again - there will be "those people" (obviously none of us) - who brazenly flaunt whatever additional measures the lines end up putting in place to keep us from getting sick. I don't look forward to that.

All viruses, including SARS2 have a definite pattern of rapid rise in new cases, rapid fall as PH authorities implement mitgation measures or people become more cautious, followed by another rise but usually the slope is flatter and the peak lower. These waves repeat until the pandemic ends as a result of the virus running out of people to infect or immunity is conferred through vaccination. Deaths always lag this predictable virus pattern. So, what's going on in India is expected. What wasn't expected was the collapse of parts of India's health care system which resulted in horrific numbers of dead from COVID. The Modi government has also bungled the vaccine program, caveat that India has 1.4 B citizens but nonetheless not enough people were vaccinated to blunt the current wave as it has been blunted elsewhere where vaccine programs were well executed.

The Economist just published an article on the new UK Variant. The article was informative wrt to the question, are variants going to evade natural, conferred or immunized immunity. You know my record here on COVID. I push back against the fear monkey narrative and in general, think the severity of mitigation measures from the start of the pandemic have not produced the desired PH benefits given the staggering economic and social costs. The world over-reacted and in a big, harmful and costly way. The CSO, IMO is a gross over-reaction to COVID transmission risks on cruise ships. JMO.Having said that and noting my record of currently advocating for abandoning most mobility and behavior mitigation measures, I continued to have this nagging concern about the impact of variants on ending the pandemic. I dismissed these concerns of mine as it became obvious by mid-February that vaccines worked, including reducing transmission, against known variants at the time. Part of that dismissiveness was probably irrational because I have a bias. The actual science of trajectories of viral mutations is also complex and not easily reduced to one line news stories and explanations.So, where are we these variants? In the news late this week was the emergence of B1.617.2 in the UK, thought to have come from India, possibly explaining the rapid increase in hospitalizations and deaths there. The UK and subsequently the WHO labeled it as variant of concern. Two areas of the UK were seeing increased case numbers involving B1.617.2. Boris warned if this variant takes hold (out competes the currently predominant variant there - B1.1.7), it could jeopardize his aggressive re-opening plans. On Monday, unless these orders get cancelled, pubs will be allowed to serve drinks and food inside. On June 15th, most COVID restrictions will be relaxed. These orders were based up the UK's remarkable success with their vaccination program that had reduced new cases by 90% and just about stopped COVID related hospitalizations and deaths.If B1.617.2 takes hold in the UK and causes an increase in COVID hospitalizations and deaths, that's a big deal. Given the high % of UK citizens having been vaccinated it would mean those vaccines are not effective against this new variant. It's worth noting that the UK's testing and genomic sequencing capacity is the gold standard globally. We should be paying attention to what goes down wrt COVID in the UK.An important qualifier here is that Boris Johnson pursued a unique vaccine roll out approach. He eschewed the recommended two dose regimen timing (extended the time frame for the second dose) and focused on getting the maximum number of Brits inoculated out of the gate. If it turns out that variants can evade the ABs produced in the one dose approach, that would suggest the recommended 2 dose regimen and the timing of the second dose is the regimen that should be followed.What's actually "going down" there? The new variant has just recently appeared. It is only a small percentage of variant detections with B1.1.7 still predominant (95%/5%). OTH, new diagnosed cases caused by B1.617.2 are doubling every week. Importantly, the majority of new cases are being detected in young, mostly unvaccinated people. Hospitalizations and death rates, so far, are flat. Still, it's a valid concern and Boris has now recommended Brits over 60 to receive a second dose ASAP.When you start reading about this variant in the news and the UK's experience with it in the coming days and weeks be mindful of the metrics that count. New case numbers rising due to this new UK variant presented out of context is, as usual, meaningless. What is meaningful is this: If the metrics that count (age v. illness v. hospitalizations and excess deaths due to COVID) rise, it means the vaccines, or at least the Boris Johnson regimen for administration of them can be evaded by mutations. If they remain flat, the natural selection process of SARS2 - it's capacity to mutate and survive - is not trending toward more deadly strains that might render the current vaccines ineffective in preventing illness and death..We should know in a couple of weeks. As far as how the CDC views the requirement for the CSO wrt to the risk of variants spreading disease on cruise ships, we know they will take the most risk averse pathway. This must be understood in the context that the CDC sees cruise ships as residential congregate settings requiring a higher level of monitoring and mitigation. That's why restarurants, bars and casinos on land are viewed differently than those aboard a cruise ship. You can see this in the updated onboard masking policy. I'm pretty certain that the caution reflective in these is a valid concern about the interlocution of variants aboard a cruise ship - a residential congregate setting - and the potential for these to spread as passengers disembark and go home.

