Jump to content

US cruises could restart soon with 'passenger voyages by mid-July,' CDC says


Recommended Posts

In a way, a bad flu season would be a good thing, since that'd mean covid isn't around to choke out the flu virus like it is now worldwide.

 

I think the 95% thing is showmanship by the CDC.  If they can approve your test cruise plan in 5 days, why would you not take the test cruise? Otherwise you're pigeonholed into the 95% thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many I have concerns sharing health related information with private companies yet I can see why cruise lines need to understand what they they are dealing with as they strive to find the optimal protocols to implement on board from one sailing to another.

One solution is to implement different protocols for those that to choose to share their vaccine status.  Anyone who doesn't vaccinate or chooses not to disclose their status can sail but with more protocols.  Daily temperature checks, onboard testing every few days, tracelets, ideally no masks outdoors but masks while in transit indoors moving between cabins and dining for example.  This can accommodate families of all ages.  

To differentiate they could do what they do with certain youth Seapass cards - print them vertically. 

If you choose to share your fully vaccinated status you would get a normal looking SeaPass and face fewer protocols.  No daily temperature checks, no testing on board, no tracelets.  

Between the tracelet and the SeaPass card crew will know what protocols are required for each guest.  Fail to follow your assigned protocols and off you go at the next port of call.

I can already hear pushback to the idea of differentiating between guests but the alternative requires they assume no one is vaccinated and all Singapore protocols apply to everyone.  I don't want to sail like that, that's not why I chose to vaccinate.  I should not be penalized because someone else hasn't vaccinated.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm worried about a resurgence of other viruses alongside COVID for the simple fact that humanity's risk calculator is already so screwed up from this... There were people all over my social media accounts pulling their support from a very popular museum in my very red state because they were going to resume an outdoor event with optional and situational mask requirements rather than a blanket mandate to wear one. It truly is absurd, and a bad flu season will only embolden people to make the argument that we should never really take them off or go back to normal.

I'm not sure what the best move is... Matt and Twangster are right that there will be a media circus if an outbreak happens on a cruise ship, although to my mind that's a matter of "when" and not "if".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, twangster said:

I can already hear pushback to the idea of differentiating between guests but the alternative requires they assume no one is vaccinated and all Singapore protocols apply to everyone.  I don't want to sail like that, that's not why I chose to vaccinate.  I should not be penalized because someone else hasn't vaccinated.   

I like this for the most part, but if it's about risk mitigation then you get into this hairy situation where people over a certain age should be masking and social distancing regardless of vaccination status. I'm just not sure we want to venture into this world where the cruise lines (or anyone else for that matter) are responsible for safeguarding your health beyond some level of reasonability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

If they can approve your test cruise plan in 5 days, why would you not take the test cruise?

Quick read of the CSO, starting page 24, gives me the impression the simulated voyage could be a pain. Plus it reads the possibility of a series of simulated voyages.

Way I read the standards...

  1. Inform volunteers the simulated voyage can be risky activity
  2. Volunteers need to be 18+ and have written certification of having no pre-existing conditions that would classify them high risk.
  3. Volunteers can't be rewarded or sailing be a condition of employment.
  4. Need of crew members beyond the safe minimum manning level.
  5. Voyage has to be designed to test the efficacy of risk mitigation.
  6. Monitored observation period and laboratory testing of volunteers.
  7. Standard activities must be done. (embarkation/disembarkation plus check-in, on board activities, shore excursions must be private, evacuation procedures, transfer of symptomatic individuals to isolation, and quarantine of all remaining passengers and non-essential crew, and other activities per CDC guidance.)
  8. Meet standards for hand hygiene, face coverings, and social distancing. Plus any other CDC surprise requirements.
  9. Modify meal service and entertainment to meet social distancing.
  10. Lab testing day of embarkation and disembarkation. Disembarkation results must be provided before departing for final destination.
  11. Testing of anyone that comes down with illness.
  12. Voyage can be ended immediately in the event illness is detected.
  13. Document any deficiencies and create a report with volunteer test results.
  14. After CDC review the CDC may request modification and additional simulated voyages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CGTLH said:

Quick read of the CSO, starting page 24, gives me the impression the simulated voyage could be a pain. Plus it reads the possibility of a series of simulated voyages.

Way I read the standards...

