JeffB

This is the best summation of what it means that I've seen in one place: https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=6754
I wouldn't count on it. The problem lies with the onerous, now codified on the basis of existing maritime law, quarantine requirements in the voluntary program for close contacts. There's no getting around this by working out "a functioning approach."
On ships with a Vaccinated Standard of Excellence (95%), close contacts of passengers who test positive for COVID-19 must be tested immediately, quarantined for five full days after their last contact with the infected person, and then retested. NB: Not all RCL ships are going to reach this standard. Here's a current list of what the testing and vaccination requirements are for cruise lines operating out of North America:  https://www.travelagewest.com/Travel/Cruise/Cruise-Lines-COVID-Vaccinations-Requirement
On Highly Vaccinated and Not Highly Vaccinated ships (<95%), close contacts must quarantine for 10 days and may only end quarantine if they are asymptomatic and test negative. There are no exceptions to this program -- and no clarity as to whether this 10-day quarantine must be completed onboard, ashore, or both. If your sailing on RCL, this is the standard you'll most likely face.
In addition, I too once thought removing the federal PHE would reduce the powers of the CDC to dictate cruise line health protocols. First, it was made clear in Judge Merryday's District Court (upheld by the USSC) that the NSO and CSO exceeded the powers granted to the CDC by congress and enjoined the CSO.
Second, what the new voluntary program does is carefully structure it's cruise line health protocol dictates within the scope of the applicable maritime laws that provide a basis for CDC's regulatory authority .... at least CDC's lawyers likely think the voluntary program is legal. Merryday in his opinion on FL's suit seeking injunctive relief suggested the CDC should consider a rewrite of the CSO ..... this is it. I think the thing is coercive regardless of how well CDC's lawyers think it is based in existing law. 
A federally declared PHE has more to do with authorizing the executive to release funds or eliminate red-tape in an emergency. The state's control what happens on the ground. Not the feds (or the CDC - unless congress passed laws authorizing them to do things). The Constitution specifically grants special powers to the states. Governor Desantis was pretty clear about most mandates that restricted mobility or dictated behaviors were not happening in FL. Cruise lines got around the no vaccination mandates by making disclosure of vaccination status voluntary - it's a personal choice to cruise or not cruise - pretty much what Desantis wanted.
I do think if RCL opts in by Friday, on scheduled review (March 18th), the CDC may adjust some of the sticking points I mention above depending on how hard RCL pushes for it.  The quarantine after a close contact will be a real cruise killer for a lot of cruisers already booked or those considering booking.
 

I think the motion to dismiss filed by FL is a technicality. There is a difference between a motion to dismiss and withdraw. Dismissal means the initial complaint is dropped and cannot be brought back. Withdrawal, means the original complaint cannot be pursued unless a certain set of conditions happens for one year and if such conditions do not occur, the original complaint is set aside, not dismissed. HHS has to agree to the motion which, again, a technicality, they will.
One possibility is that FL doesn't want to deal with some of the unintended consequences of enjoining the CSO (now expired) but there may be liability issues for FL associated with their actions. I don't know of any specifics.
Its also possible this is a prelude to another legal challenge by FL, or whomever (CLIA?), of the voluntary CDC Program. I mentioned up thread that I thought this voluntary program, if it was reviewed by Judge Merryday (or another federal judge) would be seen as "arm twisting," more appropriately coercive in nature. 
I also mentioned that the CDC was careful to couch this voluntary program within the authority granted to them in the applicable maritime health regulations - these already with legal standing. That was something that Merryday's court suggested the CDC should do.
The CDC has to want to reestablish their authority to do what is necessary to prevent the introduction of infectious pathogens by ships that was curtailed and would probably remain curtailed by virtue of a finding that it was not in the CDC's authority to shut down ship's operations for extended periods - what the NSO and subsequently the CSO effectively did.
As I think out loud about this second possibility, it seems to me that the cruise industry simply needs to not opt in to avoid the kind of entanglements the voluntary program seems to offer for very questionable health benefits - such benefits already obtained over the last two years by the cruise industry themselves.
I guess we'll see which track the cruise lines will take by Friday - the drop dead date to volunteer to participate.

