JeffB

The world is overwhelmingly signaling that Putin's invasion of Ukraine isn't "necessary" as he has characterized it. Performances by Russian artists are being cancelled. Cultural and sporting events around the world are banning Russian participation. Organizers of these events are doing what they think is right, sending a message to Vladimir Putin that what you have done in undertaking an Invasion of Ukraine is not only unnecessary and wrong but we are going to hold you personally accountable and shame and punish you in any way we can for doing it.
I support RCL in their decision and I don't care if it is based on safety concerns, fears of social media backlash, or that insurance companies won't insure their ships if they sail in the Black Sea. I don't care if it is a politically motivated gesture in support of Ukraine. I want the Russian people who are going to get hurt economically by Putin's actions, the ones who don't by any measure hate us or wish us ill will to get so fed up with what Putin has wrought that they fearlessly rise up and get rid of him. The rest of the free and democratic nations of the world will cheer them on - one long overdue step in the right direction for freedom, human rights and mankind. 

The world is overwhelmingly signaling that Putin's invasion of Ukraine isn't "necessary" as he has characterized it. Performances by Russian artists are being cancelled. Cultural and sporting events around the world are banning Russian participation. Organizers of these events are doing what they think is right, sending a message to Vladimir Putin that what you have done in undertaking an Invasion of Ukraine is not only unnecessary and wrong but we are going to hold you personally accountable and shame and punish you in any way we can for doing it.
I support RCL in their decision and I don't care if it is based on safety concerns, fears of social media backlash, or that insurance companies won't insure their ships if they sail in the Black Sea. I don't care if it is a politically motivated gesture in support of Ukraine. I want the Russian people who are going to get hurt economically by Putin's actions, the ones who don't by any measure hate us or wish us ill will to get so fed up with what Putin has wrought that they fearlessly rise up and get rid of him. The rest of the free and democratic nations of the world will cheer them on - one long overdue step in the right direction for freedom, human rights and mankind. 

The world is overwhelmingly signaling that Putin's invasion of Ukraine isn't "necessary" as he has characterized it. Performances by Russian artists are being cancelled. Cultural and sporting events around the world are banning Russian participation. Organizers of these events are doing what they think is right, sending a message to Vladimir Putin that what you have done in undertaking an Invasion of Ukraine is not only unnecessary and wrong but we are going to hold you personally accountable and shame and punish you in any way we can for doing it.
I support RCL in their decision and I don't care if it is based on safety concerns, fears of social media backlash, or that insurance companies won't insure their ships if they sail in the Black Sea. I don't care if it is a politically motivated gesture in support of Ukraine. I want the Russian people who are going to get hurt economically by Putin's actions, the ones who don't by any measure hate us or wish us ill will to get so fed up with what Putin has wrought that they fearlessly rise up and get rid of him. The rest of the free and democratic nations of the world will cheer them on - one long overdue step in the right direction for freedom, human rights and mankind. 

As it appears that the pandemic is easing in North America and pretty much globally and as we get back to cruising, I thought it important to bring to the attention of cruisers here the tools the CDC has recently provided for you to assess your own risks of traveling for any kind of vacation be it cruising or something else. They've been mentioned in this thread but, below I'll provide the links that can use to:
Find out what the COVID risk level in the state and county your are traveling to or from, e.g., Port Everglades is in Broward Co., FL. The country risk of transmission is medium (based on cases/100k population and 10% of hospital admissions are for COVID), viral prevalence is below 5% (controlled). Based on your personal health and vaccination status, then finding a county's risk level, you can find what mitigation measures are recommended for you personally. Using the Cruise Ship Color Status link, you can see what the vaccination status of guests is and a rough guide to onboard viral prevalence. This might be useful for last minute cancellations where you're just not comfortable about this. For at least a year, I've been railing about the CDC's inability to provide objective based guidance that recommends how we should protect ourselves, or not, in the pandemic. I object to being told by government what I should do and how I should behave. I've also railed about the inaccuracy of using case counts as a risk assessment tool without context.
Well, the recently released guidance is here now and you can make your own decisions on when and where you feel it's safe to go given your health and vaccination status and how you might want to protect yourself if and when you do go. IOW, for the most part, you decide, not government.**
** To this statement I want to be clear. Federal regulations for masking in certain places under federal jurisdiction, e.g., airports, airplanes, cruise terminals, are still in place. They are set to expire on March 19th. Not sure they will be renewed and if they aren't it is further evidence that government paternalism is giving way to self determination - this is a very good thing, IMO.
Also, nothing has changed with respect to a private business stipulating things like no shirt, no shoes, no service. IOW, RCL can skip a port, tell you not to go ashore on your own or tell you to mask onboard. An order like that is based on RCL's own assessment of health risks to guests and crew. There are also still some regulatory requirements issued by the CDC that have legal standing as long as a ship opts in to the Voluntary Program. An example is masking and testing requirements on board a cruise ship sailing in US waters when viral prevalence is high enough (red status as defined by the CDC) to warrant these measures. Still, we're getting there.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/community-levels.html
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/cruise-ship-color-status.html 

