Jump to content

State of Florida Sues CDC Over Cruise Shut Down


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

Somebody needs to do a background check on the people or person making the decision on this cruising debacle. We may find a deep hatred of the industry. 

Someone give them a free cruise! Once you cruise once you're pretty hooked, in my experience!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2021 at 7:39 AM, jticarruthers said:

Good to see progress but unfortunately I think May 12th means July is basically DOA, even a favorable ruling at that point puts them at less than 60 days to get up to speed ... unless the cruise lines are so comfortable with the strength of the suit that they gear up to go live "at risk".

Carnival is still being pretty bullish from Galveston for 5 July (I think).  Leaning --------->forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

A week? Don't think so. This was an expedited or emergency hearing that the court granted (that's a positve). I think its imminent. One possibility is that the Judge has invited the parties to meet under the threat that he's told them one or the other has made a case. 

Jeff would this be a case where the attorney's meet in a conference room and attempt to come to an agreeable, I hesitate to use the term compromise, so how about conclusion. Or is this a case where you would wasting time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

Jeff would this be a case where the attorney's meet in a conference room and attempt to come to an agreeable, I hesitate to use the term compromise, so how about conclusion. Or is this a case where you would wasting time? 

That would be mediation. This is a preliminary hearing, ostensibly before civil trial, for the purpose of determining if an immediate injunction against the enforcement of the CDC's CSO is warranted to grant relief from irreparable harm that the state of FL has suffered and will continue to suffer if the CSO is enforced.

This hearing was requested by the state of FL in a motion filed with the middle court of FL. It is  a separate filing from the the law suit filed on 4/8/21. This motion was, I believe, filed in late April. 

Something that occurs to me as I write this is that if the Judge does not issue an injunction out of this preliminary hearing, the case still moves to trial unless the Judge dismisses it on some other grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

Somebody needs to do a background check on the people or person making the decision on this cruising debacle. We may find a deep hatred of the industry. 

I've long thought someone at the CDC had a bad cruise.  Maybe their lover hooked up with another guest or maybe they are one of those people who write bad reviews because they made bad assumptions.  

Come to think of it, making bad assumptions fits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, twangster said:

I've long thought someone at the CDC had a bad cruise.  Maybe their lover hooked up with another guest or maybe they are one of those people who write bad reviews because they made bad assumptions.  

Come to think of it, making bad assumptions fits.  

 

My guess is they got mad at someone for taking their poolside chair that they were squatting for the previous 4 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, twangster said:

I've long thought someone at the CDC had a bad cruise.  Maybe their lover hooked up with another guest or maybe they are one of those people who write bad reviews because they made bad assumptions.  

Come to think of it, making bad assumptions fits.  

Maybe they got norovirus or maybe they were on a less than stellar cruise line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jill said:

Maybe they got norovirus or maybe they were on a less than stellar cruise line. 

According to the CDC around 1% of all noro outbreaks come from cruise ships.  Ships don't even make their top noro sources list:

 1356217779_cdcnoro.jpg.65a7e2158123838eeb931741eb4b5cb3.jpg

Hmmm.  I wonder if they'll round that 1% up to 10% now using their new math.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, twangster said:

According to the CDC around 1% of all noro outbreaks come from cruise ships.  Ships don't even make their top noro sources list:

 1356217779_cdcnoro.jpg.65a7e2158123838eeb931741eb4b5cb3.jpg

Hmmm.  I wonder if they'll round that 1% up to 10% now using their new math.  

I don't know, that data is from the CDC. Can we trust it to be accurate? Did they round down those 2189 outbreaks from 218,900? So many questions? ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, twangster said:

According to the CDC around 1% of all noro outbreaks come from cruise ships.  Ships don't even make their top noro sources list:

 1356217779_cdcnoro.jpg.65a7e2158123838eeb931741eb4b5cb3.jpg

Hmmm.  I wonder if they'll round that 1% up to 10% now using their new math.  

And only 10% of all reported GI issues on cruise ships are actually norovirus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life at the house of the CDC family:

Celebrating the 10 year old's 100th birthday. 

Wearing a gas mask while sleeping in case of fire.
Ensuring that everyone sleeps for 80 hours a night.

Walking for ten hours instead of driving to reduce risk.
Cooking all red meat to 1600 degrees.

Essentially, just the most risk-averse and numerically illiterate household possible!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, twangster said:

So 1%?

