JeffB

Scrumps, well, decisions relating to the pandemic response in the US is "political" to some degree. With respect to mitigation measures, in thie case the No-Sail-Order, it is more of a legal argument. You have the abridgment of personal freedoms v. the imposition of rules and regulation in the national interest, in this case public health. The Circuit Courts have, as far as I know, ruled against litigants who appear before them arguing that local restrictive measures such as mandating masks is unconstitutional. Under the pandemic circumstances the courts have ruled it is not. End of argument there. Extending or letting the No-Sail-Order expire is a matter involving the question of whether or not the US Government has the authority to curtail an activity that is potentially hazardous, e.g., the operation of cruise ships from US ports, in a pandemic. I think it does and, if this authority were challenged in the courts, the litigants challenging it would likely lose. There are no politics involved here at all. Period. Let's break this down further. The CDC, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, is subordinate to the Executive Branch. The CDC recommends and the Executive branch decides. At the time of the issuance of the No-Sail-Order, The Department of Homeland Security under the authority of the Executive closed US ports to cruise ship in March. It was a lawful order, within DHS's authority to issue. Lots of water under the bridge since then. Has the CDC objectively demonstrated that cruise ship operations threatens public health in the US? No, they said it COULD. Looked at in total, the cruise industries contribution to global COVID-19 before the industry was shut down was minuscule. The visuals were condemnatory; the facts are anything but. Not only that, the cruise industry has developed a comprehensive Safe-To-Sail Plan addressing every possible public health concern the CDC could have about cruise ship operations and submitted it to them. Going beyond that, they have addressed every issue involving any burden on a US port facility and the city within which that port is located should a cruise ship need to disembark passengers or crew infected with SARS-CoV-2 In the face of a weak case for endangering the public health or burdening cruise port facilities offered by the CDC and based on it might or it could, the Executive branch has demonstrated the economic harm being done by continuing them The cruise industries balance sheets are objective. The unemployment secondary to layoffs in the entirety of cruise ship operations are both enormous and objective. These are real facts. The CDC? Well, they say it cruise ship operations from US ports COULD be dangerous...... and this in the face of successful cruise ship operations in Europe. Case closed. The CDC hasn't made one based on the necessary facts. This is why in America, we have a a system of government framed in checks and balances. Pence, IMO and acting within his authority as the Chairman of the Pandemic Advisory Committee told Redfield to sit down. There's no politics in Pence's actions at all. Looking forward, I expect the Executive to let the No-Sail-Order expire on October 30th...... amidst the hand wringing of the various groups that have a vested interest in continuing the exaggerated negative narrative associated with COVID-19.

Allow the cruise industry to restart or keep it shuttered ........ a political decision? I think this is more likely to involve two different viewpoints both of them with supporting data behind them. One of them seriously flawed. The CDC believes congregate settings, such as those present on cruise ships have a high enough risk of promoting viral spread and endangering the Public Health to be curtailed. The data is unambiguous. Congregate settings do promote viral spread. The administration believes that with mitigation measures present, such as those proposed by the Sail-Safe Panel, the risk is sufficiently lowered that the economic benefits of green-lighting the cruise industry outweigh the Public Health risks. The economic harm to the cruise industry including every facet of supporting operations being rendered by the CDC's no sail order is also unambiguous. It is significant. I'd call it catastrophic when the entire supply chain for the cruise industry is considered. Two sides both with fair points. The CDC has been wrong before in matters involving SARS-CoV-2. They are wrong again extending the no-sail order for the cruise industry My personal view is that the CDC has, from the beginning of the pandemic in the US, over-stated the public health risks. That is not to say, by any means, that SARS-CoV-2 is harmless. It is not. It has the capacity to produce significant morbidity and mortality but the degree of it is highly age stratified allowing for targeted, specific containment measures instead of mass lock-downs. Moreover, and as our knowledge of the virus has increased, we have learned that simple mitigation measures that are layered are effective in controlling viral spread short of shuttering the economy and immobilizing citizens. Meanwhile, the protection of vulnerable populations has improved along with improved patient management when this cohort does become infected and requires hospitalization. During the entire pandemic, it is only now, 6 months down the road, that governments at the national level and local levels are realizing that the continued curtailment of social and economic activity is not sustainable. Cost/Risk/Benefit analysis is taking shape globally. Countries are recognizing that lock-down were counterproductive at the start and now continue to be more useless in controlling viral spread. Not only is this approach not sustainable but it also has already created previously unfathomable social and economic hardships that having nothing to do with the health related issues involving COVID-19. To sum it up, the damage done implementing many aspects of the CDC's approach to disease control has been enormous with little benefit to the public health. Keeping the cruise industry shuttered is just another example of bad policy with huge objectifiable downsides and few objectifiable benefits.