The entire COVID experience, it's attendant health protocols as it relates to infection control, has very likely been a completely positive one for the cruise lines. I don't have access to any details but am pretty sure that all kinds of GI and respiratory illnesses that were common and acquired aboard ship have been considerably reduced. I think most of us feel a whole lot better about cruising with what is very likely a steep reduction in Norovirus infection and "cruise cough" both having come along with layered protective measures v. SARS2.
People I associate with have a reasonable appreciation for the value of personal hygiene and good personal sanitation measures when in group settings. OTH, we've all seen segments of the cruising public who don't appreciate that at all. Because of that,  I'm all for a continuation of the layered levels of health protocols - one of which is no self service at the buffets - among a whole host of others including masking when objectively based conditions warrant - and I can almost guarantee you we're not done with SARS 2, COVID or any new virus that presents the same kinds of risk to personal health in the congregate setting that cruise ships are manifestly and correctly characterized.

The entire COVID experience, it's attendant health protocols as it relates to infection control, has very likely been a completely positive one for the cruise lines. I don't have access to any details but am pretty sure that all kinds of GI and respiratory illnesses that were common and acquired aboard ship have been considerably reduced. I think most of us feel a whole lot better about cruising with what is very likely a steep reduction in Norovirus infection and "cruise cough" both having come along with layered protective measures v. SARS2.
People I associate with have a reasonable appreciation for the value of personal hygiene and good personal sanitation measures when in group settings. OTH, we've all seen segments of the cruising public who don't appreciate that at all. Because of that,  I'm all for a continuation of the layered levels of health protocols - one of which is no self service at the buffets - among a whole host of others including masking when objectively based conditions warrant - and I can almost guarantee you we're not done with SARS 2, COVID or any new virus that presents the same kinds of risk to personal health in the congregate setting that cruise ships are manifestly and correctly characterized.

The world is overwhelmingly signaling that Putin's invasion of Ukraine isn't "necessary" as he has characterized it. Performances by Russian artists are being cancelled. Cultural and sporting events around the world are banning Russian participation. Organizers of these events are doing what they think is right, sending a message to Vladimir Putin that what you have done in undertaking an Invasion of Ukraine is not only unnecessary and wrong but we are going to hold you personally accountable and shame and punish you in any way we can for doing it.
I support RCL in their decision and I don't care if it is based on safety concerns, fears of social media backlash, or that insurance companies won't insure their ships if they sail in the Black Sea. I don't care if it is a politically motivated gesture in support of Ukraine. I want the Russian people who are going to get hurt economically by Putin's actions, the ones who don't by any measure hate us or wish us ill will to get so fed up with what Putin has wrought that they fearlessly rise up and get rid of him. The rest of the free and democratic nations of the world will cheer them on - one long overdue step in the right direction for freedom, human rights and mankind. 

The world is overwhelmingly signaling that Putin's invasion of Ukraine isn't "necessary" as he has characterized it. Performances by Russian artists are being cancelled. Cultural and sporting events around the world are banning Russian participation. Organizers of these events are doing what they think is right, sending a message to Vladimir Putin that what you have done in undertaking an Invasion of Ukraine is not only unnecessary and wrong but we are going to hold you personally accountable and shame and punish you in any way we can for doing it.
I support RCL in their decision and I don't care if it is based on safety concerns, fears of social media backlash, or that insurance companies won't insure their ships if they sail in the Black Sea. I don't care if it is a politically motivated gesture in support of Ukraine. I want the Russian people who are going to get hurt economically by Putin's actions, the ones who don't by any measure hate us or wish us ill will to get so fed up with what Putin has wrought that they fearlessly rise up and get rid of him. The rest of the free and democratic nations of the world will cheer them on - one long overdue step in the right direction for freedom, human rights and mankind. 