According to the VSP, only about 0.2% of cruise passengers report a GI-like illness consistent with norovirus and of them 10% are actually norovirus. So on a cruise ship, 0.02%.  

 

So if 0.02% of cruise passengers getting norovirus makes up 1% of the national amount of norovirus, I'll take those odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The judge may not grant an injunction but I do feel like the suit did cause action on the part of the CDC.  I'm not sure the latest updates for vaccinated guests would have been introduced without the lawsuit. 

The pressure is definitely on the CDC for their pandemic guidance. That they have a strangle hold on a very large business operation is, IMO, unconscionable. One of the CDC's arguments supporting their CSO is that, hey cruise lines, we have provided a path forward via the CSO. You just don't want to do it the way we have the authority to tell you to do it.

Note that the FL suit doesn't challenge the CDC's authority to regulate under U.S.C 42. What they have challenged, in part, is how the CDC went about fulfilling that authority.... an administrative procedures error.

We can argue the benefit of the CSO defined gates and protocols versus the cost and difficulty in following them but the bottom line is, "we provided you a pathway........ follow it and you can cruise after you prove you can implement them. or vaccinate everyone."

We know this position is unreasonable by virtue of the minimal risks of disease spread on board a ship, with or without vaccinations. State wide and specific counties where FL cruise ports are located are nearing that sustained  magic number (5%) at which the virus is considered adequately controlled. So, the CSO makes no sense .... to us or to cruise line executives. Cruise lines have been safely sailing, without a requirement for vaccinations elsewhere unencumbered by the US CDC's dictates. Think about sailing where everyone is vaccinated. Who needs the CSO?

TBH, I don't know who referees that debate. It seems to me quite separate from the claims FL is making in it's civil suit.

It would seem the plot thickens and I suspect that's what Judge Merryday is working his way through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

A little more info on today's hearing.

CDC still saying they've done all they need to do and it's up to the cruise lines to meet the CSO terms now.

 

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/regional/florida/florida-cruise-lawsuit-federal-hearing/67-3afb2c9f-7abc-4f8d-8b3e-3400a5fdbb52?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

They are so flippin arrogant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be coming down to a state v. federal authority issue. There is somewhere in the applicable law that if the feds step in, in this case the state's right to regulate public health risks in state ports, they must first consult state PH authorities. I'm not entirely versed in the law to know. But I think this is a sticky issue. Ports are federally regulated I think.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JeffB said:

This may be coming down to a state v. federal authority issue. There is somewhere in the applicable law that if the feds step in, in this case the state's right to regulate public health risks in state ports, they must first consult state PH authorities. I'm not entirely versed in the law to know. But I think this is a sticky issue. Ports are federally regulated I think.  

They absolutely are federally refulated... That's why Florida chose the arguments which focus on the overly broad and seemingly capricious implementation of regulation rather than the CDC's right to regulate in the first place. I think that the scatter shot CDC response only came after the threat of lawsuits works against them, but what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LizzyBee23 said:

They absolutely are federally refulated... That's why Florida chose the arguments which focus on the overly broad and seemingly capricious implementation of regulation rather than the CDC's right to regulate in the first place. I think that the scatter shot CDC response only came after the threat of lawsuits works against them, but what do I know.

Not as simple as it might appear. You're correct in characterizing the thrust of the FL law suit as "focused" on capricious (and discriminatory) implementation of regulations by the CDC. The CDC counters with cruise ships being unique in their potential to spread disease. That might be arguable. However, even though the CSO may be dated and cumbersome, I don't think that is a point upon which Judge Merryday will rule on. He will rule on CDC regulations that conflict with FL's regulatory authority within the ports themselves. 

Federal regulation of FL ports ends at the water's edge. The port itself is governed and regulated by county port authorities at least in the case of Miami-Dade (Port of Miami) and Broward (PEV) counties. I believe Tampa's port and Port Canaveral are also governed by County port authorities. When it comes to the CDC requiring cruise lines to do anything ashore, e.g. require the lines to coordinate with local authorities on the disposition of COVID infected crew or PAX, I believe that is a clear case of federal over-reach. Judge Merryday's inquiry during the hearing about how the State of FL was going to protect against disease spread within the ports where county port authorities have regulatory authority was telling.  