Good point ...... I think the point of Safe-To Sail-Plan produced by RCCL and NCL, endorsed by CLIA, was that it provided guidance, not directives. "Hopefully, other cruise lines will adapt our recommendations....." was included in the submission. But, you're right, none of the recommendations are binding and the CDC could say there has to be an indication that the recommended procedures have to be adopted by a cruise line and could be excluded from cruising from US ports if they don't. Another interesting development is that Florida Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio introduced legislation about a month ago that directs formation of a rule making body that would set standards for cruise line operations that, by law, ships operating from US ports have to abide by. Rules would include dealing both with the curretn COVID circumstance and future pandemics. I don't think passage is required for the CDC to make a determination that cruise lines are ready to operate safely in the COVID environment based on stated protocols and procedures that are already out there. But, as you mention, it's possible they want those to become binding and by law.

It doesn't matter what Carnival Corp. does with the CDC. They've already got a test bed in TUI, successfully operating in Europe and their Costa brand will start limited operations shortly out of Italy in the med. boasting a safe sail plan submitted to the Italian government similar to that RCCL and NCL developed and published very publicly. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/09/28/florida-schools-reopened-en-mass-feared-covid-surge-hasnt-followed/3557417001/ I can't imagine the CDC saying OK boys you all can start sailing from US ports except Carnival. There are just too many signals being sent that the CDC is going to relent. FL Governor Desantis' easing of restrictions and not allowing counties and cities to fine people in a police state fashion for not wearing a mask is targeted right at visitors and the tourist trade who will board cruise ships from 4 FL ports. I don't think for a minute he's not in touch with Fain and all the cruise industry big boys and knows exactly what's going down.

Regarding cruising from Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale........FL's Governor Desantis has long been an advocate of re-opening with sensible mitigation measures in place based on local data. Just speaking for Broward Co. where Port Everglades is, positivity rates have been under 5% for the last 14d straight. All other metrics designed to contextualize data points such as deaths and new case numbers using ED visits for Influenza and COVID like symptoms, hospital admissions, hospital ICU bed spaces occupied, ventilators used are all downward trending. To be clear, Desantis' announcement last Friday changed nothing with respect to masks and distancing. He had previously closed all bars (establishments relying on > 50% of revenue from alcohol sales) in the state. He cancelled that order allowing such drinking establishments across the state to open on Saturday. Other things like parks with playgrounds can re-open. Proprietors of both bars and restaurants must still limit capacity to 50% indoors, newly to 100% outdoors given the remaining requirement to space tables 6' apart or baring that have plastic barriers between booths. Patrons must still mask entering, exiting or moving around in a restaurant or bar. The biggest difference for both patrons and proprietors is that local officials cannot impose/collect fines for failing to comply with an existing order defining a mitigation measure. Officials and proprietors can point out violations and educate. Patrons are asked to act responsibly given the new freedoms...... mask and social distance where it is appropriate to do so. For now, Fort Lauderdale has achieved control of the virus if the data points I mentioned above are indicators of that. Besides advocating for re-opening, resuming social and economic activity to save jobs and boost FL's economy, he has also been an advocate of avoiding government over-reach with respect to both mitigation orders and enforcement. He has opposed from the start fining individuals and businesses, but leaving that up to local officials, for failure to comply with emergency orders instead promoting freedom from the threat of government over-reach and at the same time pointing out that with freedom comes responsibility to act in the best interests of community public health. My observation is that vulnerable cohorts have been nearly 100% compliant. Younger folks have been probably 60-70% complaint and that is the basic level of compliance required to limit viral spread (along with other measures being applied in a layered way). My bet is the stage is set for the CDC not to extend the No-Sail Order and it will expire possibly without comment on Wednesday. That will allow a restart of cruising out of Fort Lauderdale. If you've been paying attention, you will know exactly what that will mean and what the first cruises departing from Port Everglades will look like. I think it is going to take 4-5 weeks before non-employee passengers will sail. If all goes well, November 1st is the target date. First operations will involve test runs of 2-3 days with full crew and employees acting as PAX...... the entire dance is going to be very precise, choreographed and closely controlled. It's a proof of concept and the press will be unrelenting if anything goes wrong. RCCL and Celebrity will make sure nothing does go wrong and information will be strictly controlled while marketing transparency.

