Jump to content

State of Florida Sues CDC Over Cruise Shut Down


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RBRSKI said:

Your health is your own decision and no one including businesses or the government should mandate what you put into your body.  

So I'm assuming you didn't go to any sort of school growing up? No college? All establishments that require vaccinations for the good of the people. But by all means, let's just stop vaccinating now,  because all the nasty old diseases have been too far out of sight and out of mind to remind us how nasty they were. Polio, small pox? Bring it on! MDGA: Make Diseases Great Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CruisinForABruisin said:

So I'm assuming you didn't go to any sort of school growing up? No college? All establishments that require vaccinations for the good of the people. But by all means, let's just stop vaccinating now,  because all the nasty old diseases have been too far out of sight and out of mind to remind us how nasty they were. Polio, small pox? Bring it on! MDGA: Make Diseases Great Again

All of these vaccinations have been established for years!!!!!  And without getting over my head, these are very different from the COVID.  The MMR vaccine has a 97% effective.  Can you remind me how long the COVID vaccine has been around?  Can you also remind me of some of the long term (and I'll give you two years) affects it may have on people? What is the current number of people who have had both doses and have gotten COVID?  

I actually have the shingles vaccine on my radar, why, I'm 51 had the chicken pocks and the vaccine has been around since 2006. And I heard that shingles stinks if you get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RBRSKI said:

All of these vaccinations have been established for years!!!!!  And without getting over my head, these are very different from the COVID.  The MMR vaccine has a 97% effective.  Can you remind me how long the COVID vaccine has been around?  Can you also remind me of some of the long term (and I'll give you two years) affects it may have on people? What is the current number of people who have had both doses and have gotten COVID?  

I actually have the shingles vaccine on my radar, why, I'm 51 had the chicken pocks and the vaccine has been around since 2006. And I heard that shingles stinks if you get it.

I absolutely understand your position for not wanting the vaccine and respect it. I have family on both sides of the issue and have an appreciation for each decision.

However, you can't necessarily discount the age of the vaccine as a reason for not getting it. If everyone said in 2006, 2007 that the shingles vaccine was only a year old, and who knows what it would do, and then they refused to get it, and no one ever received it, how could you get the data 10 years later to know that it turned out safe and then you'd decide to receive it? Somewhere along the line enough people have to accept it to provide that data, right? It's kind of the chicken or the egg, and we all have the right to choose which one we are, and we'll see how it works out! 

And with that, as a business, Royal has that same right to determine that what they find the safest alternative, for the greatest good, is best for their business, then so be it. So we can all make the choice now, but we all have to respect the others' decisions, whatever they may be. Unfortunately, if your choice not to doesn't align with Royal's decision to require it, that's just the consequence of it. Either way, best of health and luck to you and all of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, nhilding10 said:

And with that, as a business, Royal has that same right to determine that what they find the safest alternative, for the greatest good, is best for their business, then so be it. 

So if they are going to determine that getting the vaccine is the safest alternative for the greatest good, they better be ready to protect us from all colds and viruses on the ships that they sail.  It will be expected from the paying customer since they are getting involved in our health decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RBRSKI said:

All of these vaccinations have been established for years!!!!! 

This is a fair point. The mRNA vaccines in particular are very new. Traditional vaccines like the AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson products use a monkey adenovirus as a vector to challenge the human immune system to produce a response to SARS2. The technology is the same as that used for the vaccines you mention.

Remember that efficacy and effectiveness are two different metrics used to evaluate a vaccine, the later - the real world "effect" as measured by the products ability to prevent, in these cases, serious illness and/or death from COVID. While all of the FDA approved vaccines for use in the US are in the 90% or higher efficacy range from large scale trials, that's translating to an 80% plus effectiveness in real world studies. The influenza vaccines are 30-50% effective. 97% effectiveness achieved by the MMR combined vaccines, well established by their long history of use, is unique.