Anecdotally, conferred immunity from previous infections is not as robust as that obtained by vaccination. Studies have not been completed (peer reviewed/submitted to a journal and accepted for publication) to give that assumption both power (reliability) and depth, e.g., previously infected and recovered people have a less than 3% chance or a 90% chance of reinfection. Don't know that kind of detail yet. That sort of study requires sophisticated serology testing for ABs and long term follow-up. There is data to suggest that in both fully vaccinated and previously infected and recovered persons, reinfection is "rare." Medically that means less than 3 or 4% chance. What's noteworthy here is that the CDC, being ultra safe, risk averse and conservative before it provides guidance, wants the kind of data I provide examples of above. WHne they don't have it thier guidance tends to waffle, be ambiguous and confusing. Updated guidance for masking in general and particularly aboard ship is a good example of that.

A filing late today by HHS's/CDC's attorneys opposes the Amicus brief submitted by The Association of Travel Agents on the grounds that it wasn't submitted in a timely manner and complicates the hearing process. It's up to the Judge to decide to dismiss or adopt the defendant's motion. This is a technical move that as a matter of law has to be addressed. An Amicus brief has to be filed within 7d of the initial filing by the state of FL. That would have been by April 15th. The judge has the authority to allow entry of the Amicus brief by extending the time frame it can be submitted. I can't see any good reason why Judge Merryday wouldn't allow the travel agent's Amicus brief. His decision is final. FL can't come back and say but, but if the judge adopts HHS/CDC's motion. Neither can HHS/CDC come back if the judge dismisses the motion.

In case anyone is wondering, Judge Merryday has not yet ruled on FL's law suit v. HHS/CDC. The last listing on the docket for this case was yesterday. Because FL requested an expedited (emergency) hearing, it would not be unusual for a ruling to come this weekend. I'll be watching.

This isn't a good sign. Pretty sure if I were a Singaporean, I'd cancel. I read a very well done piece yesterday in the Economist that noted Asia, in general and since the pandemic began 15 months ago, had comparably lower excess death rates due to COVID than European, South and North American regions. Some speculate a reason for that being that there might have been some natural immunity conferred to people in this region due to the presence of commonly high levels of circulating Coronavius. Thus, the initial strains of SARS2 were close to those other circulating Coronaviruses. Newer strains are beginning to appear in Asia as mobility restrictions are eased. Natural immunity is diminished in the face of these variants. New Cases are rising. Japan, Malaysia and apparently Singapore are seeing rising new case numbers. This is a nasty and persistent virus. While we celebrate what looks like the end of the worst in the US and start thinking about a return to cruising in July that nasty virus is mutating elsewhere where it is still circulating and at already high or getting there rates. We still really don't know how the current vaccines will fare against new, Ninja variants. So far, the news has been good on that front and boosters are easy to re-configure, especially in the mRNA versions of them. Bottom line, get the vaccines into arms, more quickly and more widely, especially where there are signs, like in Singapore, of rising new case numbers/% positivity/hospitalizations. Importantly don't over-react. Manage. Frankly, although I get it, health authorities are over-reacting a bit wrt Quantum.

