Jump to content

New CDC updates to CSO?


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

There is a reason that governments never tried wide spread lockdowns on countries before for pandemics. They do not work.

Actually, world governments did institute lockdowns during the 1918 Spanish Flu. There are published newspaper articles that several of my friends had shared with me showing the crazy parallels between then and now. As with now, the lockdowns were working to reduce the spread of the disease. And just like now, the big problem was that people needed to work and continue earning a living. Today we have multiple industry sectors that can work remotely, but they're basically all high-tech or phone-based (e.g, customer support and billing, or service booking businesses). Still tons of jobs that require getting out of the house and going to work.

Just like back then, masks were heavily promoted as a way to reduce infection risk. And just like today, they became politicized and large groups refused to wear them.

And if you go further back in history, you can see even then basic ideas of lockdown or isolation were attempted. When the bubonic plague was sweeping Europe, cities closed their gates to all incoming foreigners because they had no idea how it was spread. Ships were blockaded and merchant trains denied entry. Problem of course was that the disease is spread by fleas living on rats that just jumped ship and swam to shore, or were riding with the merchants and just entered the city via the sewers or other entry points.

So yes, widespread lockdowns historically don't work. But they absolutely have been tried before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JLMoran said:

So yes, widespread lockdowns historically don't work. But they absolutely have been tried before.

in other words history repeats itself and we never learn.  

The difference now is allowing a government to shutdown just one industry while allowing all other related industries a free pass.  

The 1398 equivalent would be like saying "ship rats are no good, land rats are welcome into the city!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JLMoran said:

Actually, world governments did institute lockdowns during the 1918 Spanish Flu. There are published newspaper articles that several of my friends had shared with me showing the crazy parallels between then and now. As with now, the lockdowns were working to reduce the spread of the disease. And just like now, the big problem was that people needed to work and continue earning a living. Today we have multiple industry sectors that can work remotely, but they're basically all high-tech or phone-based (e.g, customer support and billing, or service booking businesses). Still tons of jobs that require getting out of the house and going to work.

Just like back then, masks were heavily promoted as a way to reduce infection risk. And just like today, they became politicized and large groups refused to wear them.

And if you go further back in history, you can see even then basic ideas of lockdown or isolation were attempted. When the bubonic plague was sweeping Europe, cities closed their gates to all incoming foreigners because they had no idea how it was spread. Ships were blockaded and merchant trains denied entry. Problem of course was that the disease is spread by fleas living on rats that just jumped ship and swam to shore, or were riding with the merchants and just entered the city via the sewers or other entry points.

So yes, widespread lockdowns historically don't work. But they absolutely have been tried before.

Yes, I realize that localized lockdowns were put in place in 1918 but nothing like the one sized fits all lockdown that was tried in the US. Lockdowns only delay the spread unless they are so strict and draconian. 

And there are scientific, data driven reasons to question mask wearing unless we are talking about a properly fitted N95 mask when a virus is aerosolized. Mask mandates have not proven to stop the spread even among populations with high compliance. See Japan. In reverse, dropping mask mandates have not proven to increase the spread of Covid. see Texas. 

Virus going to virus as some would say. I am not saying that we shouldnt try to take mitigation measures. We definitely should. Protect the most vulnerable. But lockdowns have not shown to be effective and cause too much collateral damage to a society. Especially against a virus with a low death rate. If we were talking about something like Ebola, i would understand more harsh measure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, twangster said:

in other words history repeats itself and we never learn.  

The difference now is allowing a government to shutdown just one industry while allowing all other related industries a free pass.  

Exactly. You couldnt go down to a small business selling clothes that was shutdown but you could go to Wlamart and buy clothes or order from Amazon

Kill the local, small business but the corporate big box stores continue to thrive or even grow economically during a pandemic because their competition wasnt allowed to do business. 

Just like now, Casino Hotels open at full blast but The cruise industry is bleeding cash daily because of our ineffective CDC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger picture suggests the world's governments were ill prepared to deal with the SARS2 outbreak. There were exceptions in countries that deal with epidemic outbreaks more frequently than the US has had to. I can go down the list of US preparations that were made and then dismantled or placed in the circular file after the Swine Flu epidemic that laid out infrastructure, protocols and procedures to deal with a new virus and a new pandemic or bioterrorism. Plans were robust but the infrastructure to execute them was gutted during three successive administrations. So don't blame DJT.

The point is that we were warned in no uncertain terms that what is happening now with the SARS2 pandemic could happen and we need to be prepared to deal with it. Well, guess what ........

I commented elsewhere that the record in the US of government proactively identifying then preventing the occurrence of emergencies in the first place or if emergencies do occur preventing them from becoming catastrophes is stunningly bad. I don't think the rearranging of the deck chairs as in the Titanic that typically occurs in the aftermath of an emergency that turned into a catastrophe will be much different this time around.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I don't think the rearranging of the deck chairs as in the Titanic that typically occurs in the aftermath of an emergency that turned into a catastrophe will be much different this time around.  

The CDC will go completely into CYA mode citing "we tried to warn you" blah, blah, blah.  Given how ineffective they've been once in pandemic mode it calls into question a lot in the big picture.  

