DeSantis/Florida wins prelim injunction over CDC

[smokeybandit]

8 minutes ago, Galveston Steve said:

Wow. Glancing through this 124 page order, the judge seems to slap the CDC down throughout his order. A few examples: 

• "the expansive breadth of authority asserted by the conditional sailing order to microscopically regulate a multi-billion- dollar industry is breathtaking."
• "the conditional sailing order imposes an indiscriminate and burdensome conditioning of free pratique that amounts to an unprecedented detention of an entire fleet of recreational cruising vessels."
• "CDC’s authority to issue the conditional sailing order remains suspect."
• "In short, none of the regulations invoked by CDC justifies the conditional sailing order."
• "CDC cites no historical precedent in which the federal government detained a fleet of vessels for more than a year and imposed comprehensive and impossibly detailed “technical guidelines” before again permitting a vessel to sail."
• "Thus, although CDC enjoys the authority to temporarily detain a vessel and to condition pratique, that authority is not boundless."
• "In sum, defining “transmission” as a single human-to-human infection, CDC claims authority to impose nationwide any measure, ... to reduce to “zero” the risk of transmission of a disease — all based only on the director’s discretionary finding of “necessity." That is a breathtaking, unprecedented, and acutely and singularly authoritarian claim."

And on and on it goes with the judge slapping the CDC for its unlawful overreach.

You truncated the most eye-opening one

 

One is left to wonder, given the persistent risk of transmission of a communicable disease and, in fact, the frequent, debilitating, and sometimes deadly history of transmission of a communicable disease, whether the director of CDC could have — or, perhaps, should have — generally shut down sexual intercourse in the United States or, at the very least, imposed in accord with Section 264(a) strict requirements for inspection, disinfection, sanitation, and “other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary” to reduce to “zero,” for example, the human-to-human transmission of AIDS or syphilis or herpes

[AshleyDillo]

9 minutes ago, Galveston Steve said:

And on and on it goes with the judge slapping the CDC for its unlawful overreach.

Oh yes..I quite enjoyed that.  Some very tongue in cheek comments peppered throughout.  

[WesKinetic]

Deleted

[WesKinetic]

2 hours ago, JeffB said:

 Therefore, the applicable law get down to EEOC regulations that permit businesses to establish their own policies for regulating work place halth and safety as long as it isn't discriminatory. So far, that's been upheld in the TX case. My view that the Desantis bad won't stand up to a court challenge. Hard to say how this will pan out. It's an open question. As of now, it appears RCL isn't going to confront Desantis. That could change. 

 

I know at one point, Norwegian was pretty adamant that they wanted to require vaccines. Will be curious to see if/how they choose to move forward. 

[Cruising With JT]

Whew well this is good news for anyone booked on Alaska including myself: https://www.ktoo.org/2021/06/18/judge-rules-in-floridas-favor-in-cdc-lawsuit-but-alaskas-cruise-season-is-still-on

[danv3]

9 hours ago, Ampurp85 said:

I don't think much will change except maybe how Vax'd individuals will be treated. Mask will probably be optional for those individuals and mandatory for the un-vax.

I don't think they will dramatically increase capacity or introduce more of the fleet either. RCG has always said the restart would be slow and methodical. I just think it is more-so 100% certainty that cruising is back to the US.

This.  There will be some changes in policies but nothing groundbreaking.  Perhaps they'll start getting ships back into service a little bit faster now that they don't have to do test cruises after mid-July, but even that I think is limited more by staffing and other practical considerations more than whether the CSO is in place.

[Jill]

I don’t think much will change as far as protocols go. Masks will likely be dropped for vax’d. 
 

The cruise lines DON’T want outbreaks. They can’t afford it. I think the healthy sail protocols will be the norm. 
 

No test cruises= fleet able to get going

[ConstantCruiser]

It does free the cruise lines from being beholden to the whims of the CDC.  

They don't have to expend vast amounts of energy asking and negotiating with the CDC on a ship by ship basis for the next several months, waiting for the CDC to make a change and then investing countless hours to redo process and procedures based on the latest outdated CDC requirements. 

Cruise lines can now choose when and where to restart and what protocols they will use.  They can be agile in responding and adapting as the situation unfolds (the CDC is not agile).

It also saves the industry millions of dollars.  Test sailings cost money.  They consume vast amounts of fuel and crew salaries have to be paid.  Test cruises have to be resupplied with vast amounts of food and other provisions.  Port fees and taxes have to be paid yet they can't charge passengers anything.  Pilots have to be paid.  Longshoreman have to be paid.  Terminal contractors doing things like check in have to be paid.  All the while test cruises are generating zero revenue. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars saved per ship for a beleaguered industry shut down by the government.   

[Galveston Steve]

50 minutes ago, Jill said:

I don’t think much will change as far as protocols go. Masks will likely be dropped for vax’d. 
 

The cruise lines DON’T want outbreaks. They can’t afford it. I think the healthy sail protocols will be the norm. 
 