I'm booked on Celebrity Infinity departing Miami on 12/28 for a 5n New Years Cruise. I'd like to think that cruise will go - port calls are Key West and Cozumel. The issue that stands in the way is the drum beat of negativity from just about any source you want to name - public health authorities or the lay press, the press much worse than PH officials. What this creates is a wave of political pressures that ignores COVID facts and appropriate risk assessments and raises both PR and liability issues. In the last two weeks, a rapid test that provides results in 15 minutes at the point of care and doesn't cost much has become available. The logistics of getting them in place to be used by cruise lines is just one more logistics problem to solve for the lines. It's an obstacle, however, it could be one of the keys to resuming cruising. In comes the politics.....if you've been watching the news, colleges that welcomed students back on campus in mid-August are getting hammered by the media as a result of increased case numbers. Some Caribbean destinations that opened to tourists, quickly closed again when new cases popped up. I can make a strong case that only using new case numbers to guide Public Health policy is highly misleading. One cannot logically assess COVID risks by using only this data in isolation but that is what's happening. College administrators reacting to the pressure are ignoring (1) the impact of age stratification on disease burden, (2) multiple other metrics (ED visits, hospital admissions, etc) in assessing risks of serious illness - disease burden - from COVID. Countries are closing ports and airports and stopping tourism. Colleges are ending in-person learning, suspending sports and sending kids home which makes no sense at all but that's what the public seems to expect with those expectations fanned by the media. I've heard all the arguments against the case that you can continue any endeavor you choose to select, like cruising or going to school, protect the vulnerable and meanwhile keep the virus in check by simple masking and distancing. It always comes down to the micro, personal level, e.g., I don't want MY kids to go to school, get infected and come home to infect two generations of family members living under one roof. That argument fails because (1) it is rare occurrence to begin with and (2) it doesn't account for the upside social and economic benefits and the very low risk across all age groups when viewed at a macro level of serious illness secondary to infection. The addition of rapid testing - something, when it is warranted, that allows ID of asymptomatic COVID carriers to a 95% certainty level is a reality. That dramatically changes the risk calculus both on the macro level (the cruise industry in general and as it is viewed by the CDC) and the micro level (your own personal risk). Finally, if you don't like your chances, don't go until you do.

On testing ..... To be clear, while the FDA approved saliva tests last week, these are not rapid tests - they still require machine processing, in a lab, with the attendant delays that RT-PCR tests are experiencing now (3-14 days). The CDC's testing strategy, mandated by the FDA, relies on the RT-PCR (naso or naso pharyngeal swab). We're learning this is way to slow for the public health purpose of containment of the virus. We need a rapid test (think home pregnancy tests or Influenza A/B tests) that gives results in < 15 minutes. Those kinds of tests are out there. The FDA won't approve them for various reasons, none of them very good. Here's a link to the post I made discussing this in another thread:

O ye, of little faith'? ....... I'm still optimistic we'll get this thing under control. Over the last week, all the metrics involving COVID are downward trending, some of them steeply. FL is looking good - keep it up. There's also a good deal of testing technology coming down the road that could help stop community spread and make the US look more like South Korea. There's at least 3 vaccines one of which will likely see initial distribution by December 2020. I posted this in a little used Celebrity & Azamar thread in response to similar concerns about the resumption of cruising: I think this thinking about rapid, point of care (POC) testing and canning the current CDC's/FDA's testing strategy that has failed, and how rapid POC testing can be used to obtain containment is important. I'm writing my state legislators about it. recommend readers/posters here do the same. Spread the word.