  1. Inform volunteers the simulated voyage can be risky activity
  2. Volunteers need to be 18+ and have written certification of having no pre-existing conditions that would classify them high risk.
  3. Volunteers can't be rewarded or sailing be a condition of employment.
  4. Need of crew members beyond the safe minimum manning level.
  5. Voyage has to be designed to test the efficacy of risk mitigation.
  6. Monitored observation period and laboratory testing of volunteers.
  7. Standard activities must be done. (embarkation/disembarkation plus check-in, on board activities, shore excursions must be private, evacuation procedures, transfer of symptomatic individuals to isolation, and quarantine of all remaining passengers and non-essential crew, and other activities per CDC guidance.)
  8. Meet standards for hand hygiene, face coverings, and social distancing. Plus any other CDC surprise requirements.
  9. Modify meal service and entertainment to meet social distancing.
  10. Lab testing day of embarkation and disembarkation. Disembarkation results must be provided before departing for final destination.
  11. Testing of anyone that comes down with illness.
  12. Voyage can be ended immediately in the event illness is detected.
  13. Document any deficiencies and create a report with volunteer test results.
  14. After CDC review the CDC may request modification and additional simulated voyages.

The CDC staff making up these requirements while they sat maskless in a bar must have been laughing their asses off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LizzyBee23 said:

I like this for the most part, but if it's about risk mitigation then you get into this hairy situation where people over a certain age should be masking and social distancing regardless of vaccination status. I'm just not sure we want to venture into this world where the cruise lines (or anyone else for that matter) are responsible for safeguarding your health beyond some level of reasonability.

The challenge is arriving at protocols that are easy to understand and implement.  

Once you start introducing too many versions and qualifiers it becomes more difficult to uniformly implement the protocols consistently.  Crew and guests are easily confused.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, twangster said:

Once you start introducing too many versions and qualifiers it becomes more difficult to uniformly implement the protocols consistently.

This describes the mess that is the unreadable list of pandemic mitigation measures the CDC has recommended since the WHO labeled it as such in late January 2020. The same thing goes for federal, state and local pandemic policy that was born of the bad advice from the CDC and the WHO.

While the Trump administration does have some responsibility for creating this mess, it is largely the CDC that holds the lion's share of it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

It's easy for vaccinated to endorse a vaccine or don't go approach but this has significant impact to Royal's primary target audience - multi-generational families.  

That's why I think Royal will strive to find a solution that doesn't take this approach if at all possible.

Yes, I think this is Royals concern. In numbers, the 0.5-11 year old passenger bracket may be low, but grandma may cancel her 75th birthday cruise, and the 6 cabins of passengers booked for this trip could decide to fly to a resort in Mexico if her 11 year old granddaughter is banned from the ship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, karl_nj said:

Yes, I think this is Royals concern. In numbers, the 0.5-11 year old passenger bracket may be low, but grandma may cancel her 75th birthday cruise, and the 6 cabins of passengers booked for this trip could decide to fly to a resort in Mexico if her 11 year old granddaughter is banned from the ship. 

Yeah, and that would be the exact scenario playing out for two of our three booked cruises. If our kids can't come, four other cabins would cancel in addition to ours. Anchor babies of a different sort.

It is all a numbers game, so I would understand being on the wrong side of it. I'm more worried about getting back to normal generally (see above re: wonky risk calculus), and am fine if cruises are a little slower to the table. I truly am worried about the new return to normalcy conditioned on masks being worn indefinitely or continued school shutdowns until vaccines are available for a population that honestly doesn't need them with any urgency. Not to mention the ethical ramifications of rushing through the process of administering vaccines to children who don't suffer the ill effects of the virus while the elderly, vulnerable unvaccinated populations in other parts of the world suffer the burden of  immeasurable loss and illness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 12thman said:

If any cruise line said passengers would need proof of vaccination that really doesn't mean anything, there are fake vaccine cards one can get. How would cruise lines enforce such a requirement?

 

20 hours ago, mook1525 said:

What makes you think they will use card that can be faked?

 

i don’t know what it will be but I am sure they will come up with the idea/system to verify vaccinations have been done.

 

no need to worry about something that hasn’t been decided 

 

2 hours ago, twangster said:

Like many I have concerns sharing health related information with private companies yet I can see why cruise lines need to understand what they they are dealing with as they strive to find the optimal protocols to implement on board from one sailing to another.

One solution is to implement different protocols for those that to choose to share their vaccine status.  Anyone who doesn't vaccinate or chooses not to disclose their status can sail but with more protocols.  Daily temperature checks, onboard testing every few days, tracelets, ideally no masks outdoors but masks while in transit indoors moving between cabins and dining for example.  This can accommodate families of all ages.  