No test cruises= fleet able to get going

I definitely agree with this as it pertains to this situation with Covid and cruise ships.  However the longer-lasting impact will be 124 pages of judicial precedent that says this type of government control and overreach is unlawful and harmful.

[Baked Alaska]

11 hours ago, Galveston Steve said:

 

• "CDC’s authority to issue the conditional sailing order remains suspect."
• "CDC cites no historical precedent in which the federal government detained a fleet of vessels for more than a year and imposed comprehensive and impossibly detailed “technical guidelines” before again permitting a vessel to sail."
• "Thus, although CDC enjoys the authority to temporarily detain a vessel and to condition pratique, that authority is not boundless."

[DunwoodyDad]

1 hour ago, ConstantCruiser said:

It does free the cruise lines from being beholden to the whims of the CDC.  

They don't have to expend vast amounts of energy asking and negotiating with the CDC on a ship by ship basis for the next several months, waiting for the CDC to make a change and then investing countless hours to redo process and procedures based on the latest outdated CDC requirements. 

Cruise lines can now choose when and where to restart and what protocols they will use.  They can be agile in responding and adapting as the situation unfolds (the CDC is not agile).

It also saves the industry millions of dollars.  Test sailings cost money.  They consume vast amounts of fuel and crew salaries have to be paid.  Test cruises have to be resupplied with vast amounts of food and other provisions.  Port fees and taxes have to be paid yet they can't charge passengers anything.  Pilots have to be paid.  Longshoreman have to be paid.  Terminal contractors doing things like check in have to be paid.  All the while test cruises are generating zero revenue. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars saved per ship for a beleaguered industry shut down by the government.   

Completely agree with all of this.  If this means removal of the test cruise silliness, that is outstanding.  That is a giant hurdle and cost the cruise lines can skip and get back to business.  

[JeffB]

Great comments in this thread. only if to organize my thoughts on yesterdays impactful event I'm writing this:

There seems to be several real concerns among posters on the entire blog about sailing with kids, vaccination requirements to board, masking and distancing. Did yesterday's ruling address any of these?

Judge Merryday only touched tangentially on one of these concerns - vaccinations. He mentions them as being a means by which the re-start of cruising could have happened more quickly if the CDC had anticipated them and then reacted by adjusting sailing requirements as the vaccine roll-out accelerated and it became obvious how effective the vaccines were in blocking transmission - a critical concern in congregate setting like cruise ships. My reading of his comments seem to me to have been used to illuminate the ineptitude of the CDC in adapting to the changing science ..... something he mentions they promised to do and didn't.

He mentions briefly masking and distancing in the context of those being effective mitigation measures aboard cruise ships.

I'm going to default to the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations and list them below because I see these being fundamental in replacing the CSO. They are going to impact our cruising experience going forward. Below are the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations in red followed by my comments

When returning to sailing, cruise operators should adjust guest and crew load factors in a manner that allows for appropriate physical distancing on board in accordance with applicable guidance, taking into consideration the size and design of each ship. This leaves a lot of wiggle room. My sense is that cruise lines will push this limit up without the CDC breathing down their necks with threats of fines or de-certification. I don't have a problem with higher load factors. From what I'm seeing there's plenty of room for more pax ..... if demand is there. I feel that the risk of disease spread as a function of numbers of pax and crew is over-blown.

To prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, cruise operators should require guests and crew to wear cloth face coverings/face masks in accordance with CDC recommendations. That's a good way to present this Healthy Sail Panel recommendation. Most importantly they are modifiable to fit the health circumstance at any given time, 

At this point, the CDC has advised that for vaxed or unvaxed people, no masks needed out doors(unvaxed should mask if physical distancing cannot be maintained) Vaccinated persons do not need to mask indoors subject to local and business regulations. There are various rejoinders on masking that appear in different places at the CDC web site and are not entirely clear to me: mixed gatherings of vaxed and unvaxed indoors or outdoors where physical distancing cannot be maintained, children in summer camp. CDC currently recommends masking in "certain" settings but then don't define what those are, most notably not mentioning cruise ships. At camps where not everyone is vaccinated, the guidance says, vaccinated people do not need masks. But unvaccinated people are “strongly encouraged” to wear masks indoors, and they should wear masks outdoors in crowds or when close to others for prolonged periods. You can draw your own conclusions based on this less than crystal clear guidance from the CDC on how ships will implement masking guidelines. Based on the foregoing CDC recommendations, I'd like to see this simple set of mask rules:

• Vaccinated guests sailing from US ports do not need to mask aboard ship, indoors or outdoors.
• Unvaccinated guests sailing from US ports, including children 2 and older, as a courtesy to all guests, are strongly encouraged to mask when physical distancing cannot be maintained indoors or out doors.
• Masking is not required during meals while seated and eating or drinking. Please observe and maintain physical distancing of tables and bar stools placed as such for your health.
• Masking is not required when using pools or exercising in shipboard facilities where exercise equipment will be spaced to allow for physical distancing.
• When sailing from or visiting foreign ports compliance with local regulations for masking and distancing is required. You will be advised at least 24h in advance of arriving at a foreign terminal for embarkation or foreign port arrival for debarkation of country specific COVID restrictions along with masking and distancing rules for guest remaining on board or debarking.