This. But, as Twangster posts, "one step at a time." Let's get the cruise re-start from US ports into sight. Baring a ruling by Judge Merryday that enjoins enforcement of the CDC's CSO, I suspect that in the background, unknown to the public, negotiations are going on between the CDC and cruise line execs over the entire contents of the CSO. In light of the CDC's announcement that masks are not required for fully vaccinated people, except in some settings (I'll get to that), some provisions of the CSO won't stand. On the issue of how the CDC views cruise ships and the risks of disease spread when sailing on them: First, let's make sure we understand that the CDC views cruise ships as "congregate residential settings." These settings according to the CDC are at higher risk for disease spread and therefor are differently regulated. You can read the recent update (5/7/21) relevant to the cruise lines here: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/instructions-local-agreements.html IMO, it is arguable whether the science and the data support the designation of cruise ships as "residential congregate settings." Nursing homes, hospitals and prisons, I'm fine with that. Most of us are not fine with a cruise ship being designated as residential congregate setting. That's because, all things considered, cruise ships are a combination of large out door and indoor gatherings, restaurants, bars, casinos and hotels. None of these venues are subject to any kind of additional restrictions. Big contradiction given CDC's green-lighting maskless participation (normal behaviors) in any of those venues for fully vaccinated people. Nevertheless, that's where we are. Is it over-reach and falls within FL's claim and request to enjoin the CSO? Technically, no but I believe Judge Merryday is looking at this on the basis of the Amicus Curiae brief from the Association of Travel Advisors. We'll see when he rules. There is a ton more CSO regulations pertaining to ports in the document I linked above. Read them if you like. I feel pretty confident this is government over-reach that conflicts with state's authority to regulate it's ports. The CDC doesn't have authority to regulate FL's ports past the water's edge unless they are federal facilities - none of FL's ports are that. I believe Judge Merryday is looking at this and it is where I opined earlier that we could see some of the provisions of the CSO, like these, enjoined but the CSO in total would not be enjoined. Back to out of the public eye negotiations going on between cruise line execs and the CDC. We've discussed some of the crazy, makes no sense mitigation measures for passengers aboard ships within this blog. The ones that will be targets for negotiations are the ones that contradict other PH guidance the CDC has provided. You know which ones these are ... the it's the long list of "stupid and makes no sense" mobility and behavior restrictions (masking between bites at a meal, no buffet style dining, limits on the number of passengers gathering in one location). If the CSO is not tossed out in its entirety I think we'll see most of this disappear. Right now, the CDC is under tremendous pressure to get it's act together. It's back-peddling ferociously and we'll see some of this in whatever COVID protocols the cruise lines end up incorporating or not into ship's operations. On vaccinations to board/sail. Setting aside the potential conflict with FL's governor's position on this for the moment, businesses are entirely in their legal rights to require employees aboard ship to be vaccinated. Generally, where PH is concerned, it's legal to require vaccinations for certain kinds of participation. School is one of them and that has been upheld by the courts in numerous challenges. The matter of the legality of a business requiring it for patrons to receive service or enter hasn't been fully established. This is the best and most concise opinion on this I've seen: So, can cruise ships require vaccinations to sail. I think they can and will on the basis of their ethical obligation to provide a safe environment. Will that be challenged? Yes. In time for it to affect July sailings in the US? No. On the Desantis position within FL. Can he ban companies operating in FL from requiring proof of vaccination for service or entry? IMO, no and I've written elsewhere why. However, there is the practical matter of creating a kurfuffle for both parties involved in reaping the benefits of restarting cruising from FL ports. My take is that there will be some sort of agreement reached and cruise lines will have the option of requiring them to sail/board from FL ports or not. Again, IMO, if the cruise lines wanted to give Desantis the middle finger they would be within their legal rights to require vaccines to board. But why considering what's at stake.

We booked Apex, 8n Greek Isles itinerary out of Athens for July 9th. It was an absolute no-brainer to take the everything included rate. Did the math. I moved a booking from a questionable Amsterdam on Reflection sailing 7n, Norwegian Fjords on 7/10 itinerary to a sure thing Apex out of Athens on 7/9. Paid an air booking change fee and $100pp cancellation fee for the cruise change and still the booking was less than the Reflection cruise with air. The Apex cruise in a Veranda (port hole) with air isn't cheap. That cabin class has a balcony, the balcony is just surrounded by steel with a large cut-out looking out. The Infinity Veranda is not worth it having read plenty of reviews on that Apex class ship offering. We're Elite Plus so taking the everything included option dilutes the perks - so be it. Still, because the air to Athens was so much cheaper (almost 1/2) than the air to Amsterdam, the change was about a wash. At this point, I'm willing to pay to get back aboard, IOW, as long as it's reasonable price is no object. But yeah, I think at this point you have to do the numbers with respect to booking with the everything included rate v. the sail only rate. As demand plays out the price spread between the two options will probably widen. If people aren't biting on the everything included rate, the sail only rate will go down.

Things are coming together for a July restart from all US ports including sailing from Seattle to Alaska. Signs seem to be pointing to some sort of favorable ruling from Judge Merryday on the FL law suit that requests that the CSO to be enjoined (unenforceable). Right now, that's icing on the cake. I think the lines will start cruising one way or the other in July, on the light side in the US, heavier in Europe but sailings will expand exponentially as time moves forward and the pandemic in North America is brought to heal. As far as the house approval of the Senate's bill, there was resistance coming from the House to other legislation easing restrictions on the cruise industry imposed by the CDC's NSO/CSO. The bimbo that was opposed and blocked passage was totally uninformed about any of the steps the lines intended to undertake if allowed to cruise. Totally cluless about vaccines. So wrong that objection wasn't shouted down .... not the way the house works.