To differentiate they could do what they do with certain youth Seapass cards - print them vertically. 

If you choose to share your fully vaccinated status you would get a normal looking SeaPass and face fewer protocols.  No daily temperature checks, no testing on board, no tracelets.  

Between the tracelet and the SeaPass card crew will know what protocols are required for each guest.  Fail to follow your assigned protocols and off you go at the next port of call.

I can already hear pushback to the idea of differentiating between guests but the alternative requires they assume no one is vaccinated and all Singapore protocols apply to everyone.  I don't want to sail like that, that's not why I chose to vaccinate.  I should not be penalized because someone else hasn't vaccinated.   

The technology is out to allow people to share their health status in a secure way. NY Has adopted the technology and implemented it. As a NYer, I've downloaded the APP but yet to input anything, want to actually read the terms & conditions; I am a bit reluctant giving it whatever personal information it requires to verify me. 

https://covid19vaccine.health.ny.gov/excelsior-pass

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-04-30/ny-excelsior-pass-is-a-vaccine-passport-no-matter-what-it-s-called

I'd imagine Royal Caribbean doing something along these lines, instead of the honor system, or relying on a port agent to determine if a CDC vaccination card is legit or not.

Edit: The Bloomberg article isn't the best, but it does point out many places are requiring these "vaccine passports" to enter.

Edited by sk8erguy1978
add edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what confuses people who call out HIPAA "rights" (which is funny as most people have no idea what the act REALLY protects) and cruising either with "fake cards" or "unvaccinated" realize that with the majority of the passengers and crew vaccinated and the vaccines with their high efficacy rates any breakouts would be rather limited and contact tracing much easier to do. What would happen is that if a breakout were to occur those that end up testing positive while on the cruise would be investigated (which will likely happen if a small outbreak occurs so the cruise lines can understand where their protocols failed) and their medical history REGARDING THE COVID19 VACCINE will likely be determined as this information IS ALLOWED TO BE GATHERED AND SHARED under HIPAA while the pandemic is still considered a health emergency. So yes, most people that "fake" these cards or are willing to go unvaccinated would likely be discovered IF an outbreak occurs. Children under 12 (as the EUA for 12-15 is likely to pass soon) would not be investigated because they can't get vaccinated, so the adults would be looked into. So by "not getting" the vaccine and cruising or "faking" it you MAY get away with it (as most will), it goes back to the IF something happens, you will get discovered.  I see this like drunk driving, sure people do it all the time and don't get caught, but when someone drinks and slams their car into someone else or a tree that their lives get ruined. Remember, the CARD may be flimsy and reproducible, I KNOW FOR A FACT your covid-19 vaccine immunization IS recorded. 

 

Is it worth it? I guess that's up to the individuals who opt to go that route.

 

As for those who are not aware, here are the HIPAA regulations regarding use of PRIVATE HEALTH DATA to investigate breakouts, etc:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Public Health Activities The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for public health authorities and others responsible for ensuring public health and safety to have access to protected health information that is necessary to carry out their public health mission. Therefore, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose needed protected health information without individual authorization:

• To a public health authority, such as the CDC or a state or local health department, that is authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability. This would include, for example, the reporting of disease or injury; reporting vital events, such as births or deaths; and conducting public health surveillance, investigations, or interventions. A “public health authority” is an agency or authority of the United States government, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate, as well as a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from, or under a contract with, a public health agency. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i). For example, a covered entity may disclose to the CDC protected health information on an ongoing basis as needed to report all prior and prospective cases of patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

• At the direction of a public health authority, to a foreign government agency that is acting in collaboration with the public health authority. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i).

• To persons at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition if other law, such as state law, authorizes the covered entity to notify such persons as necessary to prevent or control the spread of the disease or otherwise to carry out public health interventions or investigations. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(iv).

 

Source: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hipaa-and-covid-19-limited-hipaa-waiver-bulletin-508.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

The NY App is based solely on the fact when you get a vaccine in NY, you agree to have your vaccination stored in the state DB.

There have also been concerns about registering for the pass on the app as if you know someone's name, DOB and zip code, you can get their pass.

I was just using NY as an example, why I attached the Bloomburg article as well that points out other places looking to adopt it.

That easy huh? Not even the good old fashion - "which address is associated with you" and "which car did you own in 1996" type of questions? Yikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sk8erguy1978 said:

I was just using NY as an example, why I attached the Bloomburg article as well that points out other places looking to adopt it.