Cruise operators’ facilities on board the ship, at terminals, and at cruise line-owned and operated destinations should be modified to promote and facilitate physical distancing in accordance with the CDC recommendation of a distance of at least six feet. Pretty straight forward.

The Healthy Sail Panel does not address vaccination recommendations. That's because when the panel did its work, vaccines were months away. Then the CSO took over.  All the recommendations I listed above are described in column format with the first column describing the recommendations and the last two being marked with an M (modifiable based on current conditions) or K (keep as is). The three above are all marked as M meaning there is very likely some changes coming to this document, in particular about vaccination requirements to sail. If I have it right, the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations will become more formalized and appear as preferred standards going forward and will replace most if not all of the CSO.

Here's the vaccination policy that I think makes sense - YMMV

From ports where no vaccination policy has been established by either federal or state regulators or state regulations prevent us from requiring it:

Vaccination is strongly recommended. If you are eligible and able, you should get vaccinated. You may voluntarily disclose your vaccination status. If you choose not to disclose your status or disclose you are not vaccinated, you will be subject to additional testing and screening protocols before boarding and during your cruise. Testing will be at the expense of the cruise line. As a courtesy to other guests we ask that you maintain physical distancing and mask indoors at all times except seated while eating or drinking or exercising in shipboard facilities where exercise equipment will be spaced to allow for physical distancing; mask outdoors when physical distancing cannot be maintained except when using pools, No other restrictions will apply while you are onboard unless local rules require them 

From ports where vaccine policy has been established by either federal or state regulators:

Local vaccination policy will be followed. In cases where vaccination is required by federal or local authorities, during the booking process you will be made aware of this and attest that you have been vaccinated. You will be required to provide proof of vaccination before boarding and will be denied boarding if you are unable to do so. A full refund will be offered (conditions apply). 

If you haven't seen the Healthy Sale Panel recommendations, have a look. They are a model of clarity and simplicity and put the CSO and all the garbage in it to shame. I hope that thing gets completely scrapped:

https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/healthy-sail-panel-full-recommendations.pdf?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=44e14835197c003e83ddb8bdf6d9ce579c4fc627-1624108474-0-AbAoaZV5nWautJlvQXaxWMW0boJtWNa5YcTsRY7L-nGUHd8aPhFl2JYOVne4sbTgbCvzFcblWuOstQQinCiDgEYPBkEIRXAHWgVdbIjMFMR_xPeNLC8uPhoKhOh9mHplBLDb_vxrDdX9MAoRLKZcZ2DVHIqVr7l2UXocJq310hKydaZA1D7kHq104SoBy1indVAu4ue9EcR9T-AFOysD1LJJVFMmCURJUQeAnDe6NlAW_s2OGbfrjK7FHpOPnLEntkQVYoZYWOASPBAdXyHZnGy1Y9o-h_5-klqLc4Cv6zNxgz6cj0KtcjRsjM4PwOwo9Ar6z4pTFEz_LrLhZXEzsQI635TRd-QabYWefEb647r2PVeJtsDevBxyFRisB_ztrpCxihSFwzFHVwKfWbwoJjeb5lOFV8WkFxkWQXf5Lu0LA3nXLWY7ADC1a6Nr-NgWR7LTs0GmiJ6Et9d-TsXOaxTTD3Mv-M_lGqKvFxXt5VkL

[smokeybandit]

1 hour ago, DunwoodyDad said:

Completely agree with all of this.  If this means removal of the test cruise silliness, that is outstanding.  That is a giant hurdle and cost the cruise lines can skip and get back to business.  

It would also mean no painful shore agreements needed.

[CGTLH]

10 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

It would also mean no painful shore agreements needed.

This was probably the biggest hurdle from the CDC.

[MrMarc]

Ok if, as many people, including this Judge (even of not directly) that there is no science behind masking and distancing, why does he point to it as reasons (along with vaccination) for the infection rate dropping and remaining low?  It seems to me that the CDC could come up with a limited order that includes these elements that would be within the Judge's conditions. So everyone celebrating the cruise lines freedom to do whatever they want might want to wait a month or so.  Even if the CDC totally drops this, which I think is highly unlikely, the cruise lines are going to have to come up with protocols on their own, making it more likely that there may be liability concerns despite waivers and releases, especially on previously booked cruises. So I think it may be possible that we end up with restrictions that no one likes.  But at a minimum, if things were uncertain before, they are in total chaos right now.

[smokeybandit]

 

12 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

the cruise lines are going to have to come up with protocols on their own

They've had them in place for months

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/healthy-cruising-panel

[DunwoodyDad]

56 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Ok if, as many people, including this Judge (even of not directly) that there is no science behind masking and distancing, why does he point to it as reasons (along with vaccination) for the infection rate dropping and remaining low?  It seems to me that the CDC could come up with a limited order that includes these elements that would be within the Judge's conditions. So everyone celebrating the cruise lines freedom to do whatever they want might want to wait a month or so.  Even if the CDC totally drops this, which I think is highly unlikely, the cruise lines are going to have to come up with protocols on their own, making it more likely that there may be liability concerns despite waivers and releases, especially on previously booked cruises. So I think it may be possible that we end up with restrictions that no one likes.  But at a minimum, if things were uncertain before, they are in total chaos right now.