I think the motion to dismiss filed by FL is a technicality. There is a difference between a motion to dismiss and withdraw. Dismissal means the initial complaint is dropped and cannot be brought back. Withdrawal, means the original complaint cannot be pursued unless a certain set of conditions happens for one year and if such conditions do not occur, the original complaint is set aside, not dismissed. HHS has to agree to the motion which, again, a technicality, they will.
One possibility is that FL doesn't want to deal with some of the unintended consequences of enjoining the CSO (now expired) but there may be liability issues for FL associated with their actions. I don't know of any specifics.
Its also possible this is a prelude to another legal challenge by FL, or whomever (CLIA?), of the voluntary CDC Program. I mentioned up thread that I thought this voluntary program, if it was reviewed by Judge Merryday (or another federal judge) would be seen as "arm twisting," more appropriately coercive in nature. 
I also mentioned that the CDC was careful to couch this voluntary program within the authority granted to them in the applicable maritime health regulations - these already with legal standing. That was something that Merryday's court suggested the CDC should do.
The CDC has to want to reestablish their authority to do what is necessary to prevent the introduction of infectious pathogens by ships that was curtailed and would probably remain curtailed by virtue of a finding that it was not in the CDC's authority to shut down ship's operations for extended periods - what the NSO and subsequently the CSO effectively did.
As I think out loud about this second possibility, it seems to me that the cruise industry simply needs to not opt in to avoid the kind of entanglements the voluntary program seems to offer for very questionable health benefits - such benefits already obtained over the last two years by the cruise industry themselves.
I guess we'll see which track the cruise lines will take by Friday - the drop dead date to volunteer to participate.

I think the motion to dismiss filed by FL is a technicality. There is a difference between a motion to dismiss and withdraw. Dismissal means the initial complaint is dropped and cannot be brought back. Withdrawal, means the original complaint cannot be pursued unless a certain set of conditions happens for one year and if such conditions do not occur, the original complaint is set aside, not dismissed. HHS has to agree to the motion which, again, a technicality, they will.
One possibility is that FL doesn't want to deal with some of the unintended consequences of enjoining the CSO (now expired) but there may be liability issues for FL associated with their actions. I don't know of any specifics.
Its also possible this is a prelude to another legal challenge by FL, or whomever (CLIA?), of the voluntary CDC Program. I mentioned up thread that I thought this voluntary program, if it was reviewed by Judge Merryday (or another federal judge) would be seen as "arm twisting," more appropriately coercive in nature. 
I also mentioned that the CDC was careful to couch this voluntary program within the authority granted to them in the applicable maritime health regulations - these already with legal standing. That was something that Merryday's court suggested the CDC should do.
The CDC has to want to reestablish their authority to do what is necessary to prevent the introduction of infectious pathogens by ships that was curtailed and would probably remain curtailed by virtue of a finding that it was not in the CDC's authority to shut down ship's operations for extended periods - what the NSO and subsequently the CSO effectively did.
As I think out loud about this second possibility, it seems to me that the cruise industry simply needs to not opt in to avoid the kind of entanglements the voluntary program seems to offer for very questionable health benefits - such benefits already obtained over the last two years by the cruise industry themselves.
I guess we'll see which track the cruise lines will take by Friday - the drop dead date to volunteer to participate.

I can’t speak for others, but any of my posts are directly related to Covid protocols on cruise ships, not Covid in general or politics.  A lot of people have moved on and are cruising again, but there are still some of us that aren’t able to because of current protocols, or should I say choose not to jump through the hoops placed in front of us.  For those that are back to cruising…congrats.  Some who were part of this community prior to the pandemic, when shorts during formal night was the controversial discussions, are still waiting to be able to participate in this activity we all enjoy, but we aren’t able to discuss when that might become a reality.  Oh well…

Not trying to defend the CDC...
Did anyone actually read what is required for a ship to reach red status? I would hope refunds to future guests would be offered if the ship hadn't voluntarily shutdown already.
Only part I might be concerned about is misuse of "variant of concern".
 
