JeffB

Possibility? Sure. Actually happening? I remain skeptical. The Biden administration's pandemic policy is overly cautious to the extent bad policy is developed. e.g. the FDA recommendation to pause J&J vaccines that became policy by approval. Costs exceed any benefit, IMO. Moreover, messaging remains confusing, often contradictory and hard to flesh out purpose and intent of it. Despite enormous pressure to lift the CSO from various quarters, the CDC needle hasn't moved. If anything we're seeing retrenchment, foot dragging and digging in of heels.

First, the vaccine manufacturers may or may not be involved in the studies that are designed to assess the long term effectiveness of their vaccine products. Second, we do not yet know with any kind of certainty what the biomarkers are that are called correlates. These are one or a set of many serum biomarkers that correlate with immunity to reinfection over time. Correlates are determined by corelate analysis studies. These studies are done in government labs within agencies like the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the US among others. University labs also do these kinds of studies with grants from the feds. The effort is global in nature. Some small studies have looked at B Cells (noted above), and others, in post vaccinated subjects to predict the length of time immunity to reinfections persists. So far, so good: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063 One of the great things that happened during the pandemic is the tremendous global cooperation between researchers and scientists whose specialty areas are infectious disease. I know that the question of how long immunity will last is on the top of the list of things to identify for public health officials. The human immune system is incredibly complex and a lot of how it works remains unknown. We know that there are lab tests (titers) that can detect specific and known elements of the human immune system that give us an idea of estimated levels of immunity for a particular virus .We know, for example, what those are for Mumps, Measles and Rubella (MMR), among others, by doing titers, but it usually takes a decade or more to ID them and plan re-immunization protocols to restore lost immunity. But a correlates analysis has to be undertaken, is an ongoing process, with certainty regarding which biomarkers are reliable in identifying continuing immunity from SARS2 infections emerging over time. This is a complicated way of saying we still don't know how long immunity from SARS2 infection lasts and won't know for a while. So far, we know reinfection after SARS2 vaccination is rare with only a few known cases out of millions of vaccinated people since vaccines became available to the public just less than 6 months ago. Large scale trials began at least 9 months ago so those subjects can be looked at too. So, we can conclude, anecdotally, that immunity lasts at least for around 9 months. This shouldn't surprise anyone but from the little I know about virology, SARS2 is going to be a seasonal virus that will require re-vaccination. Is it every year, every 3 years? 10? We will know that better once solid correlate analysis points to reliable biomarkers whose presences in human serum can identify immunity, I also suspect that as a result of the damage this pandemic did, public health officials will be quick to recommend revaccinations every 12-24 months by the time January 2022 rolls around.

........ balancing what's actually happening on the ground with SARS2 and COVID and what politicians, public health authorities and the media seem to want to tell us is happening.

I get the point of your post but I'm perplexed as to why you feel "insulted" by Fain's remarks. He's never said, nor implied that the July 4th is the planned re-start day for RCL cruises. I believe you inferred that. What he has said is this: "My fondest desire is that we can follow President Biden's target of July 4th as a major reopening milestone. The evidence is that we can do it. Now is our opportunity to work together towards that common goal." That last sentence is an important rejoinder suggesting RCG isn't doing any sailing from US ports until the CDC either lifts the NSO/CSO in it's entirety or revises the CSO. He's said, along with CLIA, he thinks the CSO is unworkable and lacks identifiable gates and a time line for reopening. IMO, he, along with CLIA, are spot on You won't find a more informed group of cruise fanatics who post here regularly and probably do read everything and anything having to do with the restart of cruising. You're the first to post that you are "insulted" on the basis that you believe Fain thinks that cruise fans are not informed. There are some issues. I've posted that I have become frustrated by RCL's lack of forthrightness. Same for the cruise industry titans in general for their lack of courage and leadership ...... that was before the flurry of events I spoke of above a little more than a week ago. That was leadership from CLIA, from all the cruise line CEOs that chimed in challenging the unfairness of the on going situation and Governor Desantis making that very claim in a law suit filed in the federal district court system of the State of FL. I've stated on this message board that I'm waiting patiently to see what comes of the flurry of events that culminated in FL's Governor Desantis announcement on Friday, April 2nd, that the State of FL was suing the Biden administration over the closure of FL ports to the cruise ship industry. Will the needle move? So far, it hasn't budged. I'm frustrated but, I'm certainly not insulted by anyone in the cruise industry who is dealing with the incredibly difficult leadership and management requirements of their positions.