That easy huh? Not even the good old fashion - "which address is associated with you" and "which car did you own in 1996" type of questions? Yikes.

They may have since tightened it up, but at the time it was rolled out you had to pick those "personal" questions but it was multiple choice and it gave you unlimited chances to pick the right answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, karl_nj said:

Yes, I think this is Royals concern. In numbers, the 0.5-11 year old passenger bracket may be low, but grandma may cancel her 75th birthday cruise, and the 6 cabins of passengers booked for this trip could decide to fly to a resort in Mexico if her 11 year old granddaughter is banned from the ship. 

I couldn’t agree more…I have 5 suites booked on the Oasis for August and if my grand children are banned I will be cancelling them all!  The CDC needs to pull their thumb out of their mouth, get out of their fetal position, and stop imposing absurd requirements that are not supported by current information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

They may have since tightened it up, but at the time it was rolled out you had to pick those "personal" questions but it was multiple choice and it gave you unlimited chances to pick the right answer.

Looks like with the NY app it'll provide information that can be verified. Of course fake ID can be made, but at least it's a physical check.

Screenshot_20210430-134043.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, princevaliantus said:

Florida doesnt have a chance based on their argument which states, "that the lawsuit is 'likely to succeed on the merits of the case,' and it is therefore entitled to the injunction due to 'irreparable harm and hardships' created by the CDC’s actions." 

Moreover, considering that the cruiselines have gotten the go for mid-July pending meeting requirements, the Courts will most likely dismiss and/or adjourn to a date past July to render decision to see if the cruiselines did what they had to do for a mid-July opening. 

Its because the suits having teeth that the CDC has softened its tone greatly. Enough meat for that injunction to move forward that they got real sweet real quick. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, princevaliantus said:

Florida doesnt have a chance based on their argument which states, "that the lawsuit is 'likely to succeed on the merits of the case,' and it is therefore entitled to the injunction due to 'irreparable harm and hardships' created by the CDC’s actions." 

Moreover, considering that the cruiselines have gotten the go for mid-July pending meeting requirements, the Courts will most likely dismiss and/or adjourn to a date past July to render decision to see if the cruiselines did what they had to do for a mid-July opening. 

There are 5 elements to FL's law suit. Irreparable harm ..... is one of them. That is probably the weakest if it were to stand alone. That's not the case. 

IMO, the strongest arguments with case law cited to support them are the ones that allege that the CDC does not have the authority to impose the kind and length of restrictions to commerce that they have imposed through the NSO and by extension the CSO. That falls under the responsibility of Congress to enact laws to that effect.

Even in a declared PHE, which does authorize the Secretary of HHS broad powers, the NSO and CSO are discriminatory in that they target one business and, as they should apply broadly, they don't

The maritime law that is involved in this case is complex but fundamentally it boils down to one section within this area that allows HHS, on the recommendation of the maritime arm of the CDC to coordinate with DHS to prevent persons or cargo that are shown to provide a risk of spreading infectious disease from porting and off-loading such passengers or cargo in a US port.

Note that this authority implies an ongoing and existent threat. There is no such on-going threat. It is a presupposed threat and even in the broadest application of the law, current cruise ship operations since the middle of last year and demonstrably effective infection control protocols blow this presupposition out of the water.

We can't know how this will turn out but the FL law suit has way more than just a chance of succeeding. We'll know on the 12th. I still feel a ruling by the judge hearing the case that results in an injunction against enforcement of the CSO/NSO simply eliminates most of the complexity and questions about restarting. It's a best not a worse case outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, twangster said:

It's easy for vaccinated to endorse a vaccine or don't go approach but this has significant impact to Royal's primary target audience - multi-generational families.  

That's why I think Royal will strive to find a solution that doesn't take this approach if at all possible.

If they don't take this approach then only path forward for Royal is the CSO.

Like someone else pointed out this is all about optics and of course it isn't fair to the cruise industry to see them subjected to this kind of scrutiny.  If we are honest from July or whenever cruising resumes until November or perhaps even January  the cruise industry is going to be subjected to an unfair amount of scrutiny from both those in media and unfortunately those in politics.  It wouldn't surprise me to see all the major news outlets at Port Miami or Port Everglades the weekend cruising resumes and then right back out there the moment the cruises return looking for one passengers with a negative story so they can splash it across the 11 pm or 10 pm news.  Lord forbid if CNN shows up they will find any reason they can to criticize the cruise industry and run the story as breaking news every hour on the hour.