Don't lose sight of these numbers: in 100 cases of exposure to SARS2, regardless of risk, nominally only 5 vaccinated persons will develop COVID symptoms and of that five, less than 1 will die. Of 100 unvaccinated, at risk persons (over 65) exposure to SARS2 will produce 20 seriously ill people and of those 5 will die. IOW, unvaccinated at risk people experience a 4X greater risk of serious illness from SARS2 infection and a 5X higher risk of dying. People that are not at risk for serious illness or death from COVID become naïve hosts that will become infected, most unknowingly, and harbor the virus potentially spreading it to at risk unvaccinated people.

In large scale trials monitored and approved by the FDA the rate of serious side effects or death from vaccination were as near to zero as is mathematically possible. It is true we don't yet know what side effects may occur after several years of COVID vaccines being administered. However, after about two years including trials there is nothing to suggest that the mRNA products will produce them. The adenovirus vectored vaccines have produced the blood clot thing albeit causality has not definitively been established. Moreover, the actual risk of this happening to you is almost non-existent.

So, getting the vaccines comes down to a very personal and individual risk/benefit analysis. I simply want as many people as possible that post and read here to know that the risks of untoward vaccine side effects are very low while the preventative benefits when it comes to preventing COVID related serious illness or death from occurring after an exposure to SARS2 are quite high. Vaccines are becoming universally available for adults over 16/18 and some doctors offices have them. Ask if your primary care physician has them and if he does, schedule a consultation to discuss the risks and benefits. Even if he doesn't have them, visit with him or her and discuss.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RBRSKI said:

So if they are going to determine that getting the vaccine is the safest alternative for the greatest good, they better be ready to protect us from all colds and viruses on the ships that they sail.  It will be expected from the paying customer since they are getting involved in our health decisions. 

I respectfully disagree, given the circumstances. I think responding to how to best restart an industry after a worldwide pandemic is slightly different than protecting someone from a common cold that can easily be treated and stopped. The decisions doesn't necessarily have to be 100% one way or 100% the other.  The decisions based on the two scenarios are so completely different, they have to be viewed and treated as such. I think such leeway isn't too much to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't people who want to the vaccine get it and those who do not want it wear a mask.  We have been told by the current administration that it's the best way of spreading it.  IT CAN BE THAT SIMPLE!

Also, I would need some clarification from this board but if Royal thinks that making the vaccine mandatory, does the carriage of contract exclude them from being responsible if you get it on board?  I am going to say no!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RBRSKI said:

Why can't people who want to the vaccine get it and those who do not want it wear a mask.

You have that choice now. OTH, private companies have the choice of adopting policies that prevent you from entering their places of business to receive services they offer without proof of vaccination. Same thing as "no shoes, no service." This isn't new nor should it be disturbing or raise concerns about personal freedoms.... I will avoid a long legal discussion on that subject but trust me. It's legal and not an abridgement of your rights to refuse entrée.

2 hours ago, RBRSKI said:

Also, I would need some clarification from this board but if Royal thinks that making the vaccine mandatory, does the carriage of contract exclude them from being responsible if you get it on board? 

The addition of COVID as a disease that you assume the risk of becoming afflicted by when you enter into a contract to sail with RCG will be among another long list of diseases for which RCG has no legal liability if you get it. Again, its a choice. You either assume the risk and sail or you don't and don't sail. Expecting RCG to assume that risk for you isn't reasonable. No court that I am aware of has entertained such claims in the past without proof of willful negligence.

I will say that RCG, if I understand all of the things they will do for you and at their expense if you do become sick from SARS2 while sailing on their ships is quite generous. To expect them to pay for the costs of treating you ashore or for damages if you die from it is unreasonable. You signed the contract, you sailed, it's your risk to assume, not theirs. As well, if you are concerned about the risk of getting COVID on a cruise, you can insure yourself against the costs you might incur for the medical care you might receive in conjunction with that disease or any other. You have that choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JeffB said:

 I will avoid a long legal discussion on that subject but trust me.

Thanks for sparing us with your long discussion.

 

Thanks for the great amount of information in regards to the carriage of contract.  I on the other hand try to find the short, sweet and to the point answer.

