JeffB

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.

The bottom line is that Desantis would be committing political suicide if, after a separate and distinct injunction against the CDC's CSO allowing cruise lines to re-start revenue sailing, he were to tell them they can't require proof of vaccination to sail from FL ports. Think about this. Wrapping oneself around language that might tell us that he will or he won't enforce his "anti- vaccine passport rule" on the cruise lines is sheer folly. Not going to happen. Period. Full-stop.

Visualize it ....... how would you like to be a lawyer trying to defend the CDC's NSO and CSO? The NSO, given it's extent is unlawful. The CSO is laughable, unlawful and exceeds the authority of the CDS under U.S.C. 42. The only thing that will prevent the injunction is some kind of delay or technical issue, presented by the defendants, that the Judge hearing the case on Wednesday is required by the law to accept.

July 1st ..... after the CSO is enjoined by the federal court.

Well, all quiet on the CDC front, or so it would seem. I've not seen anything in the last 72h that suggests the needle has moved. It's stuck at high noon probably waiting for the Middle Court of FL, Judge Steven D. Merryday presiding, to hear FL's request for an injunction against the CDC's CSO. There's no telling what moves the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Intervenors (Texas & Alaska) and the defendant's attorneys (Bacerra and Walenski) will make. There will probably be motions of a technical basis put forward by the defendants but that they haven't already done so may signal they are ready to defend their authority to enforce the CSO. Here's a recap: The complaint was filed by the state of FL with the Federal Court having jurisdiction on April 8th Since then, there have been 35 separate filings. Things like summons, motions, addition of plaintiffs and such. Mostly technical things. The last on Friday, May 7th. There could be more before the Judge hears arguments next Wednesday. Some could be show stoppers that impose delays. There are different sets of rules for this sort of legal maneuvering when the plaintiff is granted an expedited hearing. The claim is filed under the category of Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. This is important because the claim is less about the CDC's authority to regulate maritime shipping operations to protect the public health and more about the administrative procedures that the CDC should have followed and did not in implementing them and the unprecedented length of time the NSO/CSO have been enforced. The thrust of the claim involves the billions of dollars in economic losses suffered by the state of FL and businesses operating there in support of cruise ship operations. As part of the complaint, a through study of the costs to each FL port was undertaken, published and attached to the claim. The account is staggering. The claim then shifts to accountability for those losses (HHS/CDC) and that administrative procedures outlined in pertinent U.S.C. that were not followed when the NSO and CSO were issued. There are notifications that have to be made when the CDC wishes to act to carry out it's responsibilities to protect the public health from potential threats (disease) carried by maritime shipping (cruise ships) before actions are taken to give the ships/ports time to correct problems and make things safe. The claim is that cruise lines or port authorities were not notified before issuing the NSO or the CSO. Moreover, the extent of the CDC's authority to act under U.S.C. 42 is usually limited to single events and short time frames until the threat is resolved. The sweeping nature that has shut down an entire industry, in a discriminatory way, for over a year, far, far exceeds the intent of granting the CDC powers to protect the public health in the narrow setting of maritime shipping operations; it is further argued that only Congress has this level of authority granted to it in the Constitution. I know there are doubters here that the complaint will be resolved in FL's and by extension, the cruise industry's favor. The law is tricky and rarely straight forward to lay people like us. Unexpected things happen at hearings like this and that could very well be the case. But FL's complaint is strong and if it survives legal maneuvering on the part of the defendant's attorney's I think FL will get what it wants - an injunction against the CSO. A poster in this thread, I believe, wondered if the contents of the CSO won't end up in U.S.C 42, Maritime regulations. It might but not over-night. US Code rests on Congressional legislation. If the CSO is enjoined, that means a Judge has said current law doesn't allow it. Modifying the law is hard and time consuming.

......... the freight train is picking up steam and moving. The faster it goes the harder it is to stop it.

