JeffB

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.

OK, let's start with the source of the linked article arguing why FL won't prevail in it's law suit against HHS and CDC. Matt just commented. This is Jim Walker, people. He is a notorious anti cruise freak. You could say he is a fraud. He claims he is a lawyer but when I looked at his web site a month or so ago and read has anit-cruise sentiments, I then searched the FL register for FL Bar certification. Nothing. But let's be fair. I'm averse to arguments that attack the source. What is "Standing." The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court. Walker must not have read the addendum to FL's suit that presented a study showing the economic impact to the state's ports and the state itself. Whether Standing is established by that is in the Judge's hands. If I'm Merryday, I'd have a hard time saying FL hasn't suffered "injury in fact." Does the CDC's authority to regulate sanitation and potential for the spread of disease trump a state's authority to disallow it? This is a very good question. It breaks down into two parts: (1) Federal v. state authority. (2) Is their a continuing and imminent threat of the spread of SARS2/COVID related disease aboard a cruise ship. If I recall the arguments offered in FL's complaint, FL cited case law on the question of Federal authority to regulate matters that cross into a state's regulatory authority. The decision on this argument is going to be precedent setting with regard to U.S.C. 42. If FL prevails, it will set limits on the CDC's authority and probably require legilative action to address that. My view is that the CDC has over-reached as it pertains to the extent of time argument that FL has advanced. i.e., U.S.C. 42 authorizes the CDC to intervene on a specific and time limited basis, not a 15 month shuttering of ship operations that may or may not actually present a threat of disease spread. Does the SARS2/COVID threat persist such that continued restrictive measures involving maritime operations enforced by the CDC are necessary? We've been down this road here. The steps the cruise lines have taken and existing sanitary protocols that the cruise lines are following mitigate the threat. The emerging circumstance with vaccines nearly eliminate it. I'll stop here as arguments diminishing the CDC's response to FL's claim will be moot in a matter of hours.

NCL's president, Harry Sommer, appeared on GMA this morning. The lead story was laid out as a clash between the cruise lines and FL Governor Desantis' no vaccines stand. Obviously the story was born of Delrio's threat to move NCL ships out of FL ports - a threat I consider pure theater. Sommer was asked direct questions about NCL's plan and, as one would expect, he didn't answer them directly, e.g. will NCL abandon FL ports? The answer went something like this: We're working with the state of FL to reach a satisfactory conclusion that will allow us to sail out of FL in "mid-to late July." I have little doubt that NCL is shifting it's plans to generate revenue with sailings originating from European ports given the probabilities, as they see them, of the cruise lines having to operate under the provisions of the CSO. Of course, that's a worst case scenario but that's the one you plan for. Without being asked about the CDC or the CSO, he added that NCL is in almost daily contact with CDC officials and, "we're hopeful that we will be able to safely return to cruising by working with them." No mention of the FL law suit being heard today - a much bigger story IMO. Obviously anything related to a restart of cruising from US ports is fluid. The net impact of that circumstance is uncertainty of how to plan ship's operations. Frankly, I don't think the Desantis stand on vaccines is a major player. We've discussed why elsewhere. The status of the CSO is. My sense is the cruise lines are struggling to identify an operational plan for it's ships and, if NCL is an indicator of direction, it appears the industry is falling back on a European lite cruise season - the usual ships deploying from US to European ports but they will probably operate at reduced capacity. Even that's a guess because as little as we know about what cruising from US ports might look like in July with or without the CSO, we know even less about the details the lines may have worked out with European ports and government health authorities. IOW, a mess right now for the lines. Hopefully some clarity will emerge today but I'm not holding my breath.

I just got an email from NCL announcing an extensive European cruise season starting in July. NCL operates 17 cruise ships, 12 of them are scheduled from various EU ports to include Barcelona, Rome, Venice and more. My first reaction was, well, I guess Delrio means it. I forgot to look more closely ...... the named ships and itineraries are those that normally move from FL (and other US ports) to Europe for the cruising season there, so, nothing earth shattering here. But NCL is getting a jump start on that season over there and it's impressive in it's numbers and itineraries that start in early July and go from there. In comparison to RCG, it's very forward thinking and aggressive. RCG restarts from European ports are much less aggressive. A quick look shows these sailing dominated by RCL cruises shorter than 5n. Celebrity has longer itineraries from Athens (Apex), Rome (Infinity) and Amsterdam (Reflection) starting in July. Oceania, an NCL subsidiary, is less aggressive with several of their ships not planning sailing dates until October. Anyway, I didn't look at this as closely as I should before jumping to conclusions but it looks like NCL will be (a) first out of the gate with a lot of European sailings and (b) has an operational plan that looks as if NCL does not care what the CDC does or what happens in the no vaccines in businesses operating in FL debate. I thought all of this interesting but, then again, I don't follow NCL that closely and others here may see this as old news. https://www.ncl.com/cruise-deals/choice?intcmp=pro_hp_DISCTAKEALLFAS

Now you know the details. I'm routinely stunned by the level of misinformation floating around out there. I have no doubt why that is so and for the very reasons you mention. Just doing my part to pass on the straight scoop ..... or at least help people have informed views.