This will all be a mood point when Royal realizes that making the vaccine mandatory for cruising out of the US would not be a good move.  We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a thought about cruising as it relates to the DeSantis EO.

What if the cruise lines adopt a CDC strategy?

You are not required to show proof of vaccination, but if you choose to then the following list of protocols don't apply to you.

For example, the CDC allows for international travel with these "recommendations and requirements" for unvaccinated and vaccinated:

1330615064_CDCTravelGuideance.thumb.jpg.0266205bad4c0039b468bae7f10f9dc0.jpg

 

Basically the CDC establishes one set of rules for unvaccinated, another set of rules for vaccinated.

Why couldn't the cruise lines offer the same?

Don't "require" proof of vaccination, but for anyone who does prove they are vaccinated then here are the rules for you.

In this manner they don't violate the DeSantis EO and they adopt an approach the CDC should be okay with since it is the CDC's approach to international travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, twangster said:

Here's a thought about cruising as it relates to the DeSantis EO.

What if the cruise lines adopt a CDC strategy?

You are not required to show proof of vaccination, but if you choose to then the following list of protocols don't apply to you.

For example, the CDC allows for international travel with these "recommendations and requirements" for unvaccinated and vaccinated:

1330615064_CDCTravelGuideance.thumb.jpg.0266205bad4c0039b468bae7f10f9dc0.jpg

 

Basically the CDC establishes one set of rules for unvaccinated, another set of rules for vaccinated.

Why couldn't the cruise lines offer the same?

Don't "require" proof of vaccination, but for anyone who does prove they are vaccinated then here are the rules for you.

In this manner they don't violate the DeSantis EO and they adopt an approach the CDC should be okay with since it is the CDC's approach to international travel.

Works for me ... prove you're vaccinated and you don't have to mask up on the pool deck ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twangster said:

Here's a thought about cruising as it relates to the DeSantis EO.

What if the cruise lines adopt a CDC strategy?

You are not required to show proof of vaccination, but if you choose to then the following list of protocols don't apply to you.

For example, the CDC allows for international travel with these "recommendations and requirements" for unvaccinated and vaccinated:

1330615064_CDCTravelGuideance.thumb.jpg.0266205bad4c0039b468bae7f10f9dc0.jpg

 

Basically the CDC establishes one set of rules for unvaccinated, another set of rules for vaccinated.

Why couldn't the cruise lines offer the same?

Don't "require" proof of vaccination, but for anyone who does prove they are vaccinated then here are the rules for you.

In this manner they don't violate the DeSantis EO and they adopt an approach the CDC should be okay with since it is the CDC's approach to international travel.

 

Since just about every country requires a pre-arrival test, the only difference between not vaccinated and vaccinated is the self quarantine, which no one does anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

 

Since just about every country requires a pre-arrival test, the only difference between not vaccinated and vaccinated is the self quarantine, which no one does anyway.

Not sure about that ... my executive assistant went back up to Canada to deal with family issues. They were explicit that she had to remain in her hotel room for 2 weeks and they would (and did) randomly check that she was in the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jticarruthers said:

Not sure about that ... my executive assistant went back up to Canada to deal with family issues. They were explicit that she had to remain in her hotel room for 2 weeks and they would (and did) randomly check that she was in the room.

I mean upon returning to the USA.

 

Canada has strict arrival requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New analysis of Florida's lawsuit: https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1378097/fla-seeks-injunction-in-suit-to-overturn-cdc-s-cruise-ban

Quote

Florida's arguments on its likelihood of success largely echo the allegations in its complaint, which asserts that the CDC's most recent set of restrictions — an Oct. 30 Conditional Sailing Order that established a four-phase process for cruise lines to reopen — is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power and violates the Administrative Procedure Act as an arbitrary and capricious agency action by the CDC that exceeds its authority.