No worries, it's a jumping off point for your question. This has been mentioned up thread and elsewhere on these boards. Personally, I think the CDC is trying to update their guidelines to reflect drastically falling case numbers, deaths, hospitalizations and so forth not becaseu they are "feeling the heat. It's like duhhh but the CDC has resisted the notion that they are out of touch since day one of the pandemic - at this point and wrt the pandemic, they are probably a month, maybe more, behind what the public fully understands: vaccines work in preventing serious illness, death, and transmission of the virus. Lets get back to normal life. CDC's messaging should have anticipated this sometime in late February and started telling Americans how they can safely return to a post pandemic normalcy. Instead we continued to get this negative Nancy crap from the CDC in the faces of Walanski and Fauci and from Biden himself. They've lost a ton of credibility in the last 15 months. They aren't going to regain it any time soon.

The CDC acted under the provisions of U.S.C.42 and specifically part 264 (among others) wrt cruise ships. They have the authority to regulate cruise ship operations in US waters, such authority starts when international waters are left behind and ends at the waters edge. There is an important distinction between CDC's authority to regulate to protect the PH where infectious disease is concerned within federal properties and state properties. So, the CDC can mandate masks in federally controlled airports, train stations, buildings, conveyances (Amtrac), etc. IOW, in the case of FL's ports, which are under state control through the counties, the state, not the feds regulates. Mask wearing and social distancing in PEV's Cruise terminals? Port Of Miami's, etc? That's up to Broward Co. in the case of PEV, Miami-Dade in the case of Port of Miami and so forth. On board a ship that is floating at the terminal (the waters edge), the CDC can mandate mitigation measures, e.g., masks. Technically and beyond that, they cannot. Uber, a private business, for example, is a private conveyance operating with state licensing making them accountable to state regulation potentially delegated to counties. In FL, Uber, or any other private business, can require patrons to mask. Right now, private businesses in FL cannot require vaccination to obtain service or enter the property. While private businesses, operating within the state of FL can mandate mitigation measures, e.g., mask, distancing and so forth, IMO, they can also mandate vaccines. That would, IMO, make the Desantis EO and subsequent laws passed by FL's legislatures banning "vaccine passports" not enforceable. I'm reasonably certain this law would fail a court challenge. Desantis knows this.... or at least he should. So, political theater. When it comes to the cruise lines - a private business entity, if they want to mandate vaccines to board at FL ports, they will and Desantis will cave. Importantly, the CDC "recommends" PH measures. The driving force for businesses to adapt CDC recommendations is the threat of a civil suit alleging negligence. Note that several states have passed legislation absolving business of negligence if a patron enters the business and then contracts COVID. Keep in mind, there is a lot of gray area in these matters. They won't get resolved until such laws get challenged in court. Simply stated, the arguments presented in FL's law suit are very much alive and well and the judge that heard the case yesterday has taken the plaintiff's and defendant's arguments under advisement. His ruling will only narrowly impact the CDC and their CSO and that only applies to cruise ship operations, nothing else. Remember that FL asked for the court to enjoin the CDC's CSO. If the judge grants FL's request, what I expect to see aboard ship and aboard ship only, are most of the industry's Safe to Sail plan that was formulated last year. Beyond that, some lines will require vaccinations, some won't - up to those lines.

There have been two motions entered since the hearing that took place on the 12th. (1) One is procedural - adding an additional more widely applied - economic impact study probably aimed at this question that we hope Judge Merryday is looking at, could the CDC have done less to protect the PH wrt the cruise lines and achieved a suitable result without causing billions of dollars of losses (well, yes, no shit!). (2) The court record of the hearing - no decision yet (attached below). I did not include the economic impact study - it's like a hundred pages or more and to view it all you have to pay for it. We all know what it says. Billions in lost wages and revenue. gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.44.0_1.pdf

Not surprising at all. Government's panicked when news from Italy was that bodies were piling up outside a collapsing health care system. As time went on and the tons of available data - some of it leading to incredibly wrong PH policy world-wide - started getting better, some governments adapted to the emerging data, some didn't. The US government through HHS didn't and this is going to come out in the wash. What it comes down to is reasonable people looking at the data and from it, drawing appropriate conclusions and from that implementing good PH policy. It is discouraging to me that this country is repeatedly getting caught up in this circumstance involving all kinds of policy decisions. The aftermath of 911 comes to mind. More recently the Defense Department and Colonial Pipe Line hacks. There will be similar moving of the deck chairs in the aftermath of the SARS2 Pandemic in the US....... like the attack on the Twin Towers, after the damage has already been done.