I would agree with you here ..... under the present circumstance. That could change and quickly. The FDA just last week approved the use of Saliva screening tests for SARS-CoV-2 infections. This category of tests will slightly improve test to results time but these particular saliva tests still require machine processing in labs with the attendant delays in processing time. That's not fast enough to contain the virus. To do that requires quick ID of those infected and isolation then tracking contacts. The just approved saliva tests will work for groups in a bubble like sports teams or cruise ship crews being prepared for a sailing but in regions or states were community spread is high? No. Still too slow. Spot tests (think like a home pregnancy test) are needed to quickly ID a contagious person, isolate them and track contacts. Such products exist but the FDA won't approve them for a lot of different reasons none of them particularly good. The current testing strategy is based on the RT-PCR test. Its a diagnostic test, the gold standard but obtaining useful results for Public Health purposes, e.g., limiting the spread of a virus, it takes too long. South Korea used a combination of rapid tests and diagnostic tests right out of the gate and had a centrally controlled process to do that. The virus in SK is essentially controlled there. Enter US based manufactures such as e25bio that have developed rapid, on the spot tests that produce results at the point of care in < 15 minutes. There are others out there too. You want to go inside Walmart, go to a bar or restaurant, attend a sporting event .... board a cruise ship!!!, you get tested. If you're negative, you go in, if you're positive, you don't and you go home and isolate for 10d. This sort of rapid testing is not diagnostic, you save those for hospital settings where it's important to be nearly 100% right about a diagnosis. A rapid test simply identifies infected people at the point they are most contagious. It's Simple. How it works takes too long to explain and this post is long enough. Testing like this could be done regionally or by state, almost right now, like in FL or anywhere else where community spread is present. Longer term, as in the next 60-90 days, and to manufacture the tests to scale for wide distribution and use, it would take a paradigm shift in the CDC described, FDA mandated, US testing strategy away from RT-PCR testing for public health purposes, leaving it for hospital settings, and towards rapid testing to contagion. That approach is much better suited for the critical use as a public health tool designed to contain viral spread. That will require the political will to do this as well as to fund manufacturing and distribution at a war-time scale. After all, this is a war. Experts in this area think once manufacture and distribution is sufficient for full scale testing in the US, the virus could be contained in this country in 3-4 weeks. If the US started using this kind of rapid test right now and regionally where community spread is the highest, we'd get a head start on that. Maybe then, global health ministers will et American tourists in thier countries. What are we waiting for.

You have plenty of time to decide what to do ...... assuming you want to pay the final payment which will come due in September. You can cancel or lift and shift (L&S) as it becomes clearer in the months ahead what South American health misters will allow for travelers with US passports, what the CDC is going to do with its no-sail-order and what Celebrity will do with its itineraries after November 15th. My guess is that if you cancel and re-book, you are going to find that the same cruise in 2021 is going to be more costly .... that's why L&S is a good option for you. You can also cancel up to 48h in advance for any reason in accordance with the cruise with confidence program. Details here: https://www.celebritycruises.com/cruise-with-confidence A couple of other thoughts. I have a 5n, New Year's cruise booked on Celebrity Infinity out of Miami on 12/27/20. Final Payment will be due on September 19th I think it is. I have either taken FCCs (1 cruise cancelled by Celebrity) or L&S'ed 3 other Celebrity cruises from 2020 into 2021 ..... one in March, one in August, and one in October. I still have one FCC that is yet to be applied. I'm watching key indicators that will point to Celebrity sailing after 11/15/20 which could include my 12/27/20 New Years cruise. The shorter cruises, possibly on the smaller Millennium or Edge class ships, have a higher likelihood of sailing before longer itineraries on the larger Silhouette class ships do. I suspect yours is at least 10n, right? If trends are unfavorable before my final payment is due on that NY cruise, I'll not pay it and cancel. If trends look favorable, I'll make the final payment and at the appropriate time, with Celebrity looking as though they will be canceling everything for 2020, cancel that booking and request a refund. That's because continuing to tie up more money with Celebrity through FCCs or L&S that I already have on their books when the future of cruising is still very unclear doesn't make a lot of sense.

Here's another thing to watch: a possible shift in testing strategies within the US in attempts to control community spread of the virus. The testing strategy employed now isn't working. The author of this article argues cheap, widespread on demand testing has the potential to control viral spread in the US "in 3 weeks." It's a novel approach that involves simple saliva tests that work much like an OTC pregnancy tests - put a sample of saliva in the testing device, wait a few minutes, if a line appears in the testing window, your contagious. If you want to go into Walmart, board a cruise ship, attend a baseball or football game, before you enter you get tested. If you test negative, you get in; positive, go home, isolate for 10d and come back then. The author contends after you do this for three weeks (and he does the math to show how that works) community spread of the virus stops - pretty much normal life, social and economic activity returns. Let's do it! https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/how-to-test-every-american-for-covid-19-every-day/615217/