This is a good question. Matt has already provided an answer. Here's what's behind that answer and what you are probably hearing from health care providers and public health officials. The 6 month thing is based on data available since the introduction of vaccines both in trials and to the public. That goes back about 6 months, no further ..... yet. After 6 months, Trial data from the four principal vaccines - Pfizer/Bio-N-Tech, Moderna, Astrazeneca, J&J - all of them large scale involving thousands of adult subjects, demonstrates that antibodies to SARS2 were present after 6 months. Emphasis on SARS2 because there are now three principal variants that have been shown to have reduced effectiveness against transmission. None of them have shown reduced effectiveness in reducing deaths. They're all doing fine in that regard and only slightly less effective in reducing serious illness. Those are the facts and none of this came from the press where you will read all sorts of misinformation about variants. As we learn more about how effective the vaccines are against emerging variants, boosters may or may not be required. Scientists and vaccine manufacturers are already working on this. mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) are reportedly very easy to modify as genomic variants appear so, if we need boosters, these will be what we'll probably get regardless of what we initially received. Keep in mind, efficacy and effectiveness are not the same. Trials demonstrate efficacy and all three of the principal vaccines have around 90% or better. Measuring the effectiveness of a vaccine involves seeing how it actually works in the real world over time. Some data is available from the trials and effectiveness is a bit lower than efficacy but still the vaccines work and work very well in preventing serious illness and reducing transmission. So far this has been true for all three of the variants recognized as being more transmissible but not more deadly. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-difference-between-efficacy-and-effectiveness?gclid=Cj0KCQjw38-DBhDpARIsADJ3kjl_2zMSPDBjlMj4chOc68hc9YL6aX1ZU5h9X569ElWU4zoeRwFwCNQaAgouEALw_wcB

There's mounting evidence from Michigan, among other states, that teens and kids are becoming infected with the more transmissible UK variant at fairly high rates. Fleshing out the actual numbers and comparing them to a baseline in the under 20 age group though is hard. I've accessed several data bases and what is being said by Governor Whitmer in MI and echoed by Dr. Walenski of the CDC isn't precisely born out in the data I'm looking at. Youth sports, for example, is being touted by Governor Whitmer as a prime source of viral spread and increased new cases in MI. But, from a baseline, it's not under 18s - I would suppose that's who participates in youth sports programs - that this increase is being seen. It is predominantly in the 20-39 yo group. So????? I've become very skeptical of COVID related pronouncements coming from politicians and the CDC. The issue for cruise lines and kids is not one of increasing disease burden in this age cohort (hospitalizations and deaths), it is one of the risks of undetectable viral loads in early infections that get missed by molecular (PCR) or antigen testing as part of a pre-boarding health screening process and then asymptomatic transmission aboard ship as the infection progresses. It's also one of the lines evaluating the risks versus the benefits obtained of allowing families with kids under 18 to sail in the current environment. My take is that allowing under 18s to sail without vaccination (or 16s if you want to include soon to be available Pfizer vaccines) and with only a negative PCR test to board, does increase the risk of a shipboard COVID outbreak but probably only among other kids who boarded. It's still an outbreak, it should be a medical concern worthy of trying to avoid even though it's not likely to be one that produces serious illnesses. I also believe that the risk of transmission from an infected kid to a vaccinated older adult is very low. However, on any re-start scenario approved by the CDC and within the next few months the best strategy is to not take that risk of allowing kids to sail. So, if I were providing input to the Healthy Sail Panel that involves decisions about sailing in the current circumstance, I'd say vaccines should be required for al. passengers. At some point, COVID will be a manageable infectious disease similar to influenza, norovirus or the common cold. Kids can sail then. That point gets moved up as kids and everyone else gets vaccinated. But until either of those points are obtained, I'd advice against unvaccinated persons being allowed to board regardless of a pre-boarding negative test result.