Sustained transmission of COVID-19 or CLI, defined as a 7-day
Crew attack rate greater than or equal to 10% occurring at least once weekly over 3 consecutive weeks; Passenger attack rate greater than or equal to 10% occurring at least once weekly over 3 consecutive weeks; Crew attack rate greater than or equal to 20% occurring on any single day; Passenger attack rate greater than or equal to 20% occurring on any single day; or Traveler (crew AND passenger) attack rate greater than or equal to 30% occurring on any single day Severe COVID-19 acquired onboard resulting in:
Shortages of supplemental oxygen or other medical supplies related to COVID-19 treatment, or 2 or more deaths in passengers and/or crew in a 7-day period. Potential for COVID-19 cases to overwhelm on board medical center and/or public health resources, defined as the inability to maintain:
Adequate staff to Evaluate symptomatic travelers and their close contacts, Conduct routine and diagnostic testing of travelers, Conduct routine medical checks of travelers in isolation or quarantine, or Conduct contact tracing of close contacts. Adequate supplies of
Personal protective equipment (PPE) listed on CDC’s Interim Guidance for Ships on Managing Suspected or Confirmed Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019, Testing equipment for routine and diagnostic screening, Antipyretics (fever-reducing medications such as acetaminophen and ibuprofen), Antivirals and other therapeutics for COVID-19,external icon if commercially available, Oral and intravenous steroids, or Supplemental oxygen. Inadequate onboard capacity to fulfill minimal operational services, including but not limited to housekeeping and food and beverage services.
A variant of concern or a new or emerging variant with undefined characteristics identified among cases on board.

Speaking of that, we're seeing the basis of a potential legal challenge to the Voluntary program from CLIA here:
https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26770-clia-blasts-new-cdc-cruise-program-as-discriminatory.html
Cliff Notes: it's discriminatory. See my discussion of this above in the post I made earlier.

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.

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.    

Speaking of that, we're seeing the basis of a potential legal challenge to the Voluntary program from CLIA here:
https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26770-clia-blasts-new-cdc-cruise-program-as-discriminatory.html
Cliff Notes: it's discriminatory. See my discussion of this above in the post I made earlier.

Aboard Celebrity Reflection now departing Port Everglades on a 7n W. Caribbean itinerary today. Grand Cayman port call was eliminated and a sea day added in place of it.  I can confirm the no mask policy is in effect aboard reflection. We did a B2B. On Friday of the preceding cruise, a 7n E. Caribbean, there were rumors of the no masks required indoors on this cruise policy but not officially confirmed by any staff that we asked about it. 
When B2B'ers gathered at 9am in the Tuscan Grill to be processed off and then back aboard, still no announcements or official confirmation despite that the change was published on February 11th at the Celebrity web site (see link above). Ample opportunity to do that was present and I had the web page with the change in protocol on my cell phone. Not my place to say anything and I didn't. 
As we walked off the ship around 9:40am, I heard the cruise director make an announcement to crew that guests would not be required to mask except in the theater and casino. Not sure why in the theater - there were rarely more than 50 guests at either the 7 or 9pm performances. Plenty of room to distance. May have been a production cast protective measure but this one is a bit strange.
I'd say 80% of newly arriving guests were wearing masks indoors as they boarded. An indication that the policy change was not widely disseminated by email or text to booked guests before the cruise. At 12:30pm the cruise director made an announcement regarding the new policy. That dropped the masks for a few but still a lot of folks were still wearing them. Hard to tell if by choice or that they didn't know about the change. We also heard a server in the Ocean View Cafe tell a guest who had approached a serving area to put on their mask. The guest turned to my wife who was unmasked and asked her if the mask policy had, indeed, changed. She affirmed that it had and noted the word may not be out yet among crew. Probably should have been but there is always the 10% We left it for supervisors to deal with that. Not my place to say anything and we didn't.   
Celebrity's change in masking policy was included in the notices placed in our cabin. It is carefully worded: "required in the theater or casino, optional and encouraged elsewhere for the protection of everyone's health." Placards are conspicuously displayed outside the theater and the casino stating masks required to enter.  TBC, there is both medical and scientific research support for and against masking as an effective means of preventing the spread of SARS2. It is however, highly situational with varying degrees of protection provided depending on multiple factors. I think the community of biomedical engineers and virologists that look at this stuff have concluded that in indoor congregate settings like cruise ships where social distancing and limited contact between persons cannot be maintained, AND, there is circulating virus, viral spread is diminished with masking.
Reflection had a documented COVID positive guest on our preceding cruise. That was announced. Contract tracing results were not released. Is there circulating virus on board this ship? Unknown. I would assume that ship's medical staff found that (1) the exposure took place in the casino or theater where close contact > 15 min existed.  (2) casino and/or theater staff were exposed by the guest. That is what probably precipitated the masking requirement in the casino and theater but no where else. JMO.  