Here's how I see this thing working out: Some of the CSO is going to be enjoined. Our hope that the whole thing will be enjoined isn't likely to happen. Cruise lines have probably figured this out and hence have been publicly announcing that they have been "working with the CDC and in contact with them almost daily." That tells me, as someone else pointed out, the lines don't want to piss them off knowing they're going to have to implement and comply with some of the CSO stuff. Meanwhile they are probably hoping they can negotiate the ones that really are onerous, e.g., applying for and conducting test sailings among others.

I still think a July 1 return to cruising from US ports is entirely feasible but at a significantly reduced level. There are tell tale signs that this is the cruise line's plans. They are heavy on European sailings and light on US sailings as far as we know right now with NCL, MSC and others. The lines probably think they can get a few ships through the CDC's hoops by July one and by the fall when things are back to normal, resume a more robust schedule of sailings form US ports after the CDC has relaxed or abandoned requirements within the CSO as the pandemic fades.  RCG has been a little more circumspect with their operational plans. As well, Alaska itineraries are still very much up in the air given the Jones Act and I'm not sure where that battle stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its frustrating for sure. There's a short, but front page article in the Sun Sentinel today on the suit.  It is no more revealing than what we already know. Each side has presented it's case. I still find it pretty amazing that the CDC argues that the costs to the state of FL (see the study of those costs attached to the suit) are not as important as the steps the CDC has taken to contain the pandemic from being spread by cruise ship operations.

While we know the public health benefit of shutting down the cruise lines was, in fact marginal, that's not at issue here .... at least I don't think it is, not in Judge Merryday's court room anyway. I certainly wish it were and this sort of thing, cost versus benefits analysis, has been sorely lacking since the SARS2 virus became a global pandemic and governments reacted to that in widely varying ways.

We should prepare ourselves for a narrow ruling in this case that isn't going to affect much of anything we care about. I do think that the CDC has been put on notice by the law suit and may slowly but surely, maybe a little bit quicker than they had anticipated, modify the regs and protocols contained in the CSO. We're already seeing that in the broader context of their messaging over the last two weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Its frustrating for sure. There's a short, but front page article in the Sun Sentinel today on the suit.  It is no more revealing than what we already know. Each side has presented it's case. I still find it pretty amazing that the CDC argues that the costs to the state of FL (see the study of those costs attached to the suit) are not as important as the steps the CDC has taken to contain the pandemic from being spread by cruise ship operations.

While we know the public health benefit of shutting down the cruise lines was, in fact marginal, that's not at issue here .... at least I don't think it is, not in Judge Merryday's court room anyway. I certainly wish it were and this sort of thing, cost versus benefits analysis, has been sorely lacking since the SARS2 virus became a global pandemic and governments reacted to that in widely varying ways.

We should prepare ourselves for a narrow ruling in this case that isn't going to affect much of anything we care about. I do think that the CDC has been put on notice by the law suit and may slowly but surely, maybe a little bit quicker than they had anticipated, modify the regs and protocols contained in the CSO. We're already seeing that in the broader context of their messaging over the last two weeks. 

I have noticed that every time the CDC has modified or issued guidance, it has been just as pressure was being applied.

Therefore, I think the lawsuit has already had an effect.  However, once it is over, I don't expect the CDC to make any further progress until forced by some other lawsuit or political player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

While we know the public health benefit of shutting down the cruise lines was, in fact marginal, that's not at issue here .... at least I don't think it is, not in Judge Merryday's court room anyway. I certainly wish it were and this sort of thing, cost versus benefits analysis, has been sorely lacking since the SARS2 virus became a global pandemic and governments reacted to that in widely varying ways.

This is a great point. This is cited in one of the most recent filings, "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL ADVISORS".

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.42.1.pdf

image.png.d1edbbee0434eae05f79474fa43f5816.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that the hearing came at a favorable time when the CDC has shown their true incompetent nature in all things Covid not just cruises. Public support and opinion is turning against the CDC as well as the political winds. Politicians are finding it harder to support the CDC every day now. I wouldnt be surprised if we see a clearing of the house at the CDC and they should start with Walensky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Freddie Mercury might say, "ALRIGHT.... ALRIGHT."

Thanks for digging this out 0_0! I'm not sure if an Amicus Curaie" brief has the same standing as, say, the "Intervenors," Texas and Alaska have. Don't know if Judge Merryday is compelled by the law to address this point.