Why would they be any different than what they are doing right now on Adventure?

[JeffB]

It's unfortunate that people who cruise and more specifically people who participate in or just read this blog don't know that RCG has Healthy Sail protocols in place. They are available at the RCL and Celebrity web sites - easy to read, clear and mostly understandable given what the lines are dealing with.

Thursday as protocols began to settle down, I found a new table at the Celebrity web site that described vaccine requirements, home port requirements, rules for masking on board and ashore and travel home testing, all arranged in columns by the 6 ships Celebrity currently has in operations. Plain as day what I need to be prepared for and expect if I'm sailing on one of those 6 ships.

As far as these particular protocols go, there's no chaos following the Merryday ruling. That ruling really does not impact any of the health and safety protocols ...... for now. I suspect things will change going forward but I also expect without the CDC directly involved and forcing square pegs into round holes like they seem to do, the lines will do a very good job of improving upon what is already pretty good stuff. I'm very optimistic.

I expect the biggest changes to occur across the entire industry will be some degree of standardization of vaccination policy and requirements for adults and children. There are some notably different approaches among the lines to what they are doing wrt to kids and various state regs that prevent businesses from asking for proof of vaccination to enter or receive services. The Merryday ruling does not address any of this except to mention vaccines tangentially.

IMO, CDC's mask guidance isn't as clear as it should be. There are lot of reasons for that; there are no excuses. The CDC has been putting out confusing information about masking from the beginning and it continues. One thing for sure is that a properly worn, properly constructed face mask reduces transmission of SARS2 - that is not debatable. Human behaviors make masking more or less effective but, they work in varying degrees depending on specific, controllable factors. I commend this plain, science based, easy to read and understand article from Nature for those who continue to think masking is ineffective and unnecessary aboard a cruise ship:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

[MrMarc]

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

 

They've had them in place for months

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/healthy-cruising-panel

But no one is going to like those.

[smokeybandit]

8 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

But no one is going to like those.

They would need to be updated, sure. But the point is the cruise lines aren't starting from scratch for their own protocols

[MrMarc]

9 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

They would need to be updated, sure. But the point is the cruise lines aren't starting from scratch for their own protocols

I agree, but it will take time to reconvene the panel and generate new recommendations.  In any event, nothing is really going to be decided in the next 30 days unless Florida agrees to allow proof of vacation, which is the only way I can imagine the case settling.  And then we have the appellate process, hopefully expidited.

[smokeybandit]

8 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I agree, but it will take time to reconvene the panel and generate new recommendations.

I'm guessing behind the scenes they've been adjusting them

[MrMarc]

14 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I'm guessing behind the scenes they've been adjusting them

Great point.

[JeffB]

Another poster asked, "I wonder if (name your cruise line executive) knew that the Merryday ruling was coming on Friday." I'd argue a select group of upper level execs already knew as much as 10 days ago when oral arguments ended what the outcome was going to be. How? Lawyers involved in writing Merryday's opinions and rulings aren't sworn to scecrecy. Neither are the hordes of clerks in his office who get the briefs, oral argument transcripts and the actual wrtings of Judg Merryday himself. Stuff like this leaks out.

I took from the quotes that Merryday placed in his ruling that were made by CDC's lawyers that the Judge didn't think much of their oral arguments. At the Federal and District Court levels if one has access to exchanges that go on between the judge and the attorney's presenting arguments on both sides (these were not in the public domain) you'll have a very good idea of where the Judge hearing these arguments will come down.  IOW, people outside Merryday's office knew and probably talked innocently about it with colleagues who then talked to cruise line people who then ......you get the idea. Cruise execs knew. Maybe not specific details but they knew the CSO was going to get enjoined and that for all-intent-and-purpose, it was dead.

So, yeah, the lines have a head start on what they would like to do, how they will interact with the CDC between now and July 2nd in moving forward - like politely shit-canning most parts of the CSO. What is RCL's first sailing from a FL port? July 2nd? Hmmmmm, not only do I think we'll see new governing standards in some yet TBD form (I like the Healthy Sail Panel with mods but at this point it could be anything from a modified CSO to a completely no document, but, we'll see them pretty quickly. 

One question that I don't know the answer to or have any gut feeling about is what entity is going to represent a united group of cruise lines? CLIA? The Healthy Sail Panel in some form authorized to act on behalf of the cruise line's collective interests? Remember, the lines are competitors for market share and gaining it is absolutely critical in the short term. I'll be paying attention to this.