I don't think it's that straight forward. Vaccine inequity has a very large number of underlying causes. I'm loath to make it out as the rich West countries not serving the rest of the poor, and often exploited for its cheap labor, underdeveloped third world. Vaccines are available, likely pretty close to get the word's entire population vaccinated to some level by the end of this year. COVAX is a miserable failure for reasons that have nothing to do with not enough money or not enough vaccines. This isn't the place to discuss this but trust me on this. The principle problem is one of distribution via reliable infrastructure. You can't build that overnight. Corruption in countries where aid gets diverted into the pockets of government officials is also pretty high up on the list of reasons for vaccine inequity. Not far behind that is the sheer ineptitude of federal governments. India's Modi administration is a good example. My point is that western democracies that can afford to take care of their own citizens while at the same time have abundance may be able and willing to help citizens of other countries not as fortunate. But there are significant obstacles to getting aid, in this case vaccines, that have nothing to do with typical arguments that cast the problem as rich versus poor, greed versus need and all those arguments entail.

Vaccination equity is a huge deal right now. The WHO is pushing it hard. Western governments are embracing solutions for the purpose of improving their global standing. Those that aren't are getting hammered by Putin and XI. But Twangster is right in his post above. This kind of journalism, blogging or reporting isn't going to disrupt a start-up of cruising from Haifa between RCL and the Israeli Health Ministry. What might do that is the threat of a rocket attack or other terrorist undertaking by Hamas. People, especially Jews, enjoying travel and leisure while Arabs, especially Palestinians, are suffering make a nice terrorist target.

Those of us posting here and following the cruise industry v. the CDC clown show are pretty good at picking out the non-sequiturs and disconnects. What troubles me is that we're a relatively small group of well informed cruising Americans that are far outnumbered by Americans that are misinformed about the risk of SARS2 transmission aboard a cruise ship and the spread of infections by passengers heading back home after a cruise. I wonder if Judge Merryday, who is hearing FL's request for an immediate injunction, has personally followed this sufficiently to render a decision that is not eroded by the sheer amount of misinformation out there. That cruise ships are widely believed to be dangerous breeding grounds for infection by the public, that the CDC has a huge stake in continuing to misinform the public about this so as to make their over-regulation of cruise ship operations seem necessary, I wonder if FL's attorney general will be able to reverse the mountains of misinformation and carry the day in the 2h that have been allotted for both sides to make their cases. This is a great high school or college debate question. You have to win the debate should cruise lines be able to restart sailing right now? How will you argue your case in the allotted segments: present your case, hear the opposition's points, rebut them.

No ......... NEWS FLASH .........CDC's fabrication of data unmasked. A report this morning's NYTs details an investigative undertaking to determine the basis of the CDC claim that 10% of SARS2 transmission occurs outside. This figure was used to justify recommendations on masking in certain circumstances, e.g., youth summer camps, large outdoor gatherings, mixed outdoor gatherings of any size involving vaccinated and unvaccinated people. You'll recall the release of these recommendations prompted questions about mask wearing on the pool deck and elsewhere outside aboard a cruise ship. The NYT's investigation revealed that the data that formed the basis of the 10% SARS2 cases came from outdoor transmission were based on "a review of the data" from a single construction site in Singapore. Even then, the authors of the report did not specify if their data was outside or inside at the construction site. Just WOW. Virologists interviewed during the investigation were quoted as saying the 10% figure is wildly inaccurate. Outdoor transmission in most settings is rare ..... something less than 1%, more likely a 10th of that. I'll go further .....many observers started doubting the CDC's PH recommendations after the bungling of testing strategies and the production of test kits way back in February, 2020. The CDC's recommendations during most of the Trump administration should have been viewed with a lot of skepticism. During the Biden administration, I don't think the CDC has regained the high ground it occupied on the global health scene for decades. The sad thing about this is that their screw-ups have lead to untoward damage here in the US and globally in that many health agencies elsewhere rely upon and follow CDC recommendations. That so many of them have been wrong, horribly wrong, has spread confusion and over-reaction to the pandemic. The cruise industry's shut down and the ridiculous CSO are glaring examples. This could not have become news at a better time. May 12th.

