danv3

The exception will be (and should be) that they can sit together in the unvaccinated area.

That’s exactly what I’d expect. Ineligible children are, by definition, unvaccinated. They shouldn’t be allowed to eat in the fully vaccinated area. Otherwise it isn’t a vaccinated area and the distinction set out in the guidelines makes no sense.

Until they change the rules. ?

I know we're following these changes closely and the general public isn't, but these constant changes don't convey a strong sense of confidence to the customer base. As much as I'd like to cruise, personally I'll need to see several months of cruises going out with consistent protocols before I can feel comfortable booking.

This is the way.

The likelihood of a vaccinated asymptomatic person infecting another vaccinated person is so low that it’s really not worth thinking about.

Kind of a PR disaster for X and RCG. Media is going to go nuts. Biggest issue from my perspective is too much testing. There’s no need to test vaccinated people with no symptoms. Just setting yourself up for failure as a cruise line.

Judge Merryday is showing his hand. He either expects the parties to resolve the dispute themselves or for cruises to restart and the lawsuit to be largely moot. Every day that passes decreases the likelihood of an injunction being issued.

Florida has a similar, but not identical, exception as the Texas law: "This subsection does not otherwise restrict businesses from instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health." http://laws.flrules.org/2021/8 If the CDC orders cruises to check for vaccination status, there's little doubt that controls over either state's law. On key issue at the moment is that the CDC does not mandate vaccination for cruise ship passengers.

At least now we know how they're dealing with the Florida law. No one will be required to provide proof of vaccination, but if you choose to do so, you get certain benefits. If you choose not to, you're treated as unvaccinated.

So one way to potentially get around this law is to say "XYZ screening protocol is required to cruise, but if you voluntarily provide proof of complete vaccination, you may skip XYZ screening protocol. To be clear, no one is required to provide proof of vaccination." Downside there is it doesn't guarantee a fully-vaccinated (or even largely fully vaccinated) ship.

This. CDC will make confirming vaccination status a requirement and then it’s a federal rule that trumps state law.

That's interesting, because it's pretty clear that (realistically) no one is getting COVID from salad tongs. (I know many people would rather see self-serve buffets go away, and that's fine, but I don't think it can be justified from a COVID prevention perspective.)

Usually you can predict the outcome from comments the judge makes during the hearing. Did any reporters attend (live or virtual)?

That is not accurate. Cruise lines operating in (and in several cases based in) the US absolutely have access to US courts. Also, no one is talking about suing for lost revenue. This case is about injunctive and declaratory relief.

The issue of standing is a big one for Florida to overcome. If a cruise line had joined the lawsuit, that would have really helped.

The CDC is trying to delay as much as they can to allow more people to get vaccinated, I think. They know cruising could safely be happening today, but they don’t want that, so they’re imposing difficult to ridiculous requirements that will by necessity extend the ban until late summer or early fall, when vaccination levels will be as high as they’re going to get. Then they’ll release their actual rules for cruises.

And to the main topic of the thread, I think it's very likely that other nations will follow the lead of the Bahamas (and maybe some others...Iceland?) and allow anyone vaccinated in without a test. The vaccines are so effective that testing someone who is fully vaccinated and not showing symptoms is essentially pointless...basically looking for a needle in a haystack.

As others have said, no one knows, but I can say that as of yesterday they've announced that in my state we'll be significantly rolling back restrictions once 2/3 of adults have had one shot. I think by the time that level of vaccination is reached, we'll be seeing case numbers drop tremendously.

Reports like this show just how well the vaccines are working...better than the studies projected, in fact. With this level of protection, community spread can be reduced to almost nothing. Combine that with even modest risk mitigation and cruising can restart very soon.

That letter reads like it was written by someone unaware that there are now several very effective and widely available vaccines for COVID-19. We're in a totally different place today than when the CSO was issued. If the lines sail with fully vaccinated crews and pax, plus the mitigation measures in place, the chance of a COVID outbreak is virtually nil.

I noticed all the mays. It's not unlike the US cruise contract in some ways...RCI promises to provide you with a cruise, but no guarantees as to ship, length, ports, point of departure, or basically anything else. ?

I wonder if any of the cruise lines will try to intervene as additional plaintiffs. They’d seem to have more clear standing than a state since they’re directly impacted by the CSO.

Some good stuff in there. On the other hand, might be hard to convince a judge to reject the entire CDC framework that exists. I don't know the MD Fla judges...wonder who will get the case.

Looks like mainly statutory (Administrative Procedure Act) claims, with one constitutional claim thrown in for good measure. I think claims 1 and 2 ("Agency action not in accordance with law and in excess of authority" and "Arbitrary and capricious agency action") are the two main claims.