[danv3]

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Another poster asked, "I wonder if (name your cruise line executive) knew that the Merryday ruling was coming on Friday." I'd argue a select group of upper level execs already knew as much as 10 days ago when oral arguments ended what the outcome was going to be. How? Lawyers involved in writing Merryday's opinions and rulings aren't sworn to scecrecy. Neither are the hordes of clerks in his office who get the briefs, oral argument transcripts and the actual wrtings of Judg Merryday himself. Stuff like this leaks out.

I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that Judge Merryday's "hordes" of either two or three law clerks are absolutely sworn to secrecy.  

Lawyers could certainly speculate about what the ruling would be based on comments made at the hearings, Merryday's background and prior rulings, etc., but I don't believe for a minute that anyone had any notice of the outcome until the option was filed and the attorneys of record got an email telling them an order was entered.  

[JeffB]

26 minutes ago, danv3 said:

I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that Judge Merryday's "hordes" of either two or three law clerks are absolutely sworn to secrecy. 

So was Mark Felt ..... also known as Deep Throat. People talk sometimes casually in social settings sometimes they are purposeful leakers like Felt was. Trump sent Justice Department folks to track down leakers in his administration. It's kind-of a thing these days.

I should have been more selective with my description of "clerks" generally implying they were law clerks - and you're probably right. Lawyers close to their Federal or District Court judge aren't going to risk their careers getting caught leaking.  The gal or guy answering the phone or entering documents? Maybe.

I still hold that there is "high" probability that upper level cruise line execs knew what was coming down after oral arguments concluded. I also could be wrong.

[JeffB]

The local Sunday papes are always interesting following a event (in this case the Merryday Ruling on Friday) that has a major impact on the state/region. I was let down. Since Friday, I've been looking for commentary on the issues of constitutional law and the separation of powers Merryday raised. NADA.

The Sun Sentinel did a piece that covered the basics and, for the most part, had everything right (not always the case with them). The importance of Judge Merryday's ruling on issues that go way beyond the cruise industry either aren't fully understood or are, writers feel, just to complicated to write a focused news story on.

We did have the usual negative commentary from the infamous Jim Welker - not a licensed attorney but portrays himself like he is (he's not listed as member of the FL bar). His pertinent comment was that cruise ships will have infections. Stuff like that isn't useful.

It will be interesting to see this coming week how Alaska and Texas react. I can't imagine they'll sit on this opportunity to eliminate the CDC's grip on their state's cruise economies via the CSO now that Merryday made it crystal clear that the CDC enacted both the NSO and CSO, creating them as de-facto laws, without the lawful authority to do so - IOW, they can't be enforced...... in FL for now it seems but I suspect his ruling will have much wider impact over the short term. 

I think the stand-out big question over the nest two weeks and going into July is this: Will Governor Desants cave on his vaccination ban? Certainly RCG is working around the Desantis Ban but it appears Carnival and NCL will challenge it. Others who have scheduled sailings out of FL ports in July/August (Disney, MSC, ?) haven't stated their positions clearly as in they've only publically stated when asked, "we're working on protocols" or like statements.

I've argued Desantis is on shaky legal grounds with his ban. For now, he's 1-0 with his stance that has him focusing on his efforts to "limit government over-reach and intrusion into our lives." I'm 100% behind him on this objective ..... but not when it comes to vaccinating Floridians and especially those, both residents and non-residents, that want to cruise out of FL ports.

You may not have caught this but one of CDC's arguments they advanced in support of the CSO and that appears in Friday's 124 page ruling was a study that showed the likelihood of a SARS outbreak on a cruise ship is 62% higher than in other similar congregate settings. That study is not in the public domain and Merryday chastised the CDC for arguing this point without offering proof that it was actually scientific .... in fact when asked to produce such proof to the court, they couldn't. I assume it was an internal study without peer review and the usual scrutiny on methods and conclusions that such studies undergo before they are considered valid. Side note: this has been the CDC's MO from the start ...... making PH policy recommendations based on unsupported insider opinions not subject to appropriate agency review and oversight. That is going to change going forward. A huge benefit to Americans created by Merryday's ruling.

The fact that cruise ships are inherently environments where disease spread is more likely and that EEOC laws protect business' right to establish policies that conform with their ethical and moral responsibility to create a safe workplace for employees and customers make the Desantis ban highly questionable on multiple levels.

My take is that Del-Rio and Duffy, along with their legal teams, are taking this into account and will be at the tip of the sword of a challenge to the ban. RCG has chosen a different path - much to my disappointment in both the intent and the details of it, I might add. July will be an interesting month for cruising from FL ports.   

  

[smokeybandit]

Has the CDC made any comment about the ruling?

[Jverge]

7 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Has the CDC made any comment about the ruling?

Friday was a federal holiday so probably not.

[cruisinghawg]

Jeff I appreciate your take on things as it pertains to the court rulings. But I have to say that I disagree with your take on the states ban of passports. All of us have a constitutional right to privacy and to deny that right is in and of itself unconstitutional. I do not want to show my passport, or give up my right to privacy, to shop at "name your store of choice". Now that said DW and myself are fully vaccinated and do not mind showing this to RC but some may not and that is their prerogative. 

