Jump to content

There actually is an update to the CSO


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

There's a clear and obvious difference with a cruise ship, and it's embarrassing  the CDC goes out of its way to try to lump cruises in with those others.

????

The difference between a cruise ship and a restaurant is that when you go to a restaurant (or the other venues that are not in the CDC's definition of a congregate setting) its a time limited event of at most 6-8h in a park. You're not living there in the sense that it means sleeping over-night in those but you are on a cruise ship.

I hate defending the CDC but I think it is important among cruise fans here to understand that there is rationale behind what the CDC is doing (see my comparison of infection control procedures in a hospital to those on a cruise ship - they are a PITA but they have an important purpose. Most of us here, including me think that the technicals released on Friday are not bounded by appropriate risk/benefit analysis. Matt is right. The CDC is seeing the cruise industry through the lens of March 2020. Things have changed. The CDC hasn't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2021 at 12:35 PM, JeffB said:

the technicals released on Friday are not bounded by appropriate risk/benefit analysis

To your point, I loved this quote by CLIA

"The new requirements are unduly burdensome, largely unworkable, and seem to reflect a zero-risk objective rather than the mitigation approach to COVID that is the basis for every other US sector of our society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today the CDC said that all the extra surface sanitizing precautions (which some call "hygiene theater") are not necessary since most transmission is through the air.  Yet somehow don't most of their requirements for the cruise line industry fall into that category?

https://news.yahoo.com/end-the-hygiene-theater-cdc-says-173440864.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atlantix2000 said:

Today the CDC said that all the extra surface sanitizing precautions (which some call "hygiene theater") are not necessary since most transmission is through the air.  Yet somehow don't most of their requirements for the cruise line industry fall into that category?

https://news.yahoo.com/end-the-hygiene-theater-cdc-says-173440864.html

 

The CDC has been saying this for almost a year. This data just further quantifies how rare it is.

 

But yes, many of the CDC's CSO requirements are to reduce surface transmission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the CDC was saying 6 feet was the magical social distance but then the CDC changed it to 3 feet for school reopening guidance 

I hope they remember the 3 feet rule with cruises as well in outdoor spaces and drop mask wearing outdoors because the data now shows us that outdoor transmission is extremely rare

follow the data 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

The CDC has been saying this (surface transmission C-19 is negligible) for almost a year. This data just further quantifies how rare it is.

 

In March of 2020 we had the CDC's mask debacle. Following this, as we now know, principals within then president Trump's COVID advisory committee argued amongst each other to the point of failing to recommend reasonable COVID related public health policy, confusion about vaccines, now we have the CDC proclaiming that SARS2 is not transmitted via surfaces. Lay people, like me, who read the medical literature have known this for at least 3 months, maybe longer. Stunning.  

And yet, we still have this agency being the primary entity wrongly preventing free commerce within the cruise industry, such actions being based on completely outdated and erroneous assumptions about infection control aboard cruise ships and without regard for the impact of vaccines on the pandemic in general and upon SARS2 transmission among the vaccinated, specifically.

I have looked at the legality, in a non-lawyer way, of the NSO and the CSO and posted here that under the declaration of a PHE, what the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with doing (the enforcement arm behind the NSO) was lawful.

Today, I looked at 14A of the US Constitution that deals with the limitations of government restrictions to free commerce and trade. It is possible that the cruise industry could seek an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the NSO, in the evolving pandemic circumstances, as an unlawful barrier to free trade. As the impact of vaccines take hold globally and especially in the US, and in conjunction with the proven, entirely reasonable and doable, steps that the cruise industry has taken to mitigate the risk that cruise ship operations could be a substantial risk for the spread of C-19, the CDC's stand on this becomes more irrelevant and by extension the NSO irrelevant as well and possibly unlawful, legal action could have legs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately science has left the building a long time ago and replaced by politics when it comes to the restart of cruising. "Never let a crisis go to waste" is the motto of many in government these days on both sides of the aisle. As long as there is a health crisis, the more legislation and spending that can be passed. CDC is just waiting on the green light from the White House I believe as we have seen at least twice now the CDC Director make proclamations regarding Covid that later have to be walked back by the administration. 

I think the more framing the cruise industry stoppage is causing economic harm to Port Cities will play better in court of public opinion rather than the general public just perceiving that entitled people are mad they cant go on a cruise. They fail to see how many people have lost jobs and are struggling because of the shutdown. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

Unfortunately science has left the building a long time ago and replaced by politics when it comes to the restart of cruising. "Never let a crisis go to waste" is the motto of many in government these days on both sides of the aisle. As long as there is a health crisis, the more legislation and spending that can be passed. CDC is just waiting on the green light from the White House I believe as we have seen at least twice now the CDC Director make proclamations regarding Covid that later have to be walked back by the administration. 