The world is overwhelmingly signaling that Putin's invasion of Ukraine isn't "necessary" as he has characterized it. Performances by Russian artists are being cancelled. Cultural and sporting events around the world are banning Russian participation. Organizers of these events are doing what they think is right, sending a message to Vladimir Putin that what you have done in undertaking an Invasion of Ukraine is not only unnecessary and wrong but we are going to hold you personally accountable and shame and punish you in any way we can for doing it.
I support RCL in their decision and I don't care if it is based on safety concerns, fears of social media backlash, or that insurance companies won't insure their ships if they sail in the Black Sea. I don't care if it is a politically motivated gesture in support of Ukraine. I want the Russian people who are going to get hurt economically by Putin's actions, the ones who don't by any measure hate us or wish us ill will to get so fed up with what Putin has wrought that they fearlessly rise up and get rid of him. The rest of the free and democratic nations of the world will cheer them on - one long overdue step in the right direction for freedom, human rights and mankind. 

It's well past the point of pressing Celebrity to at least address the inconvenience you experienced. IMO, and as you have described it, this is no small matter. Celebrity is very sensitive to guest inconveniences where guests feel that these were not acknowledged to the satisfaction of the guest involved.
Form your post I'm going to assume this occurred at Terminal 25 at Port Everglades. Under normal circumstances, boarding at this terminal is a breeze and the staggered arrivals work well. Where were you in your travels when you were notified of the 4-5h delay and how did you get notified? It sounds like you were enroute to Terminal 25 and had already checked out of your hotel or arrived same day at the airport and shuttled to terminal 25. Did you book transportation from the airport with Celebrity? If Celebrity was late in notifying you - IOW, you were already on your way to the terminal - I feel confident they would have recognized that and worked with you to insure your concerns were addressed.
For others reading about this, do not hesitate to speak to Guest Relations as soon as you board if you have been inconvenienced in anyway during the boarding process and let this department sort out the problem and give you an explanation - this isn't about getting compensated although you may be. This is about communicating to this department that your experience was not the best way to start an anticipated vacation. Celebrity wants to know about problems so that they can be corrected in the future. The best way to do this is to request a meeting with the Guest Relation's manager. You may not actually get a sit-down with him but you will be seriously listened to by one of his assistants. If you are dissatisfied with the response, ask to speak to the Staff Captain. If there is an identifiable problem that Celebrity is responsible for, you will get, at the very least, an apology and explanation.

It's well past the point of pressing Celebrity to at least address the inconvenience you experienced. IMO, and as you have described it, this is no small matter. Celebrity is very sensitive to guest inconveniences where guests feel that these were not acknowledged to the satisfaction of the guest involved.
Form your post I'm going to assume this occurred at Terminal 25 at Port Everglades. Under normal circumstances, boarding at this terminal is a breeze and the staggered arrivals work well. Where were you in your travels when you were notified of the 4-5h delay and how did you get notified? It sounds like you were enroute to Terminal 25 and had already checked out of your hotel or arrived same day at the airport and shuttled to terminal 25. Did you book transportation from the airport with Celebrity? If Celebrity was late in notifying you - IOW, you were already on your way to the terminal - I feel confident they would have recognized that and worked with you to insure your concerns were addressed.
For others reading about this, do not hesitate to speak to Guest Relations as soon as you board if you have been inconvenienced in anyway during the boarding process and let this department sort out the problem and give you an explanation - this isn't about getting compensated although you may be. This is about communicating to this department that your experience was not the best way to start an anticipated vacation. Celebrity wants to know about problems so that they can be corrected in the future. The best way to do this is to request a meeting with the Guest Relation's manager. You may not actually get a sit-down with him but you will be seriously listened to by one of his assistants. If you are dissatisfied with the response, ask to speak to the Staff Captain. If there is an identifiable problem that Celebrity is responsible for, you will get, at the very least, an apology and explanation.