As Freddie Mercury might say, "ALRIGHT.... ALRIGHT." Thanks for digging this out 0_0! I'm not sure if an Amicus Curaie" brief has the same standing as, say, the "Intervenors," Texas and Alaska have. Don't know if Judge Merryday is compelled by the law to address this point. I went back and reviewed FL's initial filing. It does not say it in the same way THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL ADVISORS says it but it nonetheless implies it in it's argument that..... other less restrictive measures could have been required of the cruise lines that would have mitigated virus spread and, more importantly, the CDC CANNOT demonstrate that the draconian measures they did impose on the cruise lines, compared to how the CDC regulated other travel related businesses and conveyances achieved the PH benefits they sought. If Merryday has to address this, it is a huge bonus and may result in further removal of restrictions contained in the CSO. Merryday could direct arbitration between the parties and join the cruise lines, the American Association of Travel Advisors Alaska and Texas in that arbitration process. The endpoint is something reasonable that everyone can live with.

Its frustrating for sure. There's a short, but front page article in the Sun Sentinel today on the suit. It is no more revealing than what we already know. Each side has presented it's case. I still find it pretty amazing that the CDC argues that the costs to the state of FL (see the study of those costs attached to the suit) are not as important as the steps the CDC has taken to contain the pandemic from being spread by cruise ship operations. While we know the public health benefit of shutting down the cruise lines was, in fact marginal, that's not at issue here .... at least I don't think it is, not in Judge Merryday's court room anyway. I certainly wish it were and this sort of thing, cost versus benefits analysis, has been sorely lacking since the SARS2 virus became a global pandemic and governments reacted to that in widely varying ways. We should prepare ourselves for a narrow ruling in this case that isn't going to affect much of anything we care about. I do think that the CDC has been put on notice by the law suit and may slowly but surely, maybe a little bit quicker than they had anticipated, modify the regs and protocols contained in the CSO. We're already seeing that in the broader context of their messaging over the last two weeks.

Not as simple as it might appear. You're correct in characterizing the thrust of the FL law suit as "focused" on capricious (and discriminatory) implementation of regulations by the CDC. The CDC counters with cruise ships being unique in their potential to spread disease. That might be arguable. However, even though the CSO may be dated and cumbersome, I don't think that is a point upon which Judge Merryday will rule on. He will rule on CDC regulations that conflict with FL's regulatory authority within the ports themselves. Federal regulation of FL ports ends at the water's edge. The port itself is governed and regulated by county port authorities at least in the case of Miami-Dade (Port of Miami) and Broward (PEV) counties. I believe Tampa's port and Port Canaveral are also governed by County port authorities. When it comes to the CDC requiring cruise lines to do anything ashore, e.g. require the lines to coordinate with local authorities on the disposition of COVID infected crew or PAX, I believe that is a clear case of federal over-reach. Judge Merryday's inquiry during the hearing about how the State of FL was going to protect against disease spread within the ports where county port authorities have regulatory authority was telling. Here's how I see this thing working out: Some of the CSO is going to be enjoined. Our hope that the whole thing will be enjoined isn't likely to happen. Cruise lines have probably figured this out and hence have been publicly announcing that they have been "working with the CDC and in contact with them almost daily." That tells me, as someone else pointed out, the lines don't want to piss them off knowing they're going to have to implement and comply with some of the CSO stuff. Meanwhile they are probably hoping they can negotiate the ones that really are onerous, e.g., applying for and conducting test sailings among others. I still think a July 1 return to cruising from US ports is entirely feasible but at a significantly reduced level. There are tell tale signs that this is the cruise line's plans. They are heavy on European sailings and light on US sailings as far as we know right now with NCL, MSC and others. The lines probably think they can get a few ships through the CDC's hoops by July one and by the fall when things are back to normal, resume a more robust schedule of sailings form US ports after the CDC has relaxed or abandoned requirements within the CSO as the pandemic fades. RCG has been a little more circumspect with their operational plans. As well, Alaska itineraries are still very much up in the air given the Jones Act and I'm not sure where that battle stands.