I think the more framing the cruise industry stoppage is causing economic harm to Port Cities will play better in court of public opinion rather than the general public just perceiving that entitled people are mad they cant go on a cruise. They fail to see how many people have lost jobs and are struggling because of the shutdown. 

 

 

Sadly you are correct.

Although I'm not sure it's solely the WH.  In politics it often the issue of lobbying (aka bribing) the right combination of politicians.  Side of the aisle is irrelevant, they are all eager to be "lobbied".  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about leverage here. For the cruise industry to get back to business, they have to have it. There are two options we seem to be framing here:

(1) Let the court of public opinion and lobbied politicians be the leverage that moves HHS to tell the CDC to cancel the CSO.

(2) Let the courts TELL DHS that they are enjoining the provisions of the CSO that denies cruise ship operations from US ports.

I prefer the later. If it can be mounted, and I'm not sure it can be, a claim that the the provisions of the CSO are unconstitutional (violation of 14A) could be filed in short order and an injunction issued. That does not mean that the US Justice Department acting on behalf of HHS could not challenge the injunction but I'm also not certain that they would. Can you imagine even good government lawyers trying to argue in defense of the laugher that is the CSO? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one complicating factor is the few yards between the ship and the other side of the terminal.  There is no doubt that the Federal Government has control over the border, and different rules apply to that area than anywhere else.  Add the fact that Maritime law also applies and the fact that the CDC will have endless experts that will support it's views (because they work for the CDC) and you have the makings of a legal mess.  So I think that while we would all like a quick, simple answer or process, we will most likely not get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cruisellama said:

Since cruise ships are considered like prisons by the CDC, I volunteer to do some time on one.  (Never mind hotels aren't in the same category)

Ever flown through the LaGuardia airport?  Pretty much a prison.  Small confined spaces, low ceiling, hot, smelly, packed with zero chance of social distancing.  Marked safe by CDC standards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cruisellama said:

Since cruise ships are considered like prisons by the CDC, I volunteer to do some time on one.  (Never mind hotels aren't in the same category)

I wonder what you have to do to be "sentenced" to a cruise ship ... is that like the old "white collar" country club prisons or something different ?

Maybe if we denigrate the CDC enough we get sentenced to cruise for life ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, twangster said:

Ever flown through the LaGuardia airport?  Pretty much a prison.  Small confined spaces, low ceiling, hot, smelly, packed with zero chance of social distancing.  Marked safe by CDC standards.  

We’ll pay more to avoid LGA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, teddy said:

We’ll pay more to avoid LGA

It might surprise you to see what new new LGA looks like I've provided a link below.  The new terminal is now open even though they have a few construction projects to finish up.  LGA has come a long way over the past few years.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/first-look-laguardia-terminal-b/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

If anyone missed it, the CDC already tweaked the new technical guidance to drop the prehistoric requirement that embarking and disembarking passengers don't share the same gangway within 12 hours.

I wouldn't say they dropped it, they added the caveat "to the extent practicable". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

But there's no longer a mention of 12 hours. Just "try not to do it as best you can" which is much more reasonable.

True. It seems they made 2 updates. First they added the caveat, and now it looks like 12 hours has been dropped.

The whole line is ridiculous because of what CDC has said about surface contamination being extremely unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vancity Cruiser said:

So they made amendments, but only to this one item?

I ran a text difference check on the original versus what's there today. Here's the differences....

1. "For the purpose of these technical instructions only, “U.S. port authorities” refers to officials responsible for exercising oversight..."

became

"For the purpose of these technical instructions only, “U.S. port authorities” refers to the local officials responsible for exercising oversight..."

 

2. "to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and    
to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period."

became

"to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas), to the extent practicable, and
to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas), to the extent practicable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matt said:

I ran a text difference check on the original versus what's there today. Here's the differences....

1. "For the purpose of these technical instructions only, “U.S. port authorities” refers to officials responsible for exercising oversight..."

became

"For the purpose of these technical instructions only, “U.S. port authorities” refers to the local officials responsible for exercising oversight..."

 

2. "to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and    
to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period."

became

"to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas), to the extent practicable, and
to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas), to the extent practicable."

sounds like about two weeks of work for a bureaurcracy ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...