Quote

The motion also says the agency's reasoning was inadequate and that it failed to allow for proper comment, consider lesser alternatives or explain its differentiated treatment of the cruise industry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really encouraging news that somewhat off-sets objections to one of the return to cruising bills introduced a couple of weeks ago in Congress. The objection effectively prevented the bill from moving forward. Matt reported on this and it is clear that the Senator that objected has no clue with regard to what the Safe to Sail Panel came up with to mitigate the spread of SARS2 aboard ship or, for that matter, the stunning success of vaccines that the cruise lines look like they will mandate for passengers. 

The timing of the motion filed by the state is probably not coincidental with what went on in Congress last week. What the motion does is move a hearing by the Federal Judge that will hear the complaint up on his docket. Something to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CGTLH said:

A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will occur in Courtroom 15A, United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, beginning on WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.12-0_047122915740-Notice of hearing on motion.pdf

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
9 minutes ago, CGTLH said:

"F" it... small price to pay to read the opposition... Also wish I found Court Listener sooner.

"Memorandum in opposition – #31 in State of Florida v. Becerra (M.D. Fla., 8:21-cv-00839) – CourtListener.com" https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/31/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Page three already explains some silence...

"CDC is working in partnership with the cruise lines - which have not joined Plaintiff's challenge - to expeditiously move through tye CSO framework."

Way I read it: Cruise lines, if you fuss we'll just drag things out for as long as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CGTLH said:

"F" it... small price to pay to read the opposition... Also wish I found Court Listener sooner.

"Memorandum in opposition – #31 in State of Florida v. Becerra (M.D. Fla., 8:21-cv-00839) – CourtListener.com" https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/31/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

It only took them 2 paragraphs to mention Diamond Princess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, twangster said:
  • The CSO regulates cruise lines, not states.

 

If true, why are so many non-cruise employees out of work? Why are states losing many millions based on regulations on the cruise lines? Why does the CSO attempt to mandate shore agreements with non-cruise entities if it only regulates cruise lines? Why does the CSO discuss vaccinations and protocols for shore entities and employees to implement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

If true, why are so many non-cruise employees out of work? Why are states losing many millions based on regulations on the cruise lines? Why does the CSO attempt to mandate shore agreements with non-cruise entities if it only regulates cruise lines? Why does the CSO discuss vaccinations and protocols for shore entities and employees to implement?

I know, just found it an interesting point they mentioned several times in the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida may not win tomorrow, but I don't agree with these reasons why.

 

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2021/05/articles/disease/why-the-state-of-florida-will-lose-its-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-against-the-cdc-tomorrow/

 

One of the biggest arguments in the lawsuit was the CDC has overstepped its bounds. Just last week a successful lawsuit said the CDC overstepped its bounds in eviction moratoriums.

There's also the argument Alaska has on how ridiculous the shore agreement clause is.

 

Then again reading that author's other articles, it seems he may be a bit biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Florida may not win tomorrow, but I don't agree with these reasons why.

 

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2021/05/articles/disease/why-the-state-of-florida-will-lose-its-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-against-the-cdc-tomorrow/

 

One of the biggest arguments in the lawsuit was the CDC has overstepped its bounds. Just last week a successful lawsuit said the CDC overstepped its bounds in eviction moratoriums.

There's also the argument Alaska has on how ridiculous the shore agreement clause is.

 

Then again reading that author's other articles, it seems he may be a bit biased.

Wow... I went on cruise law news Facebook page and they show open contempt for the cruise industry 

while the author of the article may turn out to be right about the outcome of tomorrow’s hearing, his writings show he is far from an objective bystander 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Florida may not win tomorrow, but I don't agree with these reasons why.

 

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2021/05/articles/disease/why-the-state-of-florida-will-lose-its-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-against-the-cdc-tomorrow/

 

One of the biggest arguments in the lawsuit was the CDC has overstepped its bounds. Just last week a successful lawsuit said the CDC overstepped its bounds in eviction moratoriums.

There's also the argument Alaska has on how ridiculous the shore agreement clause is.

 

Then again reading that author's other articles, it seems he may be a bit biased.

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.  

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...