I mentioned yesterday that the impact of COVID is likely less than we are led to believe it is. A lot of this has to do with how public health officials report COVD data and then how the press presents it to us. Giving us case numbers out of context is misleading. For example, on 3/9, FL reported 5007 new cases. A month later, on 4/9, 6817. That's a 36% increase in new cases yet the percent positivity over that same period went up only 1%. When you test more, more new cases are identified...... testing on 3/9 = 175/100K. Testing on 4/9 = 282/100K. That's a 37% increase in daily testing producing an expected 36% rise in new cases. On 3/9, FL had 3419 patients hospitalized with a COVID diagnosis. On 4/9, 3016. But this is the kicker - deaths: Need I say more? Florida is fine.

Well, yes, but only directly in one small segment of activities in the US impacted by the CDC's "the boogey man is coming" messaging. The SARS2 pandemic is a problem. No denying it. But I remain shocked that the word's governments response to it, after a year of dealing with it, fails to recognize that it is a problem that has to be dealt with by means other than scaring people and having those governments encourage regional entities (the states and counties) to issue more and more restrictions to mobility and/or restrictions to business activities. One thing I believe is that the impact of the COVID is far less than we are being led to believe it is, that, given the advancements in COVID treatments and the effectiveness of reasonable mitigation measures make it so ..... and I've never believed this whole thing is a hoax. It's real. It's a real problem but it is one that can be overcome with a combination of vaccines, through increased testing, effective identification and targeting of regional outbreaks for specific and time limited mitigation measures and an effort to restore confidence in US public health policy making entities, namely the CDC. That last one is important because I believe what's happening in the US now - the increased violence and discontent - is largely a result of this "boogey man is coming" messaging emanating from the CDC, augmented by the press that loves a crisis. Instead of that, I'm advocating for a change in tone from one of worry to one of confidence that the virus can be brought to heel. Start with defining a path forward to the resumption of a reasonable post-pandemic normalcy and that includes revisions of the CDC's CSO.

Just one of the problems the cruise lines are dealing with in getting sailings restarted from US ports is the wrongheaded focus on COVID case numbers as an indicator of pandemic status by public health officials, the CDC being the worst offender because they know better. This gets augmented by the press as they love a crisis. Then the public mood and by extension, public health policy is shaped. Because of the distorted view of where we really are with controlling the transmission of SARS2 and the disease burden of COVID it's impossible to define a path forward to post-pandemic normalcy. For us cruise fanatics, we see this glaring problem reflected in the NSO, the CSO and the lack of a clear path forward to the resumption of cruising from US ports. There are better metrics than COVID case numbers to measure the impact of the disease. Not only that but the impact of COVID is highly regional. The disease burden in MI is different than it is Kansas yet the CDC uses one figure - new case numbers - applied nationally to cast every state in the same dire situation. I think Desantis, among other governors of similar persuasion, mostly has the right idea. I'd look to the UK's Boris Johnson though who has pursued an aggressive and prioritized vaccination strategy, similar to Desantis, et. al., but has combined this with highly targeted restrictions on citizen mobility based on a testing strategy that is unique in the world. The UK is doing more testing, particularly genomic testing, to guide the targeting of regional hot spots for mitigation measures. That is smart. They also have a robust national contact tracking and tracing program. The results, so far, are striking. We'll see if it continues. Sadly, we are stuck with the Biden administration's CDC. I don't see them changing their messaging or outlining a pathway back to a post-pandemic normalcy. Sticking with the CSO, it appears, is reflective of that lack of COVID insight and vision so badly needed here in the US. While there is talk of more testing and the addition of the genomic type, I don't see guidelines from the federal level that trickle down to well designed public health programs at the state level. Ostensibly, that could help guide emerging and improved public health policy on a state by state basis that is more focused and targeted. I just don't see it happening and I don't think vaccines, alone, are going to sufficiently change new case numbers enough to change the public mood and by extension, public health policy. Sadly. The pending law suit by the state of FL might have an impact if only in the context of our interests in a return to cruising. Despite how good I think the plaintiff's arguments are, I still think it's a long shot. What we need is a wholesale change in how leading experts from the CDC view the impact of SARS2 going forward while outlining a responsible return to a post pandemic normalcy. If FL wins the case and gets an injunction, that could move the CDC to re-evaluate more than just their approach to the cruise industry. Mid to long term, that's what we need.