We need to rethink the whole approach and reimagine the concept of public health agencies possibly eliminating the CDC and replacing it with something that works.  That will never happen, too much effort required so the dodgy CDC will be around and even less effective the next time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@twangster That's too dark a take for me. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water applies.

The CDC has a lot of very smart people working inside of it. I could rattle off some significant contributions they've made since they became a government agency in 1946. But as is typical, the CDC has gotten incredibly big. There are over 10K people on the payroll in Atlanta alone and they sport a 1.5B salary budget out of an $11B total budget.

Their size and organizational structure (who's in charge or the Abbot and Costello gig, who's on first) is their biggest weakness and has contributed mightily to their bungling of the SARS2 pandemic. 

I'd advocate to reorganize to make one of their agencies more agile and responsive to the next pandemic that will almost certainly occur. I think that is also in some of the legislation already submitted to Congress but not yet fully deliberated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

in other words history repeats itself and we never learn.  

The difference now is allowing a government to shutdown just one industry while allowing all other related industries a free pass.  

The 1398 equivalent would be like saying "ship rats are no good, land rats are welcome into the city!"

Who you calling a land rat ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JeffB said:

@twangster That's too dark a take for me. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water applies.

The CDC has a lot of very smart people working inside of it. I could rattle off some significant contributions they've made since they became a government agency in 1946. But as is typical, the CDC has gotten incredibly big. There are over 10K people on the payroll in Atlanta alone and they sport a 1.5B salary budget out of an $11B total budget.

Their size and organizational structure (who's in charge or the Abbot and Costello gig, who's on first) is their biggest weakness and has contributed mightily to their bungling of the SARS2 pandemic. 

I'd advocate to reorganize to make one of their agencies more agile and responsive to the next pandemic that will almost certainly occur. I think that is also in some of the legislation already submitted to Congress but not yet fully deliberated.

During congressional hearing this week Fauci was asked how many people in his organization were vaccinated and he said over half and then said around 60%.

The FDA director gave the same answer as Fauci

The CDC director, Walensky, failed to give a percentage and just deflected and then landed on the answer that the government has not made vaccines mandatory for the CDC

What signal does that send to the general public when their leading Health Orgs dont have a high vaccination rate? How can we get to the 70% of US population to be vaccinated that the CDC and Fauci claims for Herd Immunity when they cant even get to 70% in their own organizations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

During congressional hearing this week Fauci was asked how many people in his organization were vaccinated and he said over half and then said around 60%.

The FDA director gave the same answer as Fauci

The CDC director, Walensky, failed to give a percentage and just deflected and then landed on the answer that the government has not made vaccines mandatory for the CDC

What signal does that send to the general public when their leading Health Orgs dont have a high vaccination rate? How can we get to the 70% of US population to be vaccinated that the CDC and Fauci claims for Herd Immunity when they cant even get to 70% in their own organizations. 

Do as I say, not as I do.

A fundamental principle of the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.  Passed down and adopted by the CDC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UNCFanatik said:

During congressional hearing this week Fauci was asked how many people in his organization were vaccinated and he said over half and then said around 60%.

The FDA director gave the same answer as Fauci

The CDC director, Walensky, failed to give a percentage and just deflected and then landed on the answer that the government has not made vaccines mandatory for the CDC

What signal does that send to the general public when their leading Health Orgs dont have a high vaccination rate? How can we get to the 70% of US population to be vaccinated that the CDC and Fauci claims for Herd Immunity when they cant even get to 70% in their own organizations. 

Not that I want to defend those guys, but the gov't can't ask its employees to get vaccinated nor can it ask if they've been vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Not that I want to defend those guys, but the gov't can't ask its employees to get vaccinated nor can it ask if they've been vaccinated.

Why not?  I believe they have every right to “ask.”  They may not be able to demand it and that may be debatable subject to exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Feds can't do anything that could be perceived as a mandate for employees to get an unapproved vaccine. 

Asking is not a mandate.  Are they not encouraging every eligible citizen and others to get the unapproved vaccine?  Another example of “Do as I say, not as I do”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this thread pretty carefully and it prompted me to go to the CDC web site to review

The complexity of these four documents combined is mindboggling. Delrio's characterization of them that they are "unworkable" and restart in July for NCL "just isn't possible" makes sense to me.....if NCL actually plans on 100% compliance.

I served 20y in the USMC. One of the jobs I had was Occupational Safety Officer for an entire air base. This is OSHA. I thought their regulations were complex and mostly unworkable for military style operations even in peace time. You train for war and getting your aircraft serviced and full systems operationally ready. Worrying about what kinds of ladders you can use, how high they can be, isn't part of the curriculum. We ignored almost everything in the OSHA manuals we were supposed to be complying with. Most of the rules were silly, much like most of the rules in the CSO. Compliance would have drastically down graded our mission ready status. Compliance with the CSO would unnecessarily complicate operating a ship and significantly downgrade the experience of passengers.