I don't know about you all but I've read this new program the CDC just released along with the many views posted here about it. As is most COVID related PH guidance that the CDC releases it is so complex that it defies understanding and clear concise guidance.
My only qualification to make the following observation is that I followed FL's civil suit that requested and then prevailed in court that the CDC's CSO be enjoined. I'm not a lawyer let alone skilled in interpreting maritime law. I did read carefully Judge Merryday's opinion in his ruling against the CDC. It was complicated, involved complex aspects of maritime law applicable to the cruise industry and slammed the CDC for exceeding it's powers to regulate cruise ship operations in US waters granted by congress.
Nothing has changed with respect to Congress's authority granted to HHS. Yet, here we are. Another set of what I believe are regulatory standards issued by the CDC that exceed their lawful authority. The problem lies in what I perceive are punitive measures directed at the cruise lines for not "opting in" to the voluntary program. I think it's pretty clear that the CDC is saying If you don't do this, then we will label you as this and that amounts to being punished.
You may recall that Judge Merryday (3rd District Court of Middle FL), after finding in favor of FL and granting a temporary injunction of the CSO, gave the CDC the opportunity to return to the court with an updated CSO. They tried but failed. The CSO they presented, according to Judge Merryday and the arguments of FL attorneys, applied restrictions (punishments) that amounted to law making that the CDC did not have the authority to impose. 
Another aspect that pissed off Judge Merryday was that the CSO "targeted" the cruise lines. The CDC argued that the CSO was designed around applicable maritime law that didn't apply to any other similar industries. If I recall, this argument carried some legal weight and I note in this new release, the CDC is careful to point out that maritime law authorizes this new voluntary CSO. I think this may be an open legal question best left to attorneys skilled in interpreting applicable maritime law.
While all this was going on, CLIA remained in the background for reasons that none of us are privy to. There seemed to be a general consensus among industry health and safety protocol policy makers that they preferred cooperation with the CDC rather than confrontation. They left that to FL. Well, FL's argument that the CSO was unlawful prevailed all the way to the USSC. I believe Merryday, who may be called upon to review this new CDC order, would find it too is unlawful for the same reasons the original CSO was found to be unlawful. How the industry reacts collectively via CLIA or whether they navigate their COVID paths forward independently remains to be seen. 
Stay tuned.
That the new CSO may obtain the same fate as the old one may all be wishful thinking and you can be sure the cruise lines are looking at their options. My view is that it makes perfect sense for the lines to not opt in to this thing and let the chips fall where they might. IOW, they would rather live with whatever punitive measures the CDC may impose in order to preserve the ability to regulate themselves using health protocols they have proven to be successful in mitigating COVID.    

There's been some discussion on "best" time to book a cruise. One point  made was that you should book as soon as itineraries are released by the line/ship/region you want to sail. Well, yes. That's a very good idea. Here's why:
My TA is alert for new releases and emailed me while I was sailing on Celebrity Reflection of the 2024 Caribbean sailings. I immediately went to the Future Cruise department to check out pricing. An Edge class Sky Suite (S1, everything included with Retreat access) on Celebrity Beyond sailing for 11n in the S. Caribbean and departing Fort Lauderdale on January 8th 2024  was priced at $4399pp with a $300 CC for booking an S1 suite on board and another $800 CC Retreat incentive ($1100 total CCs). I also am eligible to receive a military discount and that was worth $1000. Booking on board reduces your down payment to $100pp. The total price with taxes and port fees was $7922. If you then back-out the value of the CCs and calculate a daily price pp, that comes in at under $265/day pp. That is veranda level per day pp pricing these days for a suite and all the perks that come with that.
I booked the same suite on Apex sailing the S. Caribbean for only 10d in January 2023 a month ago, also while on board Equinox at a price of just over $10K! That's a $2K difference in pricing by grabbing a cabin as soon as the itineraries are released. Plan accordingly. Book on board if you can.

