dswallow

Motion for Preliminary Injunction: 3_051123579830_MotionForPreliminaryInjunction.pdf (2150.com) 3-1_051123579831_AffidavitDeclarationOfFrankDelRio.pdf (2150.com) 3-2_051123579832_AffidavitDeclarationOfOlgaVieira.pdf (2150.com) 3-3_051123579833_AffidavitDeclarationOfDrJukkaLaitamaki.pdf (2150.com) 3-4_051123579834_AffidavitDeclarationOfDrStephenOstroff.pdf (2150.com)

Complaint: 1_051023578437_Complaint.pdf (2150.com)

Sure, deaths at least when they're low aren't the most important thing. Even cases being high aren't the most important thing, to the extent we accept that simply becoming infected may not mean much than needing a period to recover. The problems arise with complications from the infection. Long-term complications. Severity of the symptoms, too. And even whether the person reporting a positive test has been vaccinated, because that helps us understand the infections and how they're coming about and spreading better, as well as provides some insight into whether we have ways to better control that which are potentially being purposefully ignored or downplayed to the detriment of people's health (well the latter, IMO, is unquestionably true, but some people apparently want to see something more, whatever that something might be that becomes enough of a nudge for them). So, with Florida we see an increasing number of cases right now. And from Florida we don't have a whole lot of real data from which to interpret that data well. But we do know to watch it more closely. And we do know where it stands in relation to what other states are reporting. And we do know it's not trending to the "good" side of what's happening overall right now. And in many ways we're back at Florida withholding important and useful data.

Unfortunately you're ignoring a very important thing. Florida is not reporting daily statistics anymore. That "0" deaths is wrong. In addition when they made this change they also stopped reporting non-resident deaths from COVID (i.e., people who identify a residence from out of state but who were in Florida when they died), and further they also now only issue a very abbreviated report weekly which doesn't exactly disclose death numbers. Sure, raw data is open to interpretation. But when data is withheld, what do you interpret from that? So instead, data gets aggregated from other sources and updated as it is refined/corrected/supplemented from complete sources. It's a sad state. And I mean that both ways. I tend to review data from http://www.covidactnow.com first.

Ah, the irony. Florida.

Part 1 and 2 of guest stories posted by Michael Bayley on Facebook, about Super Mario. https://www.facebook.com/MichaelBayleyRoyalCaribbean/posts/270568154856700 https://www.facebook.com/MichaelBayleyRoyalCaribbean/posts/271009011479281

I actually said I wasn't going to fly connecting flights again while the mask mandate remains. I can deal with it onboard, probably specifically because I can aim the little air outlet at my face. I won't like it much, but that isn't horrible and has a relatively manageable time-with-mask. Granted, I'm not talking about any need whatsoever to even go coast-to-coast (i.e., 6/7 hour flights), which would certainly change my statement were that necessary But the in-between time of connections, stuck in an airport with the same mask mandate is too much. You can't readily get outside without leaving the secure area and having to re-enter through whatever mess the TSA has at the moment, so it's not practical to "go outside" while waiting for a connection. I just endured this for almost 16 hours total returning from Nassau on a connecting flight. Not gonna put myself into that situation again. In any event, other than a return to Nassau for another B2B in September (all nonstop), the 16 cruises I currently have booked are from ports I drive to -- NJ or MD.

Nothing on medium.com should be considered trustworthy. Find another source, perhaps.

I think you're mischaracterizing the sequence of events and what was actually said, and in general what we later learned was behind some of the poor statements made up front. Mistakes can be made, as long as when identified they get corrected. At least some of the things that happened earlier were corrected. People seem to love to grasp at the whole mask thing as being unnecessary, often pointing to cases where someone wore a mask and was infected, and that's simply not true and a mischaracterization of the benefit. Masks, even improperly worn masks, or poorly made masks/masks of wrong materials, still reduce potential for spread of COVID, and we most certainly have seen how that affects more common things like the spread of flu, which practically was non-existent this past season. We do seem today to lack some concept of what level of spread/infection may be acceptable to have, and in such cases, where that spread is of just minor symptoms, to what extent that is acceptable as well. We will certainly never be quite 100% rid of this, especially with the behavior of those choosing to ignore guidance and vaccination recommendations. But where is there to be a line between an acceptable level of infection versus trying to stem the infection/spread as much as possible? And frankly where do we generally leave those choosing to go unprotected/unvaccinated out of some of those equations, too, since apparently as a society we currently are letting people do that?