 I went back and reviewed FL's initial filing. It does not say it in the same way THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL ADVISORS says it but it nonetheless implies it in it's argument that..... other less restrictive measures could have been required of the cruise lines that would have mitigated virus spread and, more importantly, the CDC CANNOT demonstrate that the draconian measures they did impose on the cruise lines, compared to how the CDC regulated other travel related businesses and conveyances achieved the PH benefits they sought. 

If Merryday has to address this, it is a huge bonus and may result in further removal of restrictions contained in the CSO. Merryday could direct arbitration between the parties and join the cruise lines, the American Association of Travel Advisors Alaska and Texas in that arbitration process. The endpoint is something reasonable that everyone can live with. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

The Florida case basically said the CDC only reviewed two options, total shutdown or cruises with zero restrictions. And essentially ignored all the mitigation methods the cruise lines were going to use via each's respective healthy sail-type panel

Not surprising at all. Government's panicked when news from Italy was that bodies were piling up outside a collapsing health care system. As time went on and the tons of available data - some of it leading to incredibly wrong PH policy world-wide - started getting better, some governments adapted to the emerging data, some didn't. The US government through HHS didn't and this is going to come out in the wash.

What it comes down to is reasonable people looking at the data and from it, drawing appropriate conclusions and from that implementing good PH policy. It is discouraging to me that this country is repeatedly getting caught up in this circumstance involving all kinds of policy decisions. The aftermath of 911 comes to mind. More recently the Defense Department and Colonial Pipe Line hacks. There will be similar moving of the deck chairs in the aftermath of the SARS2 Pandemic in the US....... like the attack on the Twin Towers, after the damage has already been done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JeffB said:

What it comes down to is reasonable people looking at the data and from it, drawing appropriate conclusions and from that implementing good PH policy. 

Just thought I'd share where some of these public health officials are coming from. They act in a matter that is not consistent with a reasonable understanding of risk... This survey would seem to say it's endemic to the profession, and it's exactly what we're up against in the struggle to get back to normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Epidemiologists are rare birds though.  Events like covid are what they've lived their careers for.  They're almost biased by their very nature against these activities.

 

There's nothing on that list that I haven't done since covid that I would have done prior to covid.

That's kind of Nate's point... They're too removed from what the rest of us consider normal to properly bound risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been two motions entered since the hearing that took place on the 12th. (1) One is procedural - adding an additional more widely applied -  economic impact study probably aimed at this question that we hope Judge Merryday is looking at, could the CDC have done less to protect the PH wrt the cruise lines and achieved a suitable result without causing billions of dollars of losses (well, yes, no shit!). (2) The court record of the hearing - no decision yet (attached below).

I did not include the economic impact study - it's like a hundred pages or more and to view it all you have to pay for it. We all know what it says. Billions in lost wages and revenue.

gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.44.0_1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2021 at 1:13 PM, JeffB said:

A week? Don't think so. This was an expedited or emergency hearing that the court granted (that's a positve). I think its imminent. One possibility is that the Judge has invited the parties to meet under the threat that he's told them one or the other has made a case. 

With the NEW guidelines for vaccinated people not having to wear mask outside or inside, I wonder if CDC is feeling the heat. They have already been overturned in one instance so are their attorneys preparing them for more from this hearing yesterday? Are the politicians putting the heat on? Public had enough? Or a strong combination of all of this and more?

 

Maybe they have decided to follow the science after all?                          Nah couldn't be that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

I didn't mean to link you Jeff, sorry for that

No worries, it's a jumping off point for your question.

This has been mentioned up thread and elsewhere on these boards. Personally, I think the CDC is trying to update their guidelines to reflect drastically falling case numbers, deaths, hospitalizations and so forth not becaseu they are "feeling the heat.

It's like duhhh but the CDC has resisted the notion that they are out of touch since day one of the pandemic - at this point and wrt the pandemic, they are probably a month, maybe more, behind what the public fully understands: vaccines work in preventing serious illness, death, and transmission of the virus. Lets get back to normal life.

CDC's messaging should have anticipated this sometime in late February and started telling Americans how they can safely return to a post pandemic normalcy. Instead we continued to get this negative Nancy crap from the CDC in the faces of Walanski and Fauci and from Biden himself. They've lost a ton of credibility in the last 15 months. They aren't going to regain it any time soon.  

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...