If the state were to lose a challenge then we all have lost another freedom and what will be next.

As an aside Carnival will be sailing with "fully vaccinated" ships with some "exceptions". So apparently they are making it so people that cannot get a vaccine or kids not of age can still cruise.

Again thank you for your analysis of this and please keep up the fantastic work in keeping us informed.

[JeffB]

33 minutes ago, cruisinghawg said:

All of us have a constitutional right to privacy and to deny that right is in and of itself unconstitutional.

Whether you have a right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution is not debatable. The Constitution doesn't provide that right.

However the question of whether you can be asked about personal information that would be considered by any court to be private is addressed not in the Constitution but rather by the courts - of course, that means it's complicated:

Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, questions regarding vaccination will surely surface again. However, a question not necessarily addressed in Jacobson, but heavily overlaps with vaccination inquires is, privacy. “Virtually every governmental action interferes with personal privacy to some degree. The question in each case is whether that interference violates a command of the United States Constitution.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 367, 350 (1967). The Constitution does not explicitly give the right of privacy; rather, it has been the courts who have read privacy into clauses of the Constitution.

TBF, I don't think we know if the Desantis ban is lawful or not. A lof of case law is going to apply just like it did with Merryfield. My view is that the right of businesses to require vaccination as a means of improving workplace health and safety is going to be the winning argument. Of course I thought FL was going to lose it's law suit.

It's interesting case law bearing on the right to privacy if you want to wade through it:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/confusion-over-privacy-hipaa-constitution-and-covid-19

 

 

[UNCFanatik]

I keep hearing this idea that the cruise lines that cater to families during the summer have a desire to run 95-100% vaccinated sailings out of FL. While I think that they stated as much to meet the CDCs guidelines, now that the CDC guidelines will not be binding and just suggestions, we will see where the cruise lines stand now. 
 

I know cruise lines cannot afford bad PR on Covid cases but zero Covid is not possible on cruises now. The CDC is a terribly run organization. That is how you got them saying it was a less than 10% chance to catch Covid outdoors when it was actually less than 1% chance. Then they said they were taking an aggregate of internal studies. Ridiculous. And with masking, there are zero controlled randomized trials that prove efficacy of cloth mask but yet the CDC treats this as religion that shall not be challenged. There are only models. Just one look at japan where mask compliance is very high among populace but yet they had a big increase of Covid cases the last few months. AND the CDC “emergency” meeting on vaccines and heart inflammation amount younger people has now been delayed twice. 

now, from a business standpoint, I am a solid believer that businesses should be allowed to set their own terms of service. I believe DeSantis should carve out an exception 

However, also from a business standpoint, how willing is Royal to turn away business from families this  summer? They have to do their own internal risk analysis to determine their policies and I promise you that the DeSantis law isn’t the only factor. Will they lose business from families if making vaccination standard too high for them to reach and then require masking of children which is not necessary? Will they  lose business from those that would rather be on a 100% vaccinated sailing? What is best possible vaccination rate on a given sailing out of FL given the age demographic of that sailing?

These all are factors that Royal must consider when determining vaccine policies. Not just DeSantis. 
 

the biggest challenge through all this is public perception. Covid cases will be on cruise ships moving forward. It’s endemic. Unless they test 100% of passengers daily, there will be unknown Covid cases on the ship. There will also be know cases of Covid. The expectation can not be that zero Covid will be on all ships that sail. Never gonna happen. A responsible media that’s not fear porn driven would point out that cruise lines have proper protocols in place that didn’t exist with The Princess when there were so many unknowns. Times have changed. Covid is on the way to being endemic. On its way to a mild infection for most. 

[Dad2Cue]

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Whether you have a right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution is not debatable. The Constitution doesn't provide that right.

I have enjoyed this discussion.  I don't see this as a privacy issue. To me it is about the foundation that the United States was built upon and about discrimination.  Are we going to have different rights for the vaccinated and the non vaccinated?  I don't know about the created equal part but the last part should be valued and protected.

The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[gatorskin76]

2 hours ago, UNCFanatik said:

I keep hearing this idea that the cruise lines that cater to families during the summer have a desire to run 95-100% vaccinated sailings out of FL. While I think that they stated as much to meet the CDCs guidelines, now that the CDC guidelines will not be binding and just suggestions, we will see where the cruise lines stand now. 
 

I know cruise lines cannot afford bad PR on Covid cases but zero Covid is not possible on cruises now. The CDC is a terribly run organization. That is how you got them saying it was a less than 10% chance to catch Covid outdoors when it was actually less than 1% chance. Then they said they were taking an aggregate of internal studies. Ridiculous. And with masking, there are zero controlled randomized trials that prove efficacy of cloth mask but yet the CDC treats this as religion that shall not be challenged. There are only models. Just one look at japan where mask compliance is very high among populace but yet they had a big increase of Covid cases the last few months. AND the CDC “emergency” meeting on vaccines and heart inflammation amount younger people has now been delayed twice. 

now, from a business standpoint, I am a solid believer that businesses should be allowed to set their own terms of service. I believe DeSantis should carve out an exception 

However, also from a business standpoint, how willing is Royal to turn away business from families this  summer? They have to do their own internal risk analysis to determine their policies and I promise you that the DeSantis law isn’t the only factor. Will they lose business from families if making vaccination standard too high for them to reach and then require masking of children which is not necessary? Will they  lose business from those that would rather be on a 100% vaccinated sailing? What is best possible vaccination rate on a given sailing out of FL given the age demographic of that sailing?