It's a combination of things to watch, not just one thing. Cruise lines that have returned to operations in Asia and Europe are having both success and failures in dealing with infections. We hear about every misstep but hear nothing of successes so, don't despair. TUI is cruising from German ports and I guess successfully. MSC is about to make a run in the Med on August 16th and again on the 24th. AIDA will cruise from Kiel and Hamburg in September. A resumption of cruising by RCL will be influenced by the success or failure of TUI, MSC's and AIDA's cruises. I expect that we will see RCL attempt to position ships and sail from Italian and German ports but only with passengers from the Schengen regions permitted to board after November 15th. I think it is important to watch how cruise lines deal with infections v. how the press presents it. That can be hard but be wary of media reports of "massive failures" of cruise lines who restart cruising. What we will need to assess progress will be data about the numbers of cruises that have taken place overall compared to the ones that have had a passenger or crew test + for C-19. More importantly will be information about how successfully the cruise line, port authorities, local transport and hospitals deal with passengers or crew that become infected. Watching the CDC: I think it is pretty clear that the CDC isn't going to lift it's no-sail-order from US ports until after November 15th if then. Why would the big three cruise lines uniformly cancel cruising though that date? I do think that the US government is weighing the huge economic hit that halting cruising from US ports is taking in FL and every other city that had a busy cruise port pre-COVID. I'm not convinced this will turn into action to revive the cruise industry but it might. The politics, local and national, of cruising, like a lot of things, is fickle but make no mistake, FL is losing billions each month that the CDC keeps its ports closed to cruise ship operations. Hundreds of thousands of workers who service the various interconnected aspects of the cruise industry are unemployed. Start Cruising and unemployment in FL will drop significantly as those presently fired or furloughed return to work. Trump is likely looking at this as a means to advance his reelection campaign. As for sailing from FL: watch Caribbean nation's health and tourism ministers. Here again, Caribbean nations are losing billions of dollars to the loss of cruise ships making calls at their island nation's ports. Compromises can be made that involve assessing risks of viral spread v.economic benefits of allowing cruise ships to make port calls. I think that this is the first place we'll see RCL, Celebrity, Carnival, NCL and HAL sail to out of FL ports. The cruises will start with 3-5d itineraries that will have at least one stop at a private island and only one, maybe two stops at cooperative Caribbean ports. Nassau, the Dominican Republic and possibly Puerto Rico as early candidates. If successful in dealing with infections, we could see a quick ramp up to 7, then 10d cruises that include Aruba - already one of the few islands that will allow American tourists. I'd expect each of these cruise lines to carefully select which class of ship will sail basing those decisions on profitability at reduced capacity. It seems to me that ships with under 3000 passenger capacity are more likely to sail early although the larger ships are more efficient and can operate at higher margins even with less capacity. No telling. As for dates, I think the week before Thanksgiving weekend is the target with the fall back being the December 10th through January 3rd time frame. So, watch closely for signs that crew are being called back to duty around the first week in November.

Sad for sure. People don't behave ...... it's not just in the US. My take is that non-compliance with reasonable mitigation measures is part of the problem; the other is the geometric progression issue. i.e., one non-conforming person who becomes infected begets 3 infections, 3 begets 9 and so forth. Before you know it you have 1000 infections. IMO, it's why lock-downs won't work because as soon as you unlock and mobility returns, so do infections. Endless cycle. My view is that you learn how to manage the inevitable disease burden within communities experiencing it. There is some mathematical sense to trying to drive the R values in a locale as low as possible and lock-downs are a way to do that. R values are the figures that reflect how many people one person infects - it varies periodically but the closer you get it to 1, the better. I think lock-downs are too harmful economically and socially. I'd opt for less restrictive, data driven targeted closures/restrictions, i.e., if street parties or late night bars are spreading the virus, enforce closures of them. Testing and contact tracing are important. The US sucks at this. Other countries, obtaining downward sloping growth rates (R values < 1.0) like Germany, South Korea and others are much better at testing, contact tracing and isolation. Creating bubbles is a whole different approach. In this scenario you create a living environment free of SARS-CoV-2, make sure it does not get introduced into the bubble and if it does, quickly identify the case(s) and isolate them. It's working in the US National Basketball Association (NBA) that involves at least 500, probably more players, coaches and staff. They reside and play in a single, access controlled space. Testing is conducted periodically on everyone in the bubble. Obviously there are limits to the size of the bubble - or how many people and in what size a venue can be. Could you create a bubble in the entire city of Melborne? Theoretically, yes. PracticalIy? No ....... the Chinese brutally enforced zero mobility and complete shuttering in Wuhan with rumors that apartment doors were welded shut and proprietors found operating businesses immediately imprisoned. That won't work in democratic countries. It is pretty clear to me that cruise lines are working to create a sort of bubble on cruise ships. It seems to be working for TUI, for example, who are cruising now with 1200+ passengers and an additional number of crew rigidly screened and/or quarantined before entering the bubble and then essentially confined to the ship's bubble. MSC is trying a similar approach but will make port calls that theoretically break the bubble - but I can see ways to do that and still manage the ships's bubble environment with rapid testing, rigorous tracing and isolating.