Speaking of that, we're seeing the basis of a potential legal challenge to the Voluntary program from CLIA here:
https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26770-clia-blasts-new-cdc-cruise-program-as-discriminatory.html
Cliff Notes: it's discriminatory. See my discussion of this above in the post I made earlier.

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.

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.    

Speaking of that, we're seeing the basis of a potential legal challenge to the Voluntary program from CLIA here:
https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26770-clia-blasts-new-cdc-cruise-program-as-discriminatory.html
Cliff Notes: it's discriminatory. See my discussion of this above in the post I made earlier.

Speaking of that, we're seeing the basis of a potential legal challenge to the Voluntary program from CLIA here:
https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26770-clia-blasts-new-cdc-cruise-program-as-discriminatory.html
Cliff Notes: it's discriminatory. See my discussion of this above in the post I made earlier.

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.

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.    

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.    

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.    

Yep ...... I'm getting the feeling that after the CDC got told to pound sand with their CSO, they're trying to weasel their way back in to running them where maritime health protocols are involved. We know that the reality here is that cruise ships, when it comes to COVID, have proven to be the safest congregate setting on the planet. There is no need for additional regulatory schemes of any type regarding COVID. 
Because the CDC's authority to dictate health and safety protocols has been found to have no basis in the law, the lines would be completely within their rights to say, no thanks to CDC's overtures to voluntarily comply with this new CSO they just issued.

I just did a quick review of the protocols at the link. From memory, this is simply a rewrite of the latest iteration of the CSO. As I mentioned previously, the biggest drawback with the protocols is the administration of them and the associated reporting. Other than that, these are good SARS2/COVID mitigation protocols that the cruse lines have pretty much been following since the CDC got stoned by the Federal 3rd District Court in FL and did make some technical (not substantive) changes (the last iteration).
Proofs in the pudding. They have worked remarkably well in enabling what for all intent in purpose is a zero COVID policy - or very close to it - aboard each cruise ship adopting them.

I just did a quick review of the protocols at the link. From memory, this is simply a rewrite of the latest iteration of the CSO. As I mentioned previously, the biggest drawback with the protocols is the administration of them and the associated reporting. Other than that, these are good SARS2/COVID mitigation protocols that the cruse lines have pretty much been following since the CDC got stoned by the Federal 3rd District Court in FL and did make some technical (not substantive) changes (the last iteration).
Proofs in the pudding. They have worked remarkably well in enabling what for all intent in purpose is a zero COVID policy - or very close to it - aboard each cruise ship adopting them.

Yep ...... I'm getting the feeling that after the CDC got told to pound sand with their CSO, they're trying to weasel their way back in to running them where maritime health protocols are involved. We know that the reality here is that cruise ships, when it comes to COVID, have proven to be the safest congregate setting on the planet. There is no need for additional regulatory schemes of any type regarding COVID. 
Because the CDC's authority to dictate health and safety protocols has been found to have no basis in the law, the lines would be completely within their rights to say, no thanks to CDC's overtures to voluntarily comply with this new CSO they just issued.

Yep ...... I'm getting the feeling that after the CDC got told to pound sand with their CSO, they're trying to weasel their way back in to running them where maritime health protocols are involved. We know that the reality here is that cruise ships, when it comes to COVID, have proven to be the safest congregate setting on the planet. There is no need for additional regulatory schemes of any type regarding COVID. 
Because the CDC's authority to dictate health and safety protocols has been found to have no basis in the law, the lines would be completely within their rights to say, no thanks to CDC's overtures to voluntarily comply with this new CSO they just issued.