These all are factors that Royal must consider when determining vaccine policies. Not just DeSantis. 
 

the biggest challenge through all this is public perception. Covid cases will be on cruise ships moving forward. It’s endemic. Unless they test 100% of passengers daily, there will be unknown Covid cases on the ship. There will also be know cases of Covid. The expectation can not be that zero Covid will be on all ships that sail. Never gonna happen. A responsible media that’s not fear porn driven would point out that cruise lines have proper protocols in place that didn’t exist with The Princess when there were so many unknowns. Times have changed. Covid is on the way to being endemic. On its way to a mild infection for most. 

The 95% CDC rule only applied to sailing without test cruises.  So that was really irrelevant for RCL cruises before the court ruling since RCL had elected to go with test cruises.  Or at least that’s my understanding.

[JeffB]

2 hours ago, Dad2Cue said:

I have enjoyed this discussion. 

So have I. What I enjoy the most is the respectfulness of it here. That doesn't happen everywhere within on-line forums. 

Having said that, you wouldn't think this to be the case but there is lot of nuance to the question of privacy. Protection from unreasonable demands from employers or business and so forth exists in the law. Context is important and we don't need to deal with that here. I'm not a lawyer skilled in interpreting the case law and then presenting oral arguments before a Federal judge or in this forum to make the case, in this narrow example, of whether or not one has a right to refuse to divulge their vaccination status.

To be sure, this question is actually yet to be settled - you can read below at the link. The case law on this question is also interesting and I learned by reading the link that the the case involving the Texas Southern Methodist hospital employees suing to protect their right to refuse vaccination, where the case was dismissed, doesn't relate to the enforceability of the Desantis Ban at all. I thought it might and would make FL's claim that they can ban a business operating in FL from demanding proof of vaccination as a condition of receiving services. 

I will offer one point on discrimination. My reading of the law in the context we are dealing with it here is this: an employer or business has the right to implement policy that aligns with a legitimate effort to make his place of business safe. It isn't discriminating and does not create two classes of employees or customers, as long as accommodation is available to those that do not want to comply with said policy. Employers and business owners may want to consider options such as continued masking, social distancing, working remotely, etc., for those employees or customers with valid medical or religious reasons for declining a vaccination.

As I read through the link, it became apparent why RCL has chosen the path they have chosen. Their legal team has decided that they don't want to challenge the Desantis Ban because the outcome is uncertain. Once again, the complexity of the case law and how it has been applied in different states pertains and it is upon the law, not our personal opinions, that an outcome in this matter will depend. I have a gut feeling that while NCL and Carnival may talk tough, I think they will come up with a way to do pretty much what RCL has done recognizing that a 90% or so vaccination rate will produce a probability of an outbreak to be so low that the risk is entirely worth it. We'll see.  

 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/mandatory-vaccination-policy-lawsuit-update-nurses-take-shot-against-hospital-judge  

 

[jticarruthers]

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

 I have a gut feeling that while NCL and Carnival may talk tough, I think they will come up with a way to do pretty much what RCL has done recognizing that a 90% or so vaccination rate will produce a probability of an outbreak to be so low that the risk is entirely worth it. We'll see.  

 

Thats been my hope/expectation since about December .... gradually getting there ...

[cruisinghawg]

52 minutes ago, JeffB said:

So have I. What I enjoy the most is the respectfulness of it here. That doesn't happen everywhere within on-line forums. 

Having said that, you wouldn't think this to be the case but there is lot of nuance to the question of privacy. Protection from unreasonable demands from employers or business and so forth exists in the law. Context is important and we don't need to deal with that here. I'm not a lawyer skilled in interpreting the case law and then presenting oral arguments before a Federal judge or in this forum to make the case, in this narrow example, of whether or not one has a right to refuse to divulge their vaccination status.

To be sure, this question is actually yet to be settled - you can read below at the link. The case law on this question is also interesting and I learned by reading the link that the the case involving the Texas Southern Methodist hospital employees suing to protect their right to refuse vaccination, where the case was dismissed, doesn't relate to the enforceability of the Desantis Ban at all. I thought it might and would make FL's claim that they can ban a business operating in FL from demanding proof of vaccination as a condition of receiving services. 

I will offer one point on discrimination. My reading of the law in the context we are dealing with it here is this: an employer or business has the right to implement policy that aligns with a legitimate effort to make his place of business safe. It isn't discriminating and does not create two classes of employees or customers, as long as accommodation is available to those that do not want to comply with said policy. Employers and business owners may want to consider options such as continued masking, social distancing, working remotely, etc., for those employees or customers with valid medical or religious reasons for declining a vaccination.