Yes, something isn't right here. I assume you, not a TA, made the booking. If that is the case , call again to the number previously provided, concisely and briefly state the issue and politely ask your call to be elevated for resolution. While my experience with FCCs is with Celebrity, they should be no different ...... I had FCCs within a week or two via email. Check your spam and trash even though it appears the last agent you spoke to saw the FCC hadn't been issued yet - they're easy to miss and agent training varies greatly. I had credits for taxes to my CC in less than a month. On the training varies greatly ...... I wanted to L&S a cruise in October '20 to same time in '21. The first agent offered me alternatives but not the exact cruise i wanted and said that one (a translant/repositioning cruise) wasn't available or eligible for L&S. I said thanks, waited 24h and called again. Got the exact cruise in 2021, same cabin, same rate, same perks. Be persistent and pour out the honey.

One can properly ask that question but the question can't be asked and motivated by emotion. In your view, what is the data based "risk to other countries" (French Polynesia in this case)? Can the risks one assigns to C-19 community spread be mitigated by locally implemented measures? If there is a cluster of C-19 infections, will such disease burden outpace the capacity of the health care system to care for the infected? What is the benefit of improving the island's economies weighed against all these risks? These are hard questions and, it seems to me, local public health officials are answering them by saying, right now, we will continue to allow travelers to come to our islands and believe this step, while it carries some risks, those risks are outweighed by the benefit to our economies and our citizens. Encouraging and I like it.

The links are great and the reporting at them is pretty good. Facts not fear. Will US and EU media outlets quote these ameliorating facts? Time will tell ..... and as you should know, I won't be counting on that. The health ministries stating they don't want a repeat of these occurrences is somewhat problematic as it implies they'll not allow the PG to operate. They could, I suppose, regain authority to do that but, I can see the threat of introduction of COVID to the islands by foreign travelers as worrisome. It seemed, though, public health officials, cognizant of the importance of the tourist trade to the islands, won't close airports or sea ports or impose quarantine on arriving travellers unless a "cluster of cases" (implying community spread) can be identified. This is an impressive fact and data based position. We need more of these takes surrounding resumption of cruising globally.

Well, that's right but, the press reports I'm reading today are not being friendly to the Paul Gauguin or Huertigruten. Pretty much what I expected. WIthin the several articles I've read, the mention that those infected were handled well to prevent contagion both aboard ship and when the infected disembarked is either no where mentioned or lightly mentioned without details. No credit given to the extensive infection control and containment measures any of these lines developed and implemented. No mention that public health ministers had signed off on them ..... none. Huertigruten execs have said, they had protocols and they broke down. Fine, fix them and press on but NOOOOOO, the press isn't going to let that happen...... The journalists reporting these COVID related incidents appear to be more interested in continuing the trope that cruising is too dangerous in the COVID circumstance, all of this just fuel to the fire of not opening anything until the risk is unattainably near zero. For example, in Huertigruten's case the "shocking headline" was 69 places that the company cruises to or operates ferry services are at risk for previously controlled COVID spread ..... this without a shred of evidence of COVID spread in any of these ports to support such allegations. Oh, and sure, TUI has cruised out of Germany, Chinese lines have cruised locally and so have Taiwanese lines without COVID related incidents but, do we hear about these? Nope. Sick of it.