(1) CSO, Mask Use: COVID-19 Operations Manual for Simulated and Restricted Voyages under the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order | Quarantine | CDC For ships with at least 95% of crew and 95% of passengers fully vaccinated, cruise ship operators, at their discretion, may advise passengers and crew that they do not have to wear a mask or maintain physical distance in any areas. (2) Mask order, and inapplicability to cruise ships: Order: Wearing of face masks while on conveyances and at transportation hubs | Quarantine | CDC *CDC also plans to amend the January 29, 2021, Order, as soon as practicable, to grant cruise ship operators subject to the Conditional Sailing Order with greater flexibility regarding how mask requirements are implemented on board cruise ships. Until it can amend the Order, CDC will exercise enforcement discretion regarding mask requirements applicable to operators of, and crew and passengers on board, such cruise ships and will view cruise ship operators as in compliance with the January 29, 2021, Order provided the operators continue to follow the requirements of any technical instructions and the operations manual available on the Cruise Ship Guidance webpage. (Yeah, really idiotic they do it that way, but still, there it is in writing) (3) The overall everything-except-the-CSO change to not requiring mask use indoors: When You’ve Been Fully Vaccinated | CDC Fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

What rules to stop what sort of discussion (I just went and looked and found just one post locked at the top of a different forum which didn't appear to mention anything this thread allegedly broke)? Anyway, the point here is one specific aspect of the protocols as announced so far, and a certain ambiguity as to why they exist, because some exist for sailings outside of CDC jurisdiction, and we know for sure that this mask requirement isn't 100% across every Royal Caribbean ship because we both sailed on Adventure of the Seas, with fewer than the magical CDC 95% vaccinated passengers, and as vaccinated passengers did not have to wear a mask anywhere aboard the ship. Mask wearing indoors for vaccinated people has been all but eliminated in current CDC guidance, except for allowing it to continue where various laws or businesses say it should continue. And the current requirement regarding transportation services (which I do maintain is not applicable to cruise ships; they are not a means of conveyance as described for every single other type of travel, and aren't identified in the way the CDC repeatedly writes about this requirement). So that really leaves the specific guidance written just for cruise ships, which we still seem to be in a waiting mode for updates that either bring it to match other guidelines or perhaps to be part of some larger overall update currently under discussion with CLIA, CDC and the cruise lines. We keep getting hints this specific part of protocols is about to change. It even makes sense it should change. It's a significant difference in the environment of a cruise ship for perhaps at least 90% of passengers, if not more. And it likely will drive a significant number of people's decision to cruise or not cruise aboard a ship when the actual time comes. There should be more discussion and transparency about that policy.

It seems that all of the announced face mask protocols on every ship except for Adventure of the Seas out of Nassau has vaccinated passengers required to wear face masks everywhere unvaccinated people wear them, except in areas designated only for vaccinated passengers (which is just a small number of venues or areas in larger venues, which is better than nothing in some respects, but basically entails wearing a mask to move anywhere between such venues and other places, too). This is my deal-breaker, after traveling on Adventure of the Seas for 3 sailings without needing a mask anywhere aboard ship, and then spending most of an entire day returning home through airports and air travel where I pretty much was forced to wear a mask continuously. Not gonna happen; I'm not gonna even get on a flight with a connection again until this masking requirement is over. It was just unbearable for extended periods, and I'm going to choose not to have a mask in hand everywhere I go all the time, either. I think earlier Michael Bayley had even stated that we were expecting some updated face mask guidance from the CDC that would change this, conspicuously mentioned like it were a sign we should not get worked up about the protocol as it would be changing. Yet, so far, there's been nothing. Has anyone heard anything more on this? Certainly a lot will likely change over the course of the next 2 1/2 months before I have a sailing on a ship where this may matter, and even then, sailing from a NJ port may entail different protocols from any we've seen so far, anyway. I just wish we'd see some better movement on this one earlier.

What I've noticed is that the refund gets calculated based upon the port fees last charged for booking the sailing, adjusted for the port fees I was charged when I booked. So if I benefited from paying less in port charges when I booked than they charge now, my OBC refund for a missed port, if any, is smaller to account for that. I haven't experienced a huge number of missed ports, but in every single one there has been some sort of refund, and it has varied with what others received, and theis is what it appeared to be when we did some more detailed comparisons to try to figure out why amounts of refund were different. Just anecdotal, of course.

Yes, I'm on that sailing and the one immediately following.

It seems odd to me that the health protocols just announced for the Harmony of the Seas sailings from Barcelona make specific mention of Transatlantic sailings requiring all passengers be vaccinated (i.e., no unvaccinated passengers of any age permitted aboard) but still seem to specify the mask wearing requirement in all indoor areas of the ship. https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2021/07/08/royal-caribbean-announces-health-protocols-harmony-of-the-seas-spain Getting Ready to Cruise | Healthy & Safe Cruises | Royal Caribbean Cruises I wonder if this is an oversight stemming from someone tossing in the transatlantic vaccination requirement at the last minute or if they really think that's a necessary protocol for some reason. After the Nassau sailings on Adventure of the Seas, it seems a very odd expectation for a sailing with 100% vaccinated passengers and crew. I know we're expecting a change from the CDC soon regarding mask guidelines for vaccinated people on a cruise with unvaccinated guests. So maybe with the transatlantic including the destination US port it will be that change which leads to the masking relaxation onboard for the transatlantic. Well, except that the ship will be 100% vaccinated, passengers and crew, for the transatlantic. What a confusing mix of different and often conflicting policies/requirements.