"Onwards and upwards team" ......what this says to me is that RCL is operationally planning for it's ships to sail, I'd guess in the first week in July. Del Rio's remarks last week were pure theater. I think the several posts made within this forum present solid legal arguments that Ron Desantis has no intention at all of telling the cruise lines that plan on sailing from FL's ports, you can't require passengers to be vaccinated. Now, that's not to say RCL, for example, will require passengers to be vaccinated like NCL has already decided it will mandate them. Vaccine requirement plans remain to be seen for the lines other than NCL. I think for all the lines, the two paths to return to cruising from US ports - test sailings to revenue sailings or straight to revenue sailings - that Bailey laid out is shaping their operational planning. If the court does not enjoin the CDC CSO, the back-up plan will be to do the best they can do given the CSO guidance hoping that dialogue will occur between the CDC and line executives along the way that brings the CSO up to date and makes protocols a bit more reasonable.

0_0, this link is somewhere else on these message boards but for your reading pleasure, here's the link to FL's filing in it's entirety. Incidentally, it was filed as an issue with Administrative Procedures that the federal courts have jurisdiction over and review. I don't think it could have been filed as a matter of questioning the CDC's authority to regulate sanitary conditions aboard vessels for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease within the US. The CDC clearly has that authority. http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/TDGT-BZVLFJ/$file/Fla+v+HHS+and+CDC+complaint.pdf

I don't think anyone, including FL's Attorney General, has questioned the authority of the CDC or HHS (in the person of the Surgeon General) to regulate sanitary conditions on board vessels making port calls in the US. The USCG is the enforcement arm for the myriad maritime rules and regulations that ships calling on US ports have to comply with. Upon arrival in a US port, the captain of the vessel must certify that his ship is in compliance with these rules and it is part of the authorization process that port authorities undertake when approving a vessel's request to make a port call. As well, the USCG conducts regular sanitation inspections that cruise ships routinely pass. None of this is new and the cruise lines have been in strict compliance with these regulations. Having said that, FL's claim is, in part, that the CDC does not have the authority to issue year-and-a-half-long nationwide lockdowns of entire industries based on the applicable laws and regulations detailed above. And even if it did, its actions here are arbitrary and capricious and otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). FL's claim against HHS and the CDC leans heavily on violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and less on questioning the CDC's authority to regulate sanitary conditions aboard vessels. The claim adds the following: (1) Irreparable (Economic) Harm (2) Failure to determine if the State of FL has or has not taken adequate steps to insure that tourists traveling from state to state are not spreading disease before they issued the NSO (affecting the state) and subsequently modified by the CSO. IOW, federal action is unlawful when such notice is not given in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. (3) CDC failed to give proper notice to the state of FL before imposition of the NSO and CSO as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. (4) Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power. IMO, this is the strongest element of the claim and I quote it here: "72. If the Conditional Sailing Order does not exceed the authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264 and the relevant regulations, then Section 264 constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of lawmaking by the executive branch, affording the CDC the power to determine the rights of millions of citizens, to decide on the survival of countless businesses, and to make a host of sweeping policy decisions absent meaningful accountability." 0-0, I think you were spot on in the post you removed, not withstanding your subsequent removal of it citing 42 U.S.C. The element of the FL law suit I quoted above deals directly with that issue.

If the judge enjoins enforcement of the CSO (and all that entails), the preliminary injunction takes place immediately (there are varying rules and exceptions but basically immediately). I think it is correct to assume, it will take the cruise lines a while to digest the impact and implement an operational plan. However, if I have this right, the industry has probably been planning on this outcome for a while. Restart delays may be minimal. The case the FL's and TX State's Attorneys are making is solid. Twangster, I'm sure you've read the filing. I'm not a lawyer and don't think you are either so, we're both speculating. I was closely involved with a case brought by a private party seeking an injunction on the County of Miami Dade imposing certain regulations based on his powers under the state's PHE. The claimant believed the regulations were unlawful and a undue restraint of trade. Much smaller case but, the plaintiff requested and obtained an expedited hearing. The county backed down before the preliminary hearing by pretending to rescind the regulations because COVID circumstances had changed. They hadn't but the Mayor saved face. I don't think the HHS/CDC is going to back down before the hearing. Their lawyers will argue that the CDC has the power to regulate the cruise industry. They will argue cruises, by their nature, are high-risk environments for airborne and foodborne diseases and there is documented history of COVID super-spreader events on Princess cruise ships among others. Cruise ship staff and passengers travel to different ports and destinations. When they disembark or come back home, they can expose their family, friends, and the general public to Covid-19. Given the danger that cruises could pose, the CDC has clear powers to regulate to ensure the safety of the general public. It's a decent argument and the Judge may like it. As Wordell1 suggests the government may also argue for dismissal based on this being an international issue. The problem for HHS and the CDC is that the suit also claims irreparable economic damage to FL's and TX's cruise ports and larger economies tied to cruise ship operations. That part of the claim is national, not international. The entire scope and implications of the CSO, therefore, exceeds the statutory and regulatory authority of the CDC. The states are also arguing that the CDC's regulatory authority over maritime operations that might threaten public health applies to single, time limited events. That's not what the CSO is. It is an ongoing, lengthy restraint of trade imposing billions of dollars of economic losses that only Congress has the authority to pass this kind of regulatory legislation. Based on the foregoing, I think the claim has a better than average chance of having the Judge issue the injunction the claimant states are seeking. The risk is that their are technicalities beyond my understanding that may weigh on this case but, fundamentally, based on the arguments contained in the 5 elements of the claim, this is a strong case. It helps that the Judge, who has already reviewed the filings and arguments of both parties deems the claim worthy of being heard on an expedited basis.