I've been under the impression that the only businesses affected by the Desantis position on vaccines are those operating in FL under a FL business license. I don't think that whatever the cruise lines decide is going to be their vaccination policies would be affected by the Desantis position. To my knowledge they're not required to obtain a FL business license and that they don't have one is why retail shops onboard close when ships are in port. Not sure how bars are affected because they are serving in port. There's another complicating matter. Ports in FL operate in certain situations under federal jurisdiction. The NSO springs from that. The feds mandated masks in those facilities that come under federal jurisdiction, e.g. airports, train stations, etc. I suspect some port operations are impacted by federal laws. We already know the feds aren't going to mandate vaccines. So there appears to be no conflict between federal law and the Desantis vaccine position.

So what happens next? The case will be put on the court's docket. I don't see that an emergency hearing was requested. It might be at a later date if it appears that the case won't be heard fast enough for the lawyers arguing the case. There will be a preliminary hearing. The judge's clerks will have prepared briefs in advance for him that he will have read. Both sides will present arguments for and against. The judge can rule or he can postpone pending additional information. The Justice Department lawyers defending the CDC will request that right out of the box. The plaintiff's attorneys will argue time is of the essence and I believe that argument has legs. We'll get to watch the Justice Department lawyers try to defend the laugher that is the CSO. Hate to be them! The plaintiff will seek an immediate injunction based on the arguments presented to the judge. The case seems strong to me but, I'm a lay person. The law is quirky and a unsuccessful outcome for the plaintiff is usually due to stuff that people untrained in the law find hard to understand Let's say the judge rules. He can either grant the injunction the plaintiff seeks, deny it or order some other undertaking (e.g., why don't you guys sit down and work this out with an arbitrator). The $64,000 question is what if the judge grants an immediate injunction? Well, the cruise lines have from whenever in April to the end of June to get a limited and carefully selected number of ships and crews ready to accept passengers; ports have the same amount of time to rehire workers and train them. July cruises will sail. From what ports to where and on what itineraries will emerge over the next few weeks. Exciting times.

IMO, this is a slam dunk case. Yet, OJ was ruled not guilty. I don't think there is any question that the court has jurisdiction and the case has standing in the Middle District Federal Court (Tampa). The government will try to have the case dismissed claiming everything that has been done by HHS and the CDC is authorized under the PHE declaration. In reading the case file, I can see that FL lawyers already have anticipated that and addressed it in the counts below. I don't see any technical obstacles. The counts are effectively described with appropriate case law sited Count 1: Agency action not in accordance with law and in excess of authority. The suit alleges that the CDC was granted authority under US Code (USC) to do specific things. It goes on to allege that the CDC both broke the laws granting said authority and exceeded it's authority - mainly and in this case, by locking down the cruise industry through November, 2021. The suit alleges it has no authority to do that. Count 2: Arbitrary and capricious agency action. ......a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary [or] capricious,” as Defendants’ actions are here. Argument is made that multiple other and similar businesses are open or are reopening with appropriate and reasonable mitigation measures and are operating safely. Only the cruise industry's business activities have been unlawfully restrained. Count 3: Agency Action Unlawfully Withheld or Unreasonably Delayed. In the alternative, and for the same reasons stated in Count 2, Defendants’ failure to allow the cruise industry to safely reopen constitutes final agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706 Count 4: Failure to Provide Notice and Comment. This one is complicated but nonetheless strong. Basically it alleges that the CDC sought public comment, got it and did nothing with it. We weren't privy to this but I'm sure the cruise industry people working with the CDC complained about this and will now get their day in court. Count 5: Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power. A straight forward legal argument. Quoted here: 71. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Under Article I, Section 1, only Congress may engage in lawmaking. 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. Kind of a back-up, catch the CDC if the Judge rules for the defendant on the other counts. Finally, what is the state of Florida asking for. Again a quote because it is clear and succinct just like the Judge wants them to be: PRAYER FOR RELIEF For these reasons, Florida asks the Court to: a) Hold unlawful and set aside the Conditional Sailing Order. b) Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Conditional Sailing Order. c) Postpone the effective date of the Conditional Sailing Order. d) Declare unlawful the Conditional Sailing Order. e) Declare that the cruise industry may open with reasonable safety protocols. f) Award Florida costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. g) Award such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