There's been some discussion on "best" time to book a cruise. One point  made was that you should book as soon as itineraries are released by the line/ship/region you want to sail. Well, yes. That's a very good idea. Here's why:
My TA is alert for new releases and emailed me while I was sailing on Celebrity Reflection of the 2024 Caribbean sailings. I immediately went to the Future Cruise department to check out pricing. An Edge class Sky Suite (S1, everything included with Retreat access) on Celebrity Beyond sailing for 11n in the S. Caribbean and departing Fort Lauderdale on January 8th 2024  was priced at $4399pp with a $300 CC for booking an S1 suite on board and another $800 CC Retreat incentive ($1100 total CCs). I also am eligible to receive a military discount and that was worth $1000. Booking on board reduces your down payment to $100pp. The total price with taxes and port fees was $7922. If you then back-out the value of the CCs and calculate a daily price pp, that comes in at under $265/day pp. That is veranda level per day pp pricing these days for a suite and all the perks that come with that.
I booked the same suite on Apex sailing the S. Caribbean for only 10d in January 2023 a month ago, also while on board Equinox at a price of just over $10K! That's a $2K difference in pricing by grabbing a cabin as soon as the itineraries are released. Plan accordingly. Book on board if you can.

IMO, these ships are betting on not having a circumstance where a guest exposure results in locking those guests and their traveling party in the same cabin down for 10d.
My take is that the probability of an exposure isn't low enough for me to make that bet. Guests will be livid and the press will be all over that. The cost to the company joining into this ridiculousness if it goes down like I just suggested it could, would be enormous .........
........ "you mean if I cruise with Disney and a guest gets tested positive for COVID, I sat next to him at dinner and that gets me locked into may cabin and ends my cruise? NOT GOING!!!! 

Here's the link to the dashboard. It's interesting looking at it. You can select filters that allow you to look at a company, line or ship. What I see is that "opting in' appears to be a ship by ship process. What suggests that is that NCL has a cruise line product, Oceania, that has one of it's ships, Marina, that has not yet opted in. There are other examples line by line, ship by ship.
Another thing I see is that it appears the companies/ships that have opted in aren't going to give a rat's patoot that they won't achieve this BS "Vaccination Standard of Excellence." While my preference would be to have the cruise lines give the middle finger to the CDC on this one, it doesn't matter to me if they opt in.
Cruise line execs are probably asking, how many serious cruisers are paying attention to what the CDC is saying about cruising? How many newbees to cruising are going to find and then look at this dashboard? Not to mention everything, including this dashboard is hard to find on the CDC web site but it takes a good deal of study to understand what the color coding and vax status thing actually means. As I write this the whole voluteer program is laughable but that the CDC thinks it's not is both sad and scary. 
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/cruise-ship-color-status.html 

IMO, these ships are betting on not having a circumstance where a guest exposure results in locking those guests and their traveling party in the same cabin down for 10d.
My take is that the probability of an exposure isn't low enough for me to make that bet. Guests will be livid and the press will be all over that. The cost to the company joining into this ridiculousness if it goes down like I just suggested it could, would be enormous .........
........ "you mean if I cruise with Disney and a guest gets tested positive for COVID, I sat next to him at dinner and that gets me locked into may cabin and ends my cruise? NOT GOING!!!! 

Here's the link to the dashboard. It's interesting looking at it. You can select filters that allow you to look at a company, line or ship. What I see is that "opting in' appears to be a ship by ship process. What suggests that is that NCL has a cruise line product, Oceania, that has one of it's ships, Marina, that has not yet opted in. There are other examples line by line, ship by ship.
Another thing I see is that it appears the companies/ships that have opted in aren't going to give a rat's patoot that they won't achieve this BS "Vaccination Standard of Excellence." While my preference would be to have the cruise lines give the middle finger to the CDC on this one, it doesn't matter to me if they opt in.
Cruise line execs are probably asking, how many serious cruisers are paying attention to what the CDC is saying about cruising? How many newbees to cruising are going to find and then look at this dashboard? Not to mention everything, including this dashboard is hard to find on the CDC web site but it takes a good deal of study to understand what the color coding and vax status thing actually means. As I write this the whole voluteer program is laughable but that the CDC thinks it's not is both sad and scary. 
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/cruise-ship-color-status.html 