People should have a choice to get vaccinated or not but I think for those who choose no vaccination they may not be able to cruise until November maybe even January because the pressure and scrutiny cruise lines will be under for those first few months is going to be intense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Port Canaveral begins vaccinating cruise ship crew.

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2021/04/30/port-canaveral-becomes-first-u-s-port-start-vaccinating-cruise-crews/4896178001/

Port Canaveral on Friday became the first U.S. port to coordinate COVID-19 vaccine distribution to cruise ship crew members, in advance of a possible return to cruising in July.

The U.S. cruise industry has been shut down since March 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The vaccination of crew members will help accelerate a return to cruising.

---

It is expected that a number of other cruise ships will be docking at Port Canaveral in the coming weeks, so their crew members can receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

===

 

It also is possible that cruise ships not typically at Port Canaveral will be docking there so crew members can get vaccinated aboard the ships.

Port Canaveral said it developed its vaccination procedures in cooperation with the Parrish Healthcare Center, Canaveral Fire Rescue and cruise lines' medical personnel.

The port said up to 1,000 COVID-19 vaccination shots a day can be provided to vessel crew members, as well as to shoreside and waterside support personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct from the source.  It's interesting (to me at least) to see reference to a month of twice-weekly meetings between the CDC and the industry.

 

https://www.portcanaveral.com/About/Recent-News/Port-Canaveral-First-Port-in-U-S-to-Support-COVID-

Port Canaveral, FL – April 30, 2021 – Port Canaveral is the first U.S. port to sponsor COVID-19 vaccine distribution to port workers and vessel crew members in response to a Florida Public Health Advisory approved by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Surgeon General Scott A. Rivkees, MD issued on April 29 expanding vaccine eligibility to include individuals who are in the state for purpose of providing good or services for the benefit of residents and visitors of the State of Florida.
 
“We have been working closely with our cruise partners, the Florida Department of Health, and our port community to come up with a plan and timeline of vaccinating cruise ship crews that could begin the process for a safe return to cruising,” stated Capt. John Murray, Port CEO. “This expanded eligibility is significantly important for our cruise tourism business, and we’re proud of our efforts to help get this industry up and running.”
 
Port Canaveral developed its vaccination model in cooperation with the Parrish Healthcare Center at Cape Canaveral, Canaveral Fire Rescue, and cruise lines medical personnel. Up to 1,000 COVID-19 vaccination shots per day can be provided to vessel crew members, shoreside and waterside support personnel, which aligns with recommendations released this week by the federal Centers for Disease Control for a return to cruising in the U.S.
  
Port Canaveral officials consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and cruise line operators, as well as the CDC to develop its vaccination model to efficiently and expeditiously get vaccines disbursed to crew members and shoreside personnel. Ship operators responded positively to the expanded eligibility and vaccine doses were administered to personnel on Friday at the Port.
 
Yesterday, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new guidance, allowing cruise ships to sail with vaccinated crew and passengers as early as mid-July. The change to the restart timeline comes after a month of twice-weekly meetings between the CDC’s maritime team and the cruise industry and ports, including Port Canaveral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, twangster said:

Yesterday, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new guidance, allowing cruise ships to sail with vaccinated crew and passengers as early as mid-July. The change to the restart timeline comes after a month of twice-weekly meetings between the CDC’s maritime team and the cruise industry and ports, including Port Canaveral.

 

I don't believe this guidance has formally been released has it? The CDC website isn't updated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

I don't believe this guidance has formally been released has it? The CDC website isn't updated

Released to the industry but not publically on the website, or so it seems.

The public website may not be the source of all truth.  It will get updated in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, twangster said:

Released to the industry but not publically on the website, or so it seems.

The public website may not be the source of all truth.  It will get updated in due time.

I'm hoping they are still negotiating over the language.  I think an exemption for kids that cannot be vaccinated makes sense.  Maybe they don't count towards the announced percentages. We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, twangster said:

Port Canaveral begins vaccinating cruise ship crew.

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2021/04/30/port-canaveral-becomes-first-u-s-port-start-vaccinating-cruise-crews/4896178001/

Port Canaveral on Friday became the first U.S. port to coordinate COVID-19 vaccine distribution to cruise ship crew members, in advance of a possible return to cruising in July.

The U.S. cruise industry has been shut down since March 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The vaccination of crew members will help accelerate a return to cruising.

---

It is expected that a number of other cruise ships will be docking at Port Canaveral in the coming weeks, so their crew members can receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

===

 

It also is possible that cruise ships not typically at Port Canaveral will be docking there so crew members can get vaccinated aboard the ships.