This The case was filed today in Federal Court. Current listings for the Middle District only go through the 7th, but I'll find it tomorrow. Until I can read the entire case filing I can only speculate about the details so, here's that speculation: The case isn't likely to be a tort claim although one of the criteria for such a claim is damages. So, there is that - the cruise industry can show that in terms of lost revenue. Tort claims are intended to fully restore a plaintiff and the cruise industry isn't asking for money. They want to sail and will seek a court decision where the judge enjoins enforcement of the NSO. This is more likely to fall into the category of an Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. I had suggested elsewhere that the easiest target in obtaining an injunction might be a violation of 14A - to wit: undue restraint of trade or commerce. The Plaintiff, in this case the state of FL, would seek to have the judge declare the CDC's NSO and by extension the CSO an unconstitutional restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable by DHS. Things get tricky with the PHE declaration by HHS. That is both constitutional and lawful as far as I can tell and the NSO and CSO derive from that. Attorneys for the Plaintiff would have to argue that while the PHE grants the CDC authority to restrict activity that presents a public health risk (e.g., cruise ship operations and every other economic endeavor associate with those), such restrictions of the cruise ship industry's operations run afoul of 14A (undue government restriction of trade and commerce). This was not the case in March 2020. The risk of disease spread was unknown but presumed to be high in congregate settings. Made sense. At this point, the risks of SARS-2 transmission are more fully understood and we have layered mitigation measures designed to reduce such risks. These have been developed and proven to be successful in preventing C-19 outbreaks within the travel and leisure sector of the global economy. Yet the CDC says cruise ships, unlike other similar travel and leisure venues that are operating now can't operate from US ports? I don't think that is defensible. Vaccines are the game changing wild card. When the Plaintiff throws that card on the table as a means of reducing the risk of transmission aboard a cruise ship to near zero by itself and then add in the other layers of protection the cruise lines have adopted, I'd like to see Justice Department lawyers defend the overly complex and burdensome provisions, required only of cruise shops while not of similar travel and leisure venues of the CSO. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer so TIFWIW. I had fun speculating. Gives me hope that the CDC clown show is going to get pantsed in court of law.

I have no details but I will find the suit and read it. I just posted in another thread I was hoping someone would try. You have to love Desantis!

Not shocked either. We're 5d into the flurry of hits on the CDC/HHS CSO from interested parties. The response from the CDC is to shrug their shoulders and announce, "cruise ships will sail from US ports by mid-summer." Pretty useless because it's missing a path forward other than some specifics on the technicals that the CDC released under pressure but no dates or timelines were provided. A couple of COVID related points: The reality of what's happening in countries that had the resources to lock in vaccine orders and are moving forward in an accelerated way to vaccinate adults - steeply declining deaths and hospitalizations - contradicts most global health authorities negative COVID messaging, including the CDC's. Yes, new cases have increased after dropping steeply as vaccines were introduced then plateauing at what the CDC claims is too high of a number. While new C-19 case numbers have been a continual if not misleading metric when taken out of context it is much less relevant in a circumstance where vaccines are becoming widely available. There are better metrics available but those appear to not being considered as indicators of the need to revise or ease the general approach to SARS2 transmission and COVID mitigation measures. Interestingly, more than 50% of new case numbers are in 5 states, FL is one of them. IOW, these are regional outbreaks that should be treated as such with appropriate focus on controlling them. Instead, we get a one size fits all approach as measured by rising case numbers. In the US, the lack of a strategy or milestones articulated by federal public health and infectious disease officials and general guidance to get businesses and people safely back to a post-COVID normalcy is shockingly shortsighted. Meanwhile, Broward Co. the home of PEV, has developed a set of reasonable milestones using appropriate COVID metrics for easing mitigation measures in 3 phases. These are consistent with the phased reopening plan that Governor Desantis signed off on last June. They make sense. If you're interested you can read it here: https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/broward-commissioners-vote-to-relax-some-covid-19-restrictions/2422564/ At this point, I have little hope for a revision of the CSO by HHS/CDC in the next 9 days. I set a wait and see date of April 15th, 2w after the CDC's release of technicals, to see if there was any movement. It still could happen but we've lost some momentum and in 9 more days, no one will be interested having moved on to more pressing matters, the CDC having dodge a bullet thay should have taken center mass. I'd really like to see a federal court filing asking for an injunction directed against DHS's enforcement of the NSO. Probably hard to do but I wish someone would try. I want to see the US Justice Department try to defend what's in the CSO and the technicals released last week.