What the cruise lines are being asked to comply with, what they are asking employees to implement and supervise compliance with for subordinatecrew and passengers alike, is way worse than anything OSHA wanted Marine maintenance types to comply with......most of which we feigned compliance with and only when an OSHA dude was around. We also pencil whipped logs. Don't get me wrong. Safety was a prime concern but I did not need the feds and OSHA around to tell us how to be safe while maintaining aircraft, runways and hangers. We had very good safety procedures and protocols long before OSHA showed up when it was decided military basis would fall under their control and supervision sometime in the mid to late 70s. Similar situation, different circumstances.

Until I went through and read these docs this afternoon, in their entirety, I was starting to ease into the realizations that, OK, in the absence of a favorable court ruling that enjoins the entire CSO, we can do this. Changed my mind. What I hope is happening out of public view and behind the scenes is that the cruise lines, having prepared what I consider a completely workable infection control plan drawn up by an internal Safe-to-Sail Panel, will implement this if the CSO isn't enjoined and feign compliance with the CSO. I knew how to do this in my line of work back then and I knew how to do it safely and get away with it. I suspect that among the tough and disciplined breed that RCG's Ship's Officers are that they know how to get away with it too.

There really is no reasonable way to comply with everything that is included in the the four documents I list above to the letter and continue to make cruising an enjoyable experience for guests. Where there is alignment with the CSO and what the Safe-to-Sail panel came up with, sure, go for it. Beyond that feign it and pencil whip the logs.

Onward and upward.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Floski said:

Thank you, Jeff for your service.  I've met a lot of super impressive Marines in my job.

Thank you for all of the great posts and clarifications.

Ditto and I see a job for Jeff at RCG! Kind of a head of counter intelligence but intelligence isn’t the word......head of counter stupidity? Help me out here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 7:02 AM, smokeybandit said:

Interesting that proof of recovery is only good for the last 90 days.

That's because they believe that natural immunity only lasts 90 days.  That is what a nurse friend of mine told me.  I think it's hogwash.  I think that as normally happens this guidance will be updated once they have more months/years of data. There are always outliers in every situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, emmef said:

That's because they believe that natural immunity only lasts 90 days.  That is what a nurse friend of mine told me.  I think it's hogwash.  I think that as normally happens this guidance will be updated once they have more months/years of data. There are always outliers in every situation. 

I think it falls under the category of "government stupidity" ...

Hey someone wants to know how long we think natural immunity lasts, what do we tell them ?

Lets see its been 90 days since the first case showed up so i guess we know it last 90 days ... go with that .

A year later .... yep 90 days sounds good ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, emmef said:

That's because they believe that natural immunity only lasts 90 days.  That is what a nurse friend of mine told me.  I think it's hogwash.  I think that as normally happens this guidance will be updated once they have more months/years of data. There are always outliers in every situation. 

Which isn't true based on recent studies showing immunity going strong for 8+ months. Just another random number the CDC has come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, doesn't look like much.

Looks like just a FAQ added.  Which could be a good thing if this means the cruise lines don't need shore agreements if the local gov't says it doesn't want to.

 

What if a cruise ship operator is unable to document the approval of all local health authorities for a Phase 2A port agreement?

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Another clarification was that disembarkation testing is only required for cruises longer than 4 nights.

Why would the length in time of the cruise matter?  More pure nonsense from the CDC!  If it’s not required for a four day cruise it shouldn’t be required for any length cruise.  What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Loops said:

Why would the length in time of the cruise matter?  More pure nonsense from the CDC!  If it’s not required for a four day cruise it shouldn’t be required for any length cruise.  What am I missing?

The length of the cruise matters because longer cruises mean more time/opportunities for potential exposure to Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I think it's the incubation period of covid being 5 days.  

So if you embark on day four after exposure you are infected most of the time of your four day cruise.  And if you are exposed on day two or later while on the cruise you may disembark infected and undetected.  I have a serious issue with the reliability of testing… I know numerous people who were tested and received false positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Looks like just a FAQ added.  Which could be a good thing if this means the cruise lines don't need shore agreements if the local gov't says it doesn't want to.

I get the impression the cruise lines still need an agreement from at least one health authority. Think this cancels out the notion of needing an agreement from all local health authorities.

Impression I get is Florida Department of Health may have an agreement but Broward County Department of Health may opt out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more than ready to hear an actual update of substance from Royal other than boilerplate "we are continuing to work with the CDC" or "Yes, we will be sailing in July" for July cruising. I am now 60 days out from a scheduled July 17th sailing. I hope they do not wait until mid-june to announce plans for July cruises. I know I am being selfish here but I would really like to know soon so I can make alternate plans during a summer of high travel demand. 

I am routing for cruising restart very soon because this shut down is not based on science. 

The CDC announced 2 senior level people leaving from agency this week. I hope more of this happens and Walensky is shown the door as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More tweaks to the CSO for test cruises. Both completely trivial to truly testing these protocols.

 

  • The minimum number of required volunteer passengers for each simulated voyage must be at least 10% of the maximum number of passengers permitted onboard for the first two restricted voyages as per the terms of the cruise ship operator’s Phase 2A agreement with U.S. port and local health authorities.

 

Also allow for 95% of crew to be vaccinated for a test cruise, down from 98%

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...