I've generally seen many of the total port charges on sailings going up what I'd call dramatically over the last 6 months or so. Much moreso than they usually move at a time. I should try to pull out some sort of complete report on it, but just looking at some random ones among those I've booked... Anthem 12/12/2021 went from $169.35 to $180.63 on 2/23/2021, then to $180.73 on 5/11/2021. Anthem 1/31/2022 went from $162.36 to $194.37 on 2/23/2021, then to $194.47 on 5/11/2021. Oasis 5/22/2022 went from $155.63 to $169.64 on 4/26/2021 then to $169.74 on 5/11/2021 then to $183.74 on 5/17/2021. Enchantment 11/13/2021 went from $120.40 to $125.99 on 2/19/2021 then to $126.09 on 5/11/2021. I wouldn't necessarily call it widespread, but there do seem to be some specific ports involved that have led to larger than usual increases overall. I'm not sure which ports, nor am I sure if it's the departure port vs a visited port. And there's some amount of what-the-hell going on, too. A 7-day sailing on Oasis out of NJ to Port Canaveral, CocoCay and Nassau has a $183.74 port charge? Seems outrageously high, really, for what it is.

1) It's a preliminary injunction, not the outcome of the filed case tried on the merits; not even a proposed outcome per se. There is no particular need for a preliminary injunction to do more than was requested by the plaintiff. When the case goes to trial or is otherwise settled, a final disposition will occur which will have effects beyond the preliminary injunction. 2) The claim of acting beyond the allowances of the APA doesn't mean there couldn't be a way to act within those rules. The judge was allowing reframing the temporary injunction as an option; there was an opportunity for the CDC to change their rules to address the concerns that were expressed in the order for the temporary injunction.

The injunction, as written, prevents the CSO from being enforced on cruises that go from, to, or visit a Florida port. This could affect sailings from Baltimore and Port Liberty that visit Port Canaveral (and sailings from other East Coast ports if any visit a Florida port), but otherwise leaves the CSO in place everywhere else. Then the case proceeds on its merits and the outcome could involve the CSO being invalidated completely, everywhere, but that will be later. On July 18, 2021, as things currently stand, it's that preliminary injunction which goes into effect while the case proceeds. Other jurisdictions presumably could choose to file suit as well, or to seek whatever other remedies may be available while this case continues. It may also open a door for the CDC to relax things a bit elsewhere, ostensibly so the CDC could argue how nice they're being, et. al. Who knows where things go next. I think it's clear the judge expects the CDC to appeal the preliminary injunction, too. So at the moment, maybe we just have to wait until July 18.

Well, that's fun. Scathing, even. The judge just denied the motion for a stay on the preliminary injunction. https://www.2150.com/files/cc/8_21-cv-00839-SDM-AAS/98_047023202056_Order.pdf

The CDC filed a motion for a stay of the Preliminary Injunction. 96_047023193317_MotionToStay.pdf (2150.com) Accompanied by another declaration from Aimee Treffiletti. 96-1_047023193318_3rdDeclaration.pdf (2150.com) https://www.2150.com/files/cc/8_21-cv-00839-SDM-AAS/

The government has filed a notice of appeal over the preliminary injunction order. Florida v. HHS, CDC (2150.com) 95_047023192738_NoticeOfAppeal.pdf (2150.com) I haven't seen the appeal itself yet.

Financial dynamics change a lot depending on how many you're traveling with, too. I'm always solo, so even if you try to discount certain freebies they represent only half of the freebies someone traveling with another person could consider. I do wish it was easier to do some price comparison shopping for bookings, like saying "show me my total cost not just the cabin cost" so I can see combined costs of all the addons I will always buy, that maybe would be included in some options. But that's not their goal, really. They want people buying those cabins who are NOT cost conscious! The only thing I did want to point out is what they often consider prime seating is definitely not what I consider prime seating. Though again, as a solo traveler, seating anywhere I prefer is usually not a big deal since I just need one seat. ?

Why would a lawyer be concerned with facts?

It's worth noting that Pinnacles have lost access to the Concierge Lounge and Suite Lounge on the Adventure of the Seas sailings out of Nassau. However you look at it, it's simply unsustainable to continue to offer benefits that require dedicated spaces aboard ships when the pool of eligible members for those benefits never shrinks (other than through death). These sort of perks need to be more limited to members not just reaching a tier level, but continuing to retain some sort of similar tier-based level regularly, much like airline frequent flyer programs or even Royal Caribbean's Casino rewards program. Otherwise things like providing benefits to tier levels across the entire ship are the sorts of perks they can reasonable offer, like the SeaPass-card-loaded drink vouchers. This will become even more a concern as all the double-point-offer sailings occur and people reach higher tier levels even more quickly. Full resolution version: CrownAndAnchorMemberBenefitsUpdate_2021.06.07.jpg (754×1962) (2150.com)

No, it happens overnight, after all possible locations that could sell you a beverage have closed.