I posted this as a part of a longer post on why I think the cruise lines, financially, are at a tipping point. I believe they see their survival as viable entities imperiled. They are sitting on billions of dollars of unproductive capital assets, a payroll and mounting debt that they have taken on to sustain themselves or restructured to delay repayments. Think about the billions the lines invested in new ship building the 6-12 months prior to the pandemic that shut cruise ship operations down. Corporate is starting to play hardball ...... Walenski's and Becerra's phones were probably ringing off the hook today. There's pressure from Congressmen, governors and corporate leadership. The result was this milk toast press release, not much more than a regurgitation of the phased approach contained in the CSO, from a CDC spokesperson: “CDC is committed to working with the cruise industry and seaport partners to resume cruising following the phased approach outlined in the conditional sailing order,” CDC spokeswoman Jade Fulce said in a response to questions about Carnival. “This goal aligns with the desire to resume passenger operations in the United States expressed by many major cruise ship operators and travelers; hopefully, by mid-summer with restricted revenue sailings.” Hopefully, this is the start of changes to be forthcoming. My take is that there will be more movement on the part of HHS and the CDC. There has to be. What the CDC is holding on to is just not defensible any longer, the cruise line execs are smelling blood in the water. I predict some kind of face saving modifications to the CSO that will tend to make the CDC and HHS look and feel good about themselves. The introduction of vaccines - the recognition of their impact on virus transmission and disease burden - will be a big part of those mods. There won't be any vaccine mandates from HHS to restart cruising. That is for sure. These contracts that the CDC has mandated between cruise lines, ports and nearby health care facilities will probably disappear and be replaced by agreements rather than legally enforceable contracts - those are hard. IVO of voluntary vaccine requirements implemented by the cruise lines, some virus metric thresholds might be relaxed. Port employees and guest relations staff may only be required to mask and maintain distance not all be vaccinated. I can see lot of changes to the nitty gritty of the CSO that makes things infinitely easier for ports and cruise lines to restart operations. These don't need to be publicly flouted by anyone with the intent of making the CDC look bad. The lines know exactly what is at stake here if some leeway is granted and things get screwed up with an outbreak onboard or precipitated by virus spread in a port and surrounding local community. They have every incentive to seriously make embarkation, voyages, port calls and debarkation as safe as they all can be from outbreaks. The CDC should recognize that paternalistic COVID mitigation mandates are not necessary with a huge incentive for good corporate behavior from the cruise lines.

And while we're on the subject of vaccination passports, the US government can do whatever it wants with this idea. That is not going to stop other governments from imposing the requirement for proof of vaccination to enter their countries. Nothing new here and that has been discussed. Right now, this is a fast moving ball game. So far in Europe, from my vantage point, the EUC hasn't come out saying vaccine passports are going to be required to travel between EU countries. This is a very sticky subject right now. Personally I want to resume traveling to and within Europe. I'd feel much better about doing that with most airlines and cruise lines seemingly moving towards requiring vaccinations anyway, that those I'm coming in contact with in airports, cruise terminals and other public spaces that most are vaccinated. IOW, I'm subrogating my concerns over the potential vulnerability of my health information to my wish to travel.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WILL NOT REQURE COVID-19 VACCINE PASSPORTS. That's the headline and its going to spark numerous questions. Can a private entity require proof of vaccination or negative COVID test to enter their premises? Yes, according to Fauci when asked and depending on how states deal with this. The bottom line for cruising is that cruise lines can and very likely will require proof of vaccination AND negative COVID tests (probably PCR) to board. Full stop. For private entities that do require proof of vaccination, get ready for heaps of complaining, cries of unfairness and claims that there are now two classes of American citizens. You've heard a lot of this before when it came to mask mandates. Desantis has already issued an EO to prevent businesses operating in FL under FL business licenses from mandating vaccines to receive services offered. That WILL NOT affect cruise ships - already discussed. I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of this. Just a heads up that we're going to see a battle royal between those that think people should be vaccinated to do stuff and those that don't.