As I read through the link, it became apparent why RCL has chosen the path they have chosen. Their legal team has decided that they don't want to challenge the Desantis Ban because the outcome is uncertain. Once again, the complexity of the case law and how it has been applied in different states pertains and it is upon the law, not our personal opinions, that an outcome in this matter will depend. I have a gut feeling that while NCL and Carnival may talk tough, I think they will come up with a way to do pretty much what RCL has done recognizing that a 90% or so vaccination rate will produce a probability of an outbreak to be so low that the risk is entirely worth it. We'll see.  

 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/mandatory-vaccination-policy-lawsuit-update-nurses-take-shot-against-hospital-judge  

 

Couple of thoughts on this if I may:

1 I think I remember DeSantis saying the reason he opposed the passports were privacy or Hippa laws. I could be mistaken as it may have been discrimination or maybe both I just do not recall. But the hidden thing about this is this was not a stand alone bill. This was an addition the states Emergency Management Law. It also expires as soon as the emergency is declared to be over. Currently I am not aware of any lifting of the emergency.

2 I do not see discrimination here as it pertains to vaccine or no vaccine. But since there has been some apparent, shall I say, misstatements on the whole Covid19 situation where do those that have had the disease fall. One famous politician is not getting the vaccine because he has gotten the disease and , according to him is still carrying the antibodies. I have very good friends that say the same and their Dr. has told them no on the vaccine as they do not need it at this time.

3 I still believe that this was one of those unintended spin-offs that was not anticipated. Now how to get out of this may be rolling around in Tallahassee as we type. Florida or perhaps more specifically DeSantis is one of the major reasons that the CDC has started moving on getting cruising going (along with the CLIA putting pressure on congress). It certainly leads me to believe that there is going to be a work around.

4 As I stated earlier Carnival is allowing space for unvaccinated, they just do not let it out much. I read this on the cruise news web site.

[cruisinghawg]

31 minutes ago, jticarruthers said:

Thats been my hope/expectation since about December .... gradually getting there ...

Yep NCL and Del Rio are not leaving Florida they started here built here and their entire model is Floridian. With the exception of the Hawaiian adventure.

[WAAAYTOOO]

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

I have a gut feeling that while NCL and Carnival may talk tough, I think they will come up with a way to do pretty much what RCL has done recognizing that a 90% or so vaccination rate will produce a probability of an outbreak to be so low that the risk is entirely worth it

I absolutely agree with you on this.  Since the abolition (I know that is the wrong word) of the CSO, will this now mean that NCL, Carnival and Celebrity can simply ignore the requirement to do test cruises and just march forward with their loosey goosey ~95% vaxxed program ?

[JeffB]

1 hour ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

Since the abolition (I know that is the wrong word) of the CSO, will this now mean that NCL, Carnival and Celebrity can simply ignore the requirement to do test cruises and just march forward with their loosey goosey ~95% vaxxed program ?

No worries - I know what you mean @WAAAYTOOO. The correct word is "since the injunction" or since Judge Merryday ordered the CSO enjoined. That means it is unenforceable....... after July 18th, not before. The CSO is still in force and will remain so for now. The simple answer to your direct question, therefore, is no.

Merryday has given the CDC a chance to offer an alternative CSO. The parties have to talk about it through mediation between the FL's State's Attorney and CDC lawyers. If a suitable alternative agreeable to all parties arises, Judge Merryday has approval authority and can reinstate the CSO in it's new form if it checks all the legal boxes. Before mediation begins, the CDC has to submit its alternative to the court by July 2nd then mediation starts again with Judge Porcelli. Anything the CDC might mandate in it's modified CSO  - again, only within their authority under applicable law to do that and it has to be backed up by scientific studies - the Judge has final say on whether he is satisfied and the parties can move forward with mediation. If he is satisficed with the outcome of mediation between the parties, he can vacate the injunction, ostensibly before July 18th, allowing a new CSO to take effect.

If the CDC gets over that really high bar in the time frame Merryday gave them to do that, I'll be surprised. If mediation produces an updated CSO that FL agrees with before July 18th, I'll be surprised. Lawyers will lawyer and FL's smell blood in the water. They'll go for the kill (the CSO that is). I think that outcome (the CSO is unenforceable in FL and no alternative CSO that both parties agree on has arisen), has the highest probability of occurring. But, I repeat for emphasis, enjoined (unenforceable) only in FL. For cruise ships sailing out of FL ports, barring a new CSO that has legal and enforceable mandates under existing US Code, the CSO will become a set of recommendations and guidance.

TBF, there is some good stuff in the CSO. Not all of it is malarkey. A good deal of what's in the CSO is the same stuff that is in the Healthy Sail Panel recommendations minus the regulatory hoop jumping and unworkable enforcement authority usurped by the CDC. That's the key issue for Merryday. In looking back at all this it is having the government unlawfully breathing down your neck when other factors provide the impetus for the cruise lines to set reasonable safety and health standards and comply with them.