The thing to "watch" with the MSC launch, among other cruise lines getting back to cruising, is not the inevitable infection aboard ship but (1) how the cruise lines, port authorities and local medical authorities handle infected passengers and crew. (2) Whether involved public health and medical officials don't go nuts over a cruise ship disembarking infected crew or passengers for quarantine in accordance with a pre-approved plan. (3) Whether the media reports cruise ship infection events with responsible reporting rather than intent to shock readers. I have no doubt in my mind cruising can restart where community spread is reasonably controlled and there are plans in place to manage infections when they inevitably occur on a cruise. Italy, Greece and Taiwan are good examples. I think it will turn out that Norway and the French Polynesias handled things well but politics will discourage restarting again. Experts in the matters of "control" of community spread of a virus make that determination on the basis of several quantifiable measures - regional R(t) being < 1, > 10 tests to detect 1 positive case are two good ones. There are other measures of community spread that when pulled into the decision making process produce rational decisions for the public's health. For those who keep picking on FL identifying it as a dangerous COVID "hot spot", while it may have been just that in late June after reopening in the state began in late May, it's in pretty good shape as I write this. FL's RT was 1.35 on June 25th at it's recent zenith - roughly 1 person will infect 4 - it is now 0.98 or just less than 1:1. By those measures statewide community spread is declining and "controlled." 32 other states have R(t) values greater than 1, Hawaii's is 1.31. Every other FL data set, including those in the tri-county S. FL region where two cruise ports are located, used to measure community disease burden is downward trending including ED visits for symptoms suggestive of flu or COVID, hospital admissions and ICU or ventilator use. Test positivity rates in Broward County - where Port everglades is located - were the lowest yesterday that they have been since April - 8.4%. A week ago it took just 5 tests to find 1 positive COVD test. Yesterday it doubled to 10. On the basis of the science, could Port everglades open to cruise ships with community spread appearing to be under control? You could say that. Politically? No chance. We're going to be dealing with this disconnect between the reality of COVID spread supported by certain reliable data sets versus the alternate reality that is painted mostly by the press that COVID in the US is surging out of control. It's not helping that there are views held by otherwise reliable scientists and medical personnel that the risk of getting COVID has to be reduced to near zero before opening anything - schools for example. That isn't going to happen. Is SARS-CoV-2 spread a problem? Of course it is and will remain so for a while. But it is not one that is by any means out of control or unmanageable. Implementing sensible general mitigation measures (masking, distancing, hand washing), works and S. FL is proof of that. Strong local messaging and public health announcements here in Broward County and, where necessary, enforcing these measures work. As well utilizing targeted mitigation measures, for example, selected restrictions by locale or business when those restrictions are backed up by tracing of new cases to a local hot spot, e.g., restaurant, street party, gym, etc., work and again S Fl is proof that they do work without shuttering everything or locking everyone in their homes like is happening in Melbourne. It's an option but, IMO, a bad one. Too economically and socially costly with few public health benefits in the long run. Cities doing this will just keep opening and closing in an endless cycle. When human/host mobility returns, so does COVID infections. For now, learn to manage it. That goes for after a vaccine is approved and distributed at scale. SARS-CoV-2 isn't going away as in eradicated and there will be others like it in the future.

This is the most detailed cruise line mitigation measures plan I've seen. Most of us here have predicted these measures but to see them in writing is encouraging. That MSC is attempting to make port calls under controlled conditions is an indicator that this cruise line is taking an aggressive stance with respect to restoring operations. If I have my numbers correct, the embarkation/debarkation ports and all the port calls are in Italy and Greece where community spread is quite low as measured by positivity and growth rates. I know from my son-in-law who is an Italian with family in Milan that is currently living in Switzerland that Southern Italy has remained a pretty safe place to travel to. Can't speak with any personal knowledge about Greece but I think community spread there is low. As well, both countries are taking aggressive steps to restore activity in their tourist industries. Good show, MSC, Italy and Greece. I'd like to see this go off without a hitch as I am a reopening and manage the outcomes of that strategy advocate. While there may be isolated COVID infections during these initial trips, if plans to manage those are successful and the media gives credit for that instead of emphasizing infections without context, that would be nice. Italian and Greek Public Health officials also can't go nuts if isolated infections occur but are handled well. Not holding my breath for that though. https://www.msccruises.com/en-gl/Assets/Health_Safety_Factsheet.pdf

I live in Fort Lauderdale and use several web based sources to track hurricanes. Isaias tracked well South of Nassau, went over Andros Island as a high end tropical storm then, tracking WNW, veered well West of Freeport and fell apart with max winds dropping to 55kts. Max winds at Andros island were recorded at 45 kts. I think Coco Cay is well to the NE of Andros Island and probably had little wind or rain impact. You can see the track at this web site but it takes a bit of work with menu features to display the historical track: https://www.windy.com/-Hurricane-tracker/hurricanes?gfs,gustAccu,25.048,-79.649,8