Here's the link to the dashboard. It's interesting looking at it. You can select filters that allow you to look at a company, line or ship. What I see is that "opting in' appears to be a ship by ship process. What suggests that is that NCL has a cruise line product, Oceania, that has one of it's ships, Marina, that has not yet opted in. There are other examples line by line, ship by ship.
Another thing I see is that it appears the companies/ships that have opted in aren't going to give a rat's patoot that they won't achieve this BS "Vaccination Standard of Excellence." While my preference would be to have the cruise lines give the middle finger to the CDC on this one, it doesn't matter to me if they opt in.
Cruise line execs are probably asking, how many serious cruisers are paying attention to what the CDC is saying about cruising? How many newbees to cruising are going to find and then look at this dashboard? Not to mention everything, including this dashboard is hard to find on the CDC web site but it takes a good deal of study to understand what the color coding and vax status thing actually means. As I write this the whole voluteer program is laughable but that the CDC thinks it's not is both sad and scary. 
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/cruise-ship-color-status.html 

Looks like the biggest change in the new CSO is scrapping the importance of a ship being 95% boosted and treating "up to date" at the individual level, not at the cruise ship level. Now if you're up to date, you quarantine as a close contact for 5 days (which is still absolutely idiotic, but I digress). Before, the entire ship had to be 95% boosted in order to quarantine for "only" 5 days instead of 10.
 
Another key addition is they now allow "proof of recovery in 90 days" as a way around being symptomatic or a recent close contact at the time of boarding (you still need a negative test)
Those who are boosted or not yet booster eligible (both are considered "up to date") get an extra day (from 2 to 3) in the window for their pre-cruise test
This is a big one. The threshold for not having to mask was reduced back down to 95% vaccinated, not 95% "up to date"
 
With all these changes I think it's more likely lines opt in.
 
Even though child vaccination is still generally low across the board, I would think RC ships would largely meet the 95% vax rate on any given cruise.

Since I missed this (the top vaccination status requires 95% of guests to be boosted) when I posted in response to a Smokeybandit, I'm assuming the 17th changes now drop the booster requirement and a line can achieve the highest vaccination status by simply having 95% guests and crew "fully vaccinated."
Clearly, the 17th changes are a result of the lines pushing back on this "up to date" includes a  booster thing. IMO, the CDC has once again made things a mess by issuing unnecessary, often confusing guidance and definitions that are driving health compliance departments at the state and private business levels nutz.  
 

Let's assume all the lines opt in. There is nothing in the voluntary program that I'm aware of that says a cruise ship can't sail if they are not in compliance with components of the program.  They'll just get a certain color rating and vaccine status classification. The CDC learned it's lesson in that regard. What's gained by opting in is a sort of CDC endorsement. In that the lines have sought cooperation with the CDC instead of confrontation, it remains a strong possibility they'll buy into this silliness. But they will be asking what is the cost to them of opting in?
It seems to me this presents a marketing challenge in that one line can crow it sails at the highest level of COVID related health safety at the risk of loosing bookings among people who either are unvaccinated, refuse to get boosted or simply don't want to deal with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops to cruise.  IMO, the risks of lost revenue would exceed any gains the company might obtain by selling this higher level of COVID related health safety to the cruising public.
The public in general is numb regarding COVID warnings and not likely to be moved in a positive direction by anything the CDC says. I think it is clear that the administration is using the CDC and this program to obtain higher vax rates among a very small group of citizens in what amounts to a "no-shoes, no shirts, no service" approach that is so wrong headed as to once again raise the specter of government over-reach
I agree, this WILL be interesting to see how this plays out. I think revenue gains and the potential these will be harmed is a factor in whatever path the lines choose to take.
In a related story, the CDC reduced its travel warning for cruise ships from level 4 to level 3. CLIA praised the move. The CDC said: 
"Cruise ship travel is not a zero-risk activity," the CDC said. "The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads easily between people in close quarters on board ships, and the chance of getting COVID-19 on cruise ships is high, even if you are up to date with your COVID-19 vaccines......... and told cruise guests to check the color and vaccination status of the ship they plan to sail on."
I really have a problem with the CDC's statement that the "risk of getting COVID on a cruise ship is high." If a .0065 risk probability is high, the CDC might want to check the risk of serious injury from a host of other routine activities that people undertake everyday without worrying about risk.