Port Canaveral said it developed its vaccination procedures in cooperation with the Parrish Healthcare Center, Canaveral Fire Rescue and cruise lines' medical personnel.

The port said up to 1,000 COVID-19 vaccination shots a day can be provided to vessel crew members, as well as to shoreside and waterside support personnel.

University of Texas Medical Branch will be vaccinating crew on 2 Carnival ships at the Port of Galveston next week .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wordell1 said:

I'm hoping they are still negotiating over the language.  I think an exemption for kids that cannot be vaccinated makes sense.  Maybe they don't count towards the announced percentages. We will see.

Pretty challenging to say that unvaccinated kids are low risk in school but high risk on a ship.  

Either this age group involves risk or they don't.   Surrounded by mostly vaccinated adults it's hard to imagine there is risk.

Test them to board.  Test them mid-cruise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TXcruzer said:

University of Texas Medical Branch will be vaccinating crew on 2 Carnival ships at the Port of Galveston next week .

I think the issue of crew not being vaccinated will be completely cast aside by July 1. 

Even if they get a two shot vaccine with 4 weeks between and two weeks after second dose to reach maximum effectiveness there is a easy path to get there by mid-July.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, twangster said:

I think the issue of crew not being vaccinated will be completely cast aside by July 1. 

Even if they get a two shot vaccine with 4 weeks between and two weeks after second dose to reach maximum effectiveness there is a easy path to get there by mid-July.

I agree completely.

 

There are many challenges and obstacles to overcome in the near term, but crew vaccines, I feel, will not be one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 12thman said:

Curious...who's paying for the crew to get vaccinated? Currently when U.S. citizens get vax the Feds pay. It's good they are getting vaccinated and I'm definitely not opposed, just curious?  

There's no citizenship requirement for vaccines in the USA.  There are about 15 million legal residents of the USA that aren't citizens. And then you can get into people coming across the border, legally or illegally, to get vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Jennie Underwood, welcome to the forums!

There is no updated information yet about mask wearing on the Lido deck or other outdoor spaces. As reported by @Matt this article, NCL just made an update that removes the requirement for passengers to book ship-hosted excursions on their fully-vaccinated sailings. As NCL is part of the same Healthy Sail Panel as Royal, I think we can expect to see similar changes and evolutions in the protocols from Royal over the coming months. One of those may (I personally hope will) include a change in overall mask policy as the CDC continues to update its guidance on mask wearing.

That said, the overall policies on board might also be subject to requirements from the governments of the ports they're visiting. If those ports are all OK with fully-vaccinated sailings being mask-free in public outdoor spaces, then seeing that change is a lot more likely. But if any choose to be more cautious, at least in the beginning, then there could still be some delay around that particular change. Just as an example, the last I saw of Bermuda's policy said that even vaccinated travelers have to wear a mask in all public spaces, even outdoors; I haven't yet seen that updated on their tourism site, no idea if they will modify that soon or decide to remain ultra-cautious until enough of their own population is also vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may have been posted elsewhere but not in conjunction with crew vaccinations. On Friday, FL's Surgeon General stated masks are no longer required for vaccinated persons in FL .... ANYWHERE. That's indoors, outdoors, gatherings, e.g. concerts and sports events. 

The same sort of caveat applies however that @JLMoranposted above. Counties can impose stricter measures (with limits in FL) as long as they are consistent with Governor Desantis' EOs or guidelines published under this authority granted in PHEs. I was in a Costco and Publix today and there's no change in masking policies in either of those Broward Co. retail operations.

I think a no-masking required approach makes sense and the state's Surgeon general cited several factors weighing in on his guidance: (1) FL's positivity rate has been well below 10% for weeks. This is the gate required to meet requirements of the state's reopening plan to move from Phase 1 to 2 and 2 to 3. That metric has actually been hovering just at or slightly below 5%. There counties where it's higher than 5% but none above 10%, namely the Tri-County region of S. FL and a couple counties around Orlando and Tampa. (2) FL is hitting above 40% of state residents on vaccinations and (3) above 90% in high risk populations.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JeffB said:

I was in a Costco and Publix today and there's no change in masking policies in either of those Broward Co. retail operations.

 

These are private business's and are national companies that will have a policy made from their home office.  As a general rule, private business's can impose rules for their customers - an example would be a restaurant that requires ties and jackets.  These rules will likely stay as long as the CDC rules require masks.  

I applaud the state of FL for pushing the issue though, My fear is that the mask wearing will continue long past when it should.

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...