Private vaccine requirements are legal. The position that vaccine passports infringe on personal liberties in private settings doesn't hold water. Every one of you have, at one time or another, been required to show proof of vaccination to go to school. It is important to distinguish between public and private settings. Federal mandates for them, as in a requirement for "vaccine passports", not in a private setting, would most likely not survive a court challenge on the basis that mandating them broadly and at the federal level would abridge constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. OTH, private businesses can legally require vaccination as a condition of employment. The EEOC has greenlighted vaccine requirements as long as appropriate exemptions that protect personal liberties and allow for disabilities are part of the requirement (e.g. religious or health related exemptions, tele-working). Governor Desantis' or any other state governor's EO based order banning "vaccine passports" isn't legal. State Governors do not have the power, even under those granted by declaration of a PHE. State legislatures appear to have the authority to legislate bans of vaccine passports within their boarders or requirements for them to obtain service in a place of business. There are gray areas, however. They involve several issues: First, the role of federal over-sight and the responsibility of the feds to provide guidance. Second, the EAU, third, the ethical challenge imposed by vaccine distribution inequity. IOW, such bans, even when codified into law by state legislatures are not going to survive court challenges. Even though there are some gray areas in the law governing state's right to legislate vaccine passport bans, it is clear that Desantis does not have legal authority to waive vaccine requirements that private cruise lines might wish to impose as a requirement for boarding a cruise ship. That is because Desantis runs afoul of federal oversight of cruise ships operating both in federally controlled waters bordering the states and in international waters. The bottom line for those worried about a vaccination requirement by the cruise lines becoming a show-stopper for cruises originating in FL ports is that won't happen. The CDC's power to regulate the cruise industry is another matter altogether. Some legal authorities say they do (the US Justice Department), some say they don't (e.g., the FL and TX State's attorneys). This question gets resolved next week.

People seeking to travel outside of the US in teh next 12 months or so are going to encounter a lot of uncertainty from the airlines, cruise lines and governments running the travel and leisure show inside their boarders. The best idea is to protect yourself from financial loss if something unexpected happens. Book refundable air fares or book your air with your cruise line of choice. Expect cruise itinerary changes and just enjoy the ride.

That take is possible. So are others with respect to the apparent stand the CDC has taken, namely publishing a laughable and seriously outdated phased return to cruising that clearly was staffed months ago, was pulled out of the cellar and dusted off just in time to send it's unobtainable, according to Del Rio, gates for a restart directly to the Judge that is hearing FL's lawsuit next week. Coincidence? I don't think so. They're feeling the heat.

I'm going to go with two possibilities here: (1) The CDC actually does have it's head up it's ass and will push for the phased restart as published. Mitigating against this line of thinking is that the thing is laughably outdated. Mitigating for it is that the CDC DOES have it's head up it's ass. (2) This is an industry smoke screen or a tacitly agreed upon one off- from Del Rio. Mitigating against this is the cruise industry rarely has one spokes person speaking for the collective. Mitigating for it is the line of thought that the industry knows the CSO's phased restart is going to crash and burn under it's own weight of stupid or a Judge is going to enjoin enforcement of it.