Two thoughts on where we are with this: The cruise lines are getting more aggressive with their press releases. I would speculate that this is recognition that they will reach a dire state financially with out a restart, starting out small and quickly advancing to a broad based re-start, of cruises from US ports. Cruise lines cannot sustain themselves with the limited restarts they've embarked upon. The lines are not going to sit idly buy and watch the US government destroy several multi-billion dollar enterprises. For the lines to remain with their heads above water, I'd say that has to happen by the end of June beginning of July. I'll buy a round of June cancelations but that's it. A full 15 months without revenue and no bailouts is not sustainable. Restructuring debt and issuing notes to raise cash can only go so far. We're getting to a tipping point. If there's no adjustments made by the CDC within the next couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure we'll see legal action. I'd also speculate that signals are being sent to that end to various members of Congress, HHS/CDC as well as overtures being made to supportive state governments. I'm a bit hopeful ..... but then again we've all been brought to that level on at least three occasions I can recall with those hopes dashed.

I'm with smokeybandit. When a complaint like this that seeks relief is filed in a federal court, the presiding judge reviews it to make sure he has jurisdiction and the case has standing. If it meets those criteria, he'll issue the injunction pending a hearing. It's here where I made this point in another thread that I question whether the Justice Department is willing to defend the laugher that is the CSO. At this point the CSO is pretty hard to defend with the advent of vaccines and their undeniable positive impact on disease burden. If the pandemic were still raging here in the US - and it's not, this despite the CDC's view that it is, it might be defensible.

Yes, I could get something close to that cost out of Miami but after an 1 hour Uber ride from where we live to the port of Miami to fly with the most inconvenient times and connections, I wasn't willing. Of course I could book more reasonable non-stop routing ...... for neatly a grand pp.

We're talking about leverage here. For the cruise industry to get back to business, they have to have it. There are two options we seem to be framing here: (1) Let the court of public opinion and lobbied politicians be the leverage that moves HHS to tell the CDC to cancel the CSO. (2) Let the courts TELL DHS that they are enjoining the provisions of the CSO that denies cruise ship operations from US ports. I prefer the later. If it can be mounted, and I'm not sure it can be, a claim that the the provisions of the CSO are unconstitutional (violation of 14A) could be filed in short order and an injunction issued. That does not mean that the US Justice Department acting on behalf of HHS could not challenge the injunction but I'm also not certain that they would. Can you imagine even good government lawyers trying to argue in defense of the laugher that is the CSO?

Yes, but when is Biden going to tell his HHS Secretary to get with the program and can the out dated, burdensome and irrelevant (IVO vaccine success) CDC CSO?

Yeah, this is the thing. Posturing is fine and I definitely think it has its place here. But I'm with you. I don't think you can game the system right now. I've been tempted to cancel a July cruise out of Amsterdam with a Norway itinerary and book something more likely to sail. Europe is experiencing vaccine woes - I don't see the Netherlands welcoming international travelers and opening cruise ports by July. Could happen but low probability given the circumstances there. As well the Celebrity offerings out of St. Maarten are appealing ..... except for all the hoop jumping and high cost of air to SMX from Miami. Sure, I'm chomping at the bit to cruise. I actually think something is going to come of CLIA's hit piece, press release on the CDC along with DelRio's and Bailey's public statements. Then there is Desantis who has already thrown down the gauntlet with threats of legal action. HHS may back down as the heat gets turned up. What we get to know in the public domain is always just the tip of the iceberg regarding what's going on behind the scenes. I don't know that the involved parties from the offices of Governor Desantis', maybe Governor Abbott's from Texas and the cruise industry have the leverage they need outside of the courts applying it. Legal action in the form of injunctions have to be in the mix I would think. Gets popcorn.

I think it is going to take more than political pressure, more than public shaming to get HHS to back off. I think legal minds are going to have to come up with a constitutional challenge to the implications - a barrier to free trade under 14A of the US Constitution - and in an appropriate federal court, request an injunction to stop enforcement of the NSO by DHS. I think the CLIA press release today is a shot across the bow of HHS ..... we're coming. The intent is to threaten to get the HHS/CDC in a court room to argue why cruising is unsafe due to the risk of the spread of C-19 and then have opposing counsel shoot all their reasons for it down. If there is a threat of such action, I think it is unlikely Biden's Justice Department would be willing to defend the CDC's/HHS's position when it can so easily be proven by the available facts to be indefensible. We can only hope.