Stepping on to the balcony just as the sunlight starts to overtake the dark mixed with the sounds of the hull pushing through calm water.

His press secretary? Hmmmm. The Sun Sentinal is really a pretty good local pape but they have been known to assign statements to various sources without vetting them. My point remains. Desantis is not going to tell cruise lines they can't sail from FL ports if they require passengers and crew to be vaccinated.

I agree with this. NCL has an endpoint for their vaccine requirement of 10/31/21. It could be sooner depending on health conditions they reportedly are saying. IMO, this is a good date. The ports and countries we want to cruise in and out of are either going to have the SARS virus down to manageable levels by the end of October through natural immunity and vaccine administration or the entire travel and leisure industry is dead meat. My guess is that RCG is moving in the same direction as NCL by requiring vaccinations to sail and an end-point in the future to that requirement. Again, this isn't going to be black and white becasue global health authorities will determine what is a safe, manageable level of viral transmission of SARS2 and what isn't differently. We have the CDC being less than transparent providing hyper-safe guidance lacking disclosure to the public about what metrics they are basing their PH guidance on. The Brits or Germans might say we are testing 80% of our population and 100% of foreign visitors. Given that testing rate we need nation wide COVID metrics demonstrating that SARS2 has less than 2% positivity. Greece, Italy, others may have less intense testing and less rigorous metric criteria. Getting back to cruising in a post pandemic environment isn't going to be easy but we're well on our way ..... step by step. May 12th.

This is, in part, one of the arguments that FL's law suit is all about. I posted this above but it's in better context here: as matter of administrative procedure, HHS/CDC was required to pretty much do just what you suggest above before they enacted the NSO and by extension the CSO. They failed to do that in both cases. I don't think a "statement" or a quote for that matter and to that effect exists. Implied? Maybe. Desantis has been very careful to dance around the question when he is confronted with it by the press. He has said, he does not think vaccinations for passengers wishing to sail on a cruise ship are "necessary." He follows up that declaration with this: "Cruise lines have been sailing without a vaccine requirement for months." (paraphrased). He actually has said nothing that suggests he's going to ban cruise ships from FL ports if they require vaccination to sail. Like I said, political suicide. Not going to happen. He's right about the cruise industry sailing for moths without a vaccine requirement but fails to acknowledge that the countries and port locations where cruise ships are sailing from have the COVID metrics to demonstrate the level of circulating SARS2 is very low. Not a good look, IMO and I feel confident that's been pointed out to him. Doubt you'll hear that qualifier again. When the CSO is enjoined, we'll hear more from Desantis on this subject. I think it important to not conflate these two issues. The CSO offers as an option to restart sailing a requirement to have a 98/95% vaccination rate per ship. NCL has already announced it's future sailings through 10/31 will require vaccinations. The way RCG seems to be approaching a restart with Millennium and Apex is that all crew and passengers will need to be vaccinated to sail. The heavy duty vaccinations going on during quick-turns in FL's ports suggest a vaccine requirement for crew. It would be dumb to then not require it for passengers. I consider Del Rio's comments directed at FL's/Desantis' no-vaccinations required policy pure theater. NCL abandoning the FL market for Galveston? The West Coast? The NE? You can't be serious. It will get worked out. Sop ruminating about it. The separate issue is the one involving the question of what happens to a CDC requirement as one path to restart to have 98/95% crew and pax vaccinated contained in the CSO? Well, it no longer exists. RCG can sail without imposing that requirement. But why? Aside from the liability issues, RCG and NCL are well on the way to requiring vaccinations. Again, it would be dumb to not carry on with that plan. Look, I get the two classes of people argument when it comes to vaccines. I don't share that argument. Caveat: I'm both fully vaccinated and in a higher COVID risk category by age. My view is that if you want to play, you pay. See the success of Israel in returning that country to a post pandemic normalcy among other countries. Frankly, I'll choose a cruise line that requires crew and pax to be vaccinated over one that doesn't. I think if the CSO is enjoined, there will be some lines who won't require vaccination to sail. Until the level of circulating virus is sufficiently low by defined metrics to gauge that, lines who elect to cruise from locales where there is evidence that the virus is still circulating are risking being negligent - grounds for a civil claim for damages that the lines cannot contractually avoid with the typical illness rejoinders in cruise contracts. I think RCG has figured this out already. TBF, Broward and Miami Dade Counties are close to hitting the point where one could say the level of circulating virus is low but close in horse shoes doesn't count. The prevailing view is that SARS2 is controlled when % positivity is between 3 and 5% for an extended period (around 10 consecutive days). Rebounds can occur that change the calculus. As a matter of the law where negligence is a factor I would not want to press that.