It was a nothing burger in Fort Lauderdale. Passed abeam our city about 10am slowly moving N. We're about 3 miles from the coast and if we had 25 knots I'd be surprised. No power loss for us. Cruise ships in Port of Miami were asked to take to sea - a common approach for large vessels. Sea is safer (they just sail out of it's path) than port in a bad storm. There are two cruise ships docked at Port Everglades. Did not hear anything about them. This was a dress rehearsal for the rest of the Hurricane season in S. FL. It's very early. Chances of this region getting hit are pretty high through early October. From all reports state's emergency management strategy with COVID around looked like they had a plan. 7 shelters were opened in Palm Beach County to the N of us and yesterday, when that area was forecasted to be ground zero, the shelters took in about 500 people. Reportedly orderly, good distancing and compliant folks inside them. FL is good at this.

I lifted and shifted that Apex Translant/Repo cruise Barcelona to Fort Lauderdale departing 10/22/20 to 10/21/21. The issues for me were less about Port Everglades being open to cruise ships but rather restricted entry to EU countries. Our plan was to fly to Lisbon, spend two days there, fly to Geneva spend a week there then fly to Barcelona to catch Apex to return to our home in Fort Lauderdale. We may get the CDC to lift it's no-sail order from US ports before the arrival of Apex but I think it unlikely, given the current up-tick in community spread of the virus throughout the US as well as COVID upticks in various EU countries struggling themselves to contain the virus, that American citizens will be allowed to visit there and/or travel within the EU like we had planned to do. I can see some level travel restrictions for US passport holders (meaning that's the only citizenship that traveler holds) wanting to travel from the US to EU locations lasting through the first quarter of 2021.

I believe non-compliance with the various mitigation measures is not as wide-spread as the media paints the picture that it is. Geometric progression in the context or relaxing mobility restrictions is the primary factor in the recent surge in new cases. Generally, you can have mobility and the proximity that produces without surge consequence if your starting point is 1:1 or less, i.e., locations that drove the various measures of viral spread to 1 or less are less susceptible to high growth rates than a location that only brough that number to, say, 3. Caveat as has been pointed out even with 1:1 if that one is an isolated "super spreader" that's a problem not associated with geometric progression. I read some recent polling data that reported upwards of 80% of Americans report they wear a mask and practice social distancing all of the time indoors and some of the time out doors. There are, of course, exceptions. These receive extensive media coverage with photos and videos of bad actors. Experts in this sort of thing say that 75% compliance with masking and distancing is enough to produce a decrease in viral spread in a locale that achieves that goal. I think the recent downward trends in the S and SW states and CA in every useful measure of viral spread and disease burden, when viewed in the proper context, is an indication that the message is getting out.

I think the CDC's call for public comment is almost entirely political. I believe there is friction between CDC officials and Cruise line execs with the execs rightfully accusing the CDC of being unrealistic in their demands for what amount to a zero risk of having a passenger or crew member embarked on a cruise ship contract C-19. Instead of managing risks - which the cruise lines can do and have done in the past - the CDC is demanding perfect control of it and unprecedented levels of cross-coordination with foreign ports that a more friendly CDC could facilitate. Manage, not control would be by-words that the CDC could adopt. Instead, the CDC takes their "crazy" set of questions (and I believe it's a check list of CDC demands) so the public will agree with them that cruising is dangerous to the public health unless the cruise lines obtain this unobtainable zero risk. There is the capacity of the Executive to order the Department of Homeland Security - the agency that actually issued the no-sail-order on the advice of the CDC - to revoke it. That isn't likely to happen for purely political reasons. The public, not knowing what we know about how safe crising actually is, would howell.

2 weeks ago I was optimistic about a return to cruising. Today, and after seeing the CDC's check list, and make no mistake, that's what it is, for the cruise industry wishing to operate from US ports, I am much less so. The demands for safety, assumptions of costs associated with obtaining near zero risk of infection, are unprecedented. I've never seen anything like it yet, they have the keys to the car and won't give them up until every demand they choose to make gets a check in the box. I think it is terribly unfair. That is because I believe that officials over-seeing the operation of cruise ships from US ports want the unobtainable and that is zero risk of a single C-19 infection on a cruise ship. Meanwhile managing those risks, managing C-19 infections should they occur onboard are entirely obtainable.