Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Actually this is Florida saying "We don't feel that these shore agreements are necessary"

You may be right (I'm not a Florida attorney). I was looking at the language where they say "Nothing in state law stands in the way of cruise ship operations." But, the more I read that, I can see how that is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. 

I'm just hoping for a path forward soon. While I have my personal feelings, I think it's a lot less important what hoops the cruise lines have to jump through than it is that they finally KNOW and have clear guidance about what hoops they're going to have to jump through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WesKinetic said:

You may be right (I'm not a Florida attorney). I was looking at the language where they say "Nothing in state law stands in the way of cruise ship operations." But, the more I read that, I can see how that is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. 

I'm just hoping for a path forward soon. While I have my personal feelings, I think it's a lot less important what hoops the cruise lines have to jump through than it is that they finally KNOW and have clear guidance about what hoops they're going to have to jump through. 

 

I think that language was a jab at the CSO since the shore agreements are legal agreements. And Florida is saying "you want us to enter legal agreements to which we have no legal need to do"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark me as confused. The CSO stipulates two options between cruise lines and port service providers to meet the CDC's requirement to obtain contracts for such services: (1) negotiate contracts (I assume legally binding) (2) obtain letters from these service providers saying they won't negotiate contracts. 

The Rivkes letter does not address this. It simply says from a public health standpoint, RCG does not need to seek permission to sail. That's a ways from saying no contracts required. Moreover, the state PH director has no say regarding how RCG and port service providers interact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2021/05/21/florida-tells-royal-caribbean-it-does-not-need-its-permission-cruise-ships-sail

Florida tells Royal Caribbean it does not need its permission for cruise ships to sail

Guess this is how FL DOH, as one of the local health authorities, is wording their statement indicating they are declining to participate on deliberations and/or sign the Phase 2A port agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Mark me as confused. The CSO stipulates two options between cruise lines and port service providers to meet the CDC's requirement to obtain contracts for such services: (1) negotiate contracts (I assume legally binding) (2) obtain letters from these service providers saying they won't negotiate contracts. 

The Rivkes letter does not address this. It simply says from a public health standpoint, RCG does not need to seek permission to sail. That's a ways from saying no contracts required. Moreover, the state PH director has no say regarding how RCG and port service providers interact.

In lieu of documenting the approval of all local health authorities of jurisdiction, the cruise ship operator may instead submit to CDC a signed statement from a local health authority, on the health authority’s official letterhead, indicating that the health authority has declined to participate in deliberations and/or sign the Phase 2A port agreement, i.e., a “Statement of Non-Participation.”

 

1) It's on official letterhead.

2) It's signed

3) It's saying Florida has declined to participate and/or sign the port agreement

 

To me it fits the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

In lieu of documenting the approval of all local health authorities of jurisdiction, the cruise ship operator may instead submit to CDC a signed statement from a local health authority, on the health authority’s official letterhead, indicating that the health authority has declined to participate in deliberations and/or sign the Phase 2A port agreement, i.e., a “Statement of Non-Participation.”

 

1) It's on official letterhead.

2) It's signed

3) It's saying Florida has declined to participate and/or sign the port agreement

 

To me it fits the bill.

While mentioning the lawsuit ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these announcements this week are easy to group together, conflate intent and meaning and think RCG is getting close to a restart.

For my own peace of mind, this is my list of what is known: 

There's a lawful CSO.

RCG appears to be complying with its provisions and has communicated intent to start test cruises.

FL's request filed with the federal district Court to enjoin the CSO has been assigned to mediation.

Congress passed a bill temporarily suspending portions of the Jones Act which will temporarily suspend requirements for cruise ships enroute to Alaska from a US port to stop in Canadian ports. It's not the law yet.

FL has stated it will not participate in 2A requirements of the CSO regarding coordination with local health authorities. No permission from us is required to sail from FL ports. 

I'm not confident that the CSO's requirement for contracts between service providers who would deal with infected crew/pax e.g. hospitals, local hotels for quarantine, etc. Are covered by the Rivkes letter.

IOW, there are indicators things are moving toward a restart but not much has changed in terms of known start dates. Still all speculative and tentative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rhetorical question to support a view that there's a lot of talk, a lot of it inconsistent and/or confusing and little action. I knew the answer before I asked it. 

BTW, I can't check in to my Apex cruise out of Athens where there's no CDC to deal with but rather a more reasonable Greek government and PH authority. It's 56d from today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, twangster said:

Tell that to the people who expect luggage tags on day 89. 

I always spend a lot of time planning ahead for vacations. It's killing me to have to wait until the last minute to do all the normal things I would've done by now, check-in, tags, transport,  OBP, excursions, etc. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Mark me as confused. The CSO stipulates two options between cruise lines and port service providers to meet the CDC's requirement to obtain contracts for such services: (1) negotiate contracts (I assume legally binding) (2) obtain letters from these service providers saying they won't negotiate contracts. 