The world is in the process of a pandemic paradigm shift that will ultimately change major government's COVID related PH policy. Major and disruptive demonstrations are occurring world wide opposing vaccination mandates, most COVID related mandates, for that matter. The folks are fed up with and tired of the exhaustive and confusing web of protocols regulating thier lives.
PH experts are speaking loudly through research papers and public appearances showing governments how to not think in binary terms. IOW, SARS2 disease impact is not defined by one outcome over another as if it was a sure thing. Risk of infection, illness or death is not defined by one set of data is rarely fully objectifiable and involves a good deal of subjective analysis. They are also pushing the reasonable approach that questions how the huge amount of generally unreliable data is being used to decide when to lift or impose COVID mitigation measures (e.g., masking in schools).
Meanwhile, the CDC continues to operate as if this were March, 2020. I offer the new Voluntary COVID-19 Program as evidence of that. I'm personally getting behind a cruise industry effort to decline participation in the CDC's antiquated approach and thank them for stopping by.

Let's assume all the lines opt in. There is nothing in the voluntary program that I'm aware of that says a cruise ship can't sail if they are not in compliance with components of the program.  They'll just get a certain color rating and vaccine status classification. The CDC learned it's lesson in that regard. What's gained by opting in is a sort of CDC endorsement. In that the lines have sought cooperation with the CDC instead of confrontation, it remains a strong possibility they'll buy into this silliness. But they will be asking what is the cost to them of opting in?
It seems to me this presents a marketing challenge in that one line can crow it sails at the highest level of COVID related health safety at the risk of loosing bookings among people who either are unvaccinated, refuse to get boosted or simply don't want to deal with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops to cruise.  IMO, the risks of lost revenue would exceed any gains the company might obtain by selling this higher level of COVID related health safety to the cruising public.
The public in general is numb regarding COVID warnings and not likely to be moved in a positive direction by anything the CDC says. I think it is clear that the administration is using the CDC and this program to obtain higher vax rates among a very small group of citizens in what amounts to a "no-shoes, no shirts, no service" approach that is so wrong headed as to once again raise the specter of government over-reach
I agree, this WILL be interesting to see how this plays out. I think revenue gains and the potential these will be harmed is a factor in whatever path the lines choose to take.
In a related story, the CDC reduced its travel warning for cruise ships from level 4 to level 3. CLIA praised the move. The CDC said: 
"Cruise ship travel is not a zero-risk activity," the CDC said. "The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads easily between people in close quarters on board ships, and the chance of getting COVID-19 on cruise ships is high, even if you are up to date with your COVID-19 vaccines......... and told cruise guests to check the color and vaccination status of the ship they plan to sail on."
I really have a problem with the CDC's statement that the "risk of getting COVID on a cruise ship is high." If a .0065 risk probability is high, the CDC might want to check the risk of serious injury from a host of other routine activities that people undertake everyday without worrying about risk.

An update ...... the B2B process between our two cruises went off smoothly. For those familiar with Port Everglades you'll know that Terminal 24 is RCL's and 25, right across the street is Celebrity's. Reflection is birthed at Terminal 29. It's old, far away from parking but seemed to handle embarkation and debarkation easily. Still a bit weird feeling as Terminal 25 is new and filled with technology that's not available in terminal 29. Most notably the facial recognition technology for C&BP that speeds passage through that check point considerably. It was done by one agent viewing each of the 50 or so B2B'ers passports manually. Took a while.
One of the frustrating aspects of cruising the pandemic inflicted Caribbean is port cancellations. A new one to me is ship sponsored tour cancellations. When the only way to leave the ship is on a ship's curated tour, experiencing a cancellation of a ship's tour you booked can be a bummer. It happened once on our first 7n itinerary and again today on the 2nd. Both, ostensibly, for operational considerations on the part of the tour operator. We were offered alternatives at a dicounted price but we're picky about itineraries and the number of people on a tour. None of the alternatives were appealing.
We're in Falmouth, Jamaica today ...... stuck on the ship in a port that does not allow debarking except for with a ship's tour. We've not been to Jamaica in a long time so, were looking forward to this tour. The immediate port area is beautiful and looks new - like built in the last 1-2 years. It's frustrating to not get off and walk around in this nice area. 
It's just another pandemic related inconvenience where patience and a good deal of tolerance is required of the ports and cruise lines. Arm yourselves for unexpected cancellations of tours you book sponsored by the cruise ship you are on. One positive thing to consider is that if you are able to debark and book tours independently, right now, with vendors short of cash and potentially skipping or putting off necessary maintenance, you might want to think twice about going it alone. If your transport breaks down during your independent tour, the ship's not waiting for you to get back aboard. Normally, this would be a minimal concern. These days, maybe not.