This may be coming down to a state v. federal authority issue. There is somewhere in the applicable law that if the feds step in, in this case the state's right to regulate public health risks in state ports, they must first consult state PH authorities. I'm not entirely versed in the law to know. But I think this is a sticky issue. Ports are federally regulated I think.

The pressure is definitely on the CDC for their pandemic guidance. That they have a strangle hold on a very large business operation is, IMO, unconscionable. One of the CDC's arguments supporting their CSO is that, hey cruise lines, we have provided a path forward via the CSO. You just don't want to do it the way we have the authority to tell you to do it. Note that the FL suit doesn't challenge the CDC's authority to regulate under U.S.C 42. What they have challenged, in part, is how the CDC went about fulfilling that authority.... an administrative procedures error. We can argue the benefit of the CSO defined gates and protocols versus the cost and difficulty in following them but the bottom line is, "we provided you a pathway........ follow it and you can cruise after you prove you can implement them. or vaccinate everyone." We know this position is unreasonable by virtue of the minimal risks of disease spread on board a ship, with or without vaccinations. State wide and specific counties where FL cruise ports are located are nearing that sustained magic number (5%) at which the virus is considered adequately controlled. So, the CSO makes no sense .... to us or to cruise line executives. Cruise lines have been safely sailing, without a requirement for vaccinations elsewhere unencumbered by the US CDC's dictates. Think about sailing where everyone is vaccinated. Who needs the CSO? TBH, I don't know who referees that debate. It seems to me quite separate from the claims FL is making in it's civil suit. It would seem the plot thickens and I suspect that's what Judge Merryday is working his way through.

That would be mediation. This is a preliminary hearing, ostensibly before civil trial, for the purpose of determining if an immediate injunction against the enforcement of the CDC's CSO is warranted to grant relief from irreparable harm that the state of FL has suffered and will continue to suffer if the CSO is enforced. This hearing was requested by the state of FL in a motion filed with the middle court of FL. It is a separate filing from the the law suit filed on 4/8/21. This motion was, I believe, filed in late April. Something that occurs to me as I write this is that if the Judge does not issue an injunction out of this preliminary hearing, the case still moves to trial unless the Judge dismisses it on some other grounds.

Well, I'm not sure they have a clue that much of their pandemic guidance has, from the beginning, lacked good data to back up that guidance. Early on there wasn't good data so, OK. We should play along. However, it's become increasingly obvious that most of their guidance is not based on the abundance of data that became available by fall, 2020 and is even more robust as I write this. For me, the "in abundance of caution" approach that has back-stopped their guidance and their messaging has created unwanted outcomes more deleterious to both US PH interests and her economy than it has produced PH benefits. I think it telling that there has been no acknowledgement of that, no significant pull back. That indicates to me the top decision makers are living in an alternate reality, self created with opposing views being silenced in a typical "trust me, I'm the government, we know what we are doing, and we're here to help" mentality.

I have viewed the law suit since it's filing as having wide ranging implications for the CDC's authority to impose restrictions on business activity, mobility and behaviors. In fact, legislation that has recently been advanced with implications for the cruise industry has focused on limiting the CDC's power to do the kinds of things they did, not just to the cruise industry, but by fiat to large segments of the economy. To limit their powers to unilaterally shut things down, even in a declared PHE without appropriate oversight that balances the cost of restrictions versus the benefits to PH is something that, IMO, is urgently needed. The outcome of the FL lawsuit is potentially a seminal event in those deliberations regarding Congress' oversight of the executive and other branches of government. Accordingly, Merryday is probably taking his time, doing some cosulting and getting briefed on the implications of an injunction should he be considering that. What this might produce is an injunction against enforcement of the CSO with narrowly defined limits that would apply only to U.S.C 42. This kind of thing could, indeed, take some time to work out the details of what his ruling will actually say.

A week? Don't think so. This was an expedited or emergency hearing that the court granted (that's a positve). I think its imminent. One possibility is that the Judge has invited the parties to meet under the threat that he's told them one or the other has made a case.

Can't belive journalists weren't in the courtroom. Appears the case was heard by Merryday. That's good. HHS attorney's first claim was that FL didn't have standing. I felt if it made it past that technical obstacle good chance FL would prevail.