The Rivkes letter does not address this. It simply says from a public health standpoint, RCG does not need to seek permission to sail. That's a ways from saying no contracts required. Moreover, the state PH director has no say regarding how RCG and port service providers interact.

I agree Jeff, this letter does not meet the 2A requirement in my view. The language is vague and does not meet the burden that the CDC requested. It is not a refusal to negotiate as much as it is a rebuttal and disagreement to CDC guidance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 0_0 said:

I always spend a lot of time planning ahead for vacations. It's killing me to have to wait until the last minute to do all the normal things I would've done by now, check-in, tags, transport,  OBP, excursions, etc. ?

Frustrating and a huge deal to people that have to arrange flights, transfers, excursions & tours, etc. 

We do this to and amongst ourselves here but the lines have been vague and to some degree less than transparent. Sure, they have cause but the uncertainty is really bad PR. I don't buy the excuse they can't plan because the don't know. There are clear indications they know a whole lot more than the cruising public does. I think we have a right and reasons for complaining to the lines .... not that it will do any good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt said:

 

Just to be clear, which I don't believe RCL is (Celebrity, IMO, clearer)....... RCL will be recommending but not requiring vaccinations. That means you have a mix of non-vax and vax passengers. The CDC guidance in that circumstance is questionable. If You want to read about the confusion the latest CDC guidance that vaccinated people don't need to mask, read here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cdc-mask-guideline-question-answer-coronavirus-covid-pandemic

I can see why RCL appears to be hedging on protocols and procedures and also why they are planning on following the provisions of the CSO .... .whatever that document will evolve to before RCL sails it's first revenue cruise. RCL want's cover and I don't blame them. Here's what one expert (from the article linked to above) has to say about the vax passengers:

Quote

 

Robert Wachter, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco tweeted that he would go maskless indoors under three conditions (he's vaccinated):

If everyone in the room has been vaccinated.
If any unvaccinated people present are wearing masks.
Or if the local COVID-19 rate is so low that it’s unlikely that an unmasked, unvaccinated person might carry the virus.

 

Do you see the kinds of problems Fain courts? If RCL actually goes through with recommending but not requiring vaccination to sail he appears to be choosing to go down a path where RCL will get each ship they plan to sail in July through the test sailing process. Do you see how Lutoff-Perlo at Celebrity has eliminated issues Fain is setting himself up to deal with by requiring all passengers to be vaccinated? - no test cruises; straight to revenue sailings. Smart woman, IMO. Fain should think about taking a page from her play book.

On what appears to be Fain's approach, if EVERYONE gets a rapid PCR test during the boarding process, you're creating something of a bubble that then requires a second set of COVID tests in 72h to catch leakers. If someone pops positive, they get quarantined. You would also have nearly foolproof contact tracing (the App) and contacts of that positive also get quarantined. PCR tests after each port call or no port call where the level of circulating virus is high in that port? Fun....... I prefer Celebrity's approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fain's video today didn't seem all that concerned about meeting the 95% threshold (in the context of kids who can't yet get the vaccine).  He said, "on these cruises [cruises with higher numbers of kids]  we may not reach the 95% threshold, but  but even here, the vast majority will be vaccinated."

I don't know if that means they expect some waiver for when the numbers are close to 95% but not there, or the test cruises will be done on ships on family-heavy routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@smokeybandit, I take your point. I acknowledge the extremely low risk of un-vaxed under 16s of transmitting the virus but it is, nonetheless possible for this cohort to become infected and transmit the virus to other unvaccinated PAX. That's a risk Fain seems to be betting on the come line that (1) he will meet the 95% vaccinated requirement in a reduced capacity circumstance, e.g., for 3000 guests on a mega-ship normally accommodating 6000, you'll need to have less than 150 under 16s. (2) He won't have to deal with a scenario where kid # 151 has to be turned away. 

If this is the path he is actually going down, not only does he have the risk of even one or two infections happening on a ship but he has to deal with the eventuality that he'll get swamped with under 16s without a defined path (that we know of) of how is going to deal with that scenario. I think that's dumb compared with Celebrity's - albeit less likely to have that many kids aboard - approach. I suspect he knows more about where the CDC is actually going with the CSO than we know about because, he and the people around and advising him are not dumb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Fain's video today didn't seem all that concerned about meeting the 95% threshold (in the context of kids who can't yet get the vaccine).  He said, "on these cruises [cruises with higher numbers of kids]  we may not reach the 95% threshold, but  but even here, the vast majority will be vaccinated."

I don't know if that means they expect some waiver for when the numbers are close to 95% but not there, or the test cruises will be done on ships on family-heavy routes.

Im hoping it means us UK travellers whose children wont be eligible for a vaccine can still cruise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JeffB said:

@smokeybandit, I take your point. I acknowledge the extremely low risk of un-vaxed under 16s of transmitting the virus but it is, nonetheless possible for this cohort to become infected and transmit the virus to other unvaccinated PAX. That's a risk Fain seems to be betting on the come line that (1) he will meet the 95% vaccinated requirement in a reduced capacity circumstance, e.g., for 3000 guests on a mega-ship normally accommodating 6000, you'll need to have less than 150 under 16s. (2) He won't have to deal with a scenario where kid # 151 has to be turned away. 

If this is the path he is actually going down, not only does he have the risk of even one or two infections happening on a ship but he has to deal with the eventuality that he'll get swamped with under 16s without a defined path (that we know of) of how is going to deal with that scenario. I think that's dumb compared with Celebrity's - albeit less likely to have that many kids aboard - approach. I suspect he knows more about where the CDC is actually going with the CSO than we know about because, he and the people around and advising him are not dumb. 

Surely if the adults on -board are vaxxed, the possibility of an unvaxxed child passing it to a vaxxed adult and then becoming symptomatic are miniscule?  This is how it will have to be in the future, its just a shame the CDC cant deal with this as the low risk it is! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2021 at 10:54 AM, nate91 said:

These updates have been so incremental that my expectations are low. What will it be, we only have to wear masks between bites if we are NOT chewing now? Maybe hot tub distancing will drop from six feet to five feet? Maybe our majestic CDC overlords will allow us an extra person in the theater!

I've yet to read any CDC guideline updates in regards to drinking protein smoothies laced with Kraken Dark Rum outside in the Solarium...mask, or no mask? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JeffB said:

@smokeybandit, I take your point. I acknowledge the extremely low risk of un-vaxed under 16s of transmitting the virus but it is, nonetheless possible for this cohort to become infected and transmit the virus to other unvaccinated PAX. That's a risk Fain seems to be betting on the come line that (1) he will meet the 95% vaccinated requirement in a reduced capacity circumstance, e.g., for 3000 guests on a mega-ship normally accommodating 6000, you'll need to have less than 150 under 16s. (2) He won't have to deal with a scenario where kid # 151 has to be turned away. 

If this is the path he is actually going down, not only does he have the risk of even one or two infections happening on a ship but he has to deal with the eventuality that he'll get swamped with under 16s without a defined path (that we know of) of how is going to deal with that scenario. I think that's dumb compared with Celebrity's - albeit less likely to have that many kids aboard - approach. I suspect he knows more about where the CDC is actually going with the CSO than we know about because, he and the people around and advising him are not dumb. 

From a susceptibility standpoint, even with the vaccine those over 65 are more likely to be hospitalized with symptomatic COVID than unvaccinated kids. If you take that to also mean there are plenty of people in that cohort walking around with asymptomatic or lightly symptomatic disease, then it makes sense to test and require additional protections for that age group as well if your goal is to eliminate the possibility of any virus transmitting on a ship.

I would venture that the first cases of transmission detected on board will be among the older group, as they make up a bigger percentage of the passengers on Alaska sailings and it doesn't seem like they will be asked to socially distance onboard by virtue of having had the vaccine. It's also far.more likely someone in that group brings the virus onboard as they are unlikely to mount a fully sterilizing immune response and won't be tested (you could also say the same for anyone who mounted a less than ideal immune response for some reason, or who got J&J without a natural infection to boost). To my mind, that's just a consequence of life in a world full of pathogens and good medicine, but if that breaks your success criteria you may need to work on a new definition. Also, given that, it seems needlessly punitive to ask more from children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LizzyBee23 said:

To my mind, that's just a consequence of life in a world full of pathogens and good medicine, but if that breaks your success criteria you may need to work on a new definition. Also, given that, it seems needlessly punitive to ask more from children.

This is key. "Breaks you success criteria." Who is setting this? It's a combination or the highly unrealistic, zero risk approach the CDC took with the initial CSO and that RCL appears to be OK with it.

It's not OK with lines that have directed everyone needs to be vaccinated to cruise. Period. Full stop.

Look, this isn't an easy decision for a cruise line that courts families.  I get the fence straddling. Nonetheless, I think it's stupid for RCL to pursue a strategy where you'll have a mix of vaxed and un-vaxed aboard. Complicates everything for the reason you site @LizzyBee23 .

OTH, the risk of this happening...... the first cases of transmission detected on board will be among the older group, as they make up a bigger percentage of the passengers on Alaska sailings and it doesn't seem like they will be asked to socially distance onboard by virtue of having had the vaccine. It's also far.more likely someone in that group brings the virus onboard as they are unlikely to mount a fully sterilizing immune response and won't be tested (you could also say the same for anyone who mounted a less than ideal immune response for some reason, or who got J&J without a natural infection to boost).

...... is so low as to be dismissed. The political reality makes it an unacceptable risk to take and therefore the wisest course seems to me to be to require vaccination of all who sail over 12/16. In July and probably through September, you've got cover if you follow that approach. You don't if you accept a hybrid mix of passengers. Hopefully by end of September, none of this will matter.

 

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...