Jump to content

Royal Caribbean opts into CDC highly vax program


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, CGTLH said:

@JeffBmight have some better insight what the impact is with the case being dismissed.

I think the motion to dismiss filed by FL is a technicality. There is a difference between a motion to dismiss and withdraw. Dismissal means the initial complaint is dropped and cannot be brought back. Withdrawal, means the original complaint cannot be pursued unless a certain set of conditions happens for one year and if such conditions do not occur, the original complaint is set aside, not dismissed. HHS has to agree to the motion which, again, a technicality, they will.

One possibility is that FL doesn't want to deal with some of the unintended consequences of enjoining the CSO (now expired) but there may be liability issues for FL associated with their actions. I don't know of any specifics.

Its also possible this is a prelude to another legal challenge by FL, or whomever (CLIA?), of the voluntary CDC Program. I mentioned up thread that I thought this voluntary program, if it was reviewed by Judge Merryday (or another federal judge) would be seen as "arm twisting," more appropriately coercive in nature. 

I also mentioned that the CDC was careful to couch this voluntary program within the authority granted to them in the applicable maritime health regulations - these already with legal standing. That was something that Merryday's court suggested the CDC should do.

The CDC has to want to reestablish their authority to do what is necessary to prevent the introduction of infectious pathogens by ships that was curtailed and would probably remain curtailed by virtue of a finding that it was not in the CDC's authority to shut down ship's operations for extended periods - what the NSO and subsequently the CSO effectively did.

As I think out loud about this second possibility, it seems to me that the cruise industry simply needs to not opt in to avoid the kind of entanglements the voluntary program seems to offer for very questionable health benefits - such benefits already obtained over the last two years by the cruise industry themselves.

I guess we'll see which track the cruise lines will take by Friday - the drop dead date to volunteer to participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't really know what it all means. 

There has long been a back channel of private communication between the cruise lines and the CDC.  Back when the original CSO had ambiguous and conflicting verbiage there was communication and direction from the CDC to the cruise lines that we never saw.

I expect the same will occur here.  The CDC will have its very official and super strict program on display but the cruise lines will work out a functioning approach through the maze using private communication that we don't get to see.

What we really need is for the public health emergency declaration to be withdrawn.  Then and only then will cruise lines be free to craft their own policies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a cruise coming up in a week and a half.  I just took the opportunity to let RCL our opinion (using "contact us"), and we all should do the same.  If they opt in on our ship (LIberty), we will cancel.  And we are with a group.  All the same.  It is just so onerous, and just not worth the risk. It's not just face masks. Look at the quarantine-if-exposed requirements. 10 days isolated alone in a cabin?  I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, twangster said:

We don't really know what it all means. 

This is the best summation of what it means that I've seen in one place: https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=6754

5 hours ago, twangster said:

The CDC will have its very official and super strict program on display but the cruise lines will work out a functioning approach through the maze

I wouldn't count on it. The problem lies with the onerous, now codified on the basis of existing maritime law, quarantine requirements in the voluntary program for close contacts. There's no getting around this by working out "a functioning approach."

On ships with a Vaccinated Standard of Excellence (95%), close contacts of passengers who test positive for COVID-19 must be tested immediately, quarantined for five full days after their last contact with the infected person, and then retested. NB: Not all RCL ships are going to reach this standard. Here's a current list of what the testing and vaccination requirements are for cruise lines operating out of North America:  https://www.travelagewest.com/Travel/Cruise/Cruise-Lines-COVID-Vaccinations-Requirement

On Highly Vaccinated and Not Highly Vaccinated ships (<95%), close contacts must quarantine for 10 days and may only end quarantine if they are asymptomatic and test negative. There are no exceptions to this program -- and no clarity as to whether this 10-day quarantine must be completed onboard, ashore, or both. If your sailing on RCL, this is the standard you'll most likely face.

In addition, I too once thought removing the federal PHE would reduce the powers of the CDC to dictate cruise line health protocols. First, it was made clear in Judge Merryday's District Court (upheld by the USSC) that the NSO and CSO exceeded the powers granted to the CDC by congress and enjoined the CSO.

Second, what the new voluntary program does is carefully structure it's cruise line health protocol dictates within the scope of the applicable maritime laws that provide a basis for CDC's regulatory authority .... at least CDC's lawyers likely think the voluntary program is legal. Merryday in his opinion on FL's suit seeking injunctive relief suggested the CDC should consider a rewrite of the CSO ..... this is it. I think the thing is coercive regardless of how well CDC's lawyers think it is based in existing law. 

A federally declared PHE has more to do with authorizing the executive to release funds or eliminate red-tape in an emergency. The state's control what happens on the ground. Not the feds (or the CDC - unless congress passed laws authorizing them to do things). The Constitution specifically grants special powers to the states. Governor Desantis was pretty clear about most mandates that restricted mobility or dictated behaviors were not happening in FL. Cruise lines got around the no vaccination mandates by making disclosure of vaccination status voluntary - it's a personal choice to cruise or not cruise - pretty much what Desantis wanted.

I do think if RCL opts in by Friday, on scheduled review (March 18th), the CDC may adjust some of the sticking points I mention above depending on how hard RCL pushes for it.  The quarantine after a close contact will be a real cruise killer for a lot of cruisers already booked or those considering booking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I would think not many at all would reach that standard. Possibly zero.

If I'm not mistaken, a lot will. See the link to current vaccine and testing requirements in my post. 

RCL pursued a family friendly policy from the start. Currently, vaccinations are not required for 12 and under guests. If they are vaccinated, they don't have to comply with the additional layer of protocols the unvaxed have to comply with when sailing on RCL.

Celebrity is sailing with 98% fully vaccinated crew and guests on a consistent basis. No requirement yet for boosters on Celebrity but about 50% of crew have received them. I think that's coming for guests on most lines based on what we're hearing with the drop in protection from serious COVID illness after 4 months. Several lines already require boosters (no time limit, yet). See the list at the link above. 

Getting rid of PHEs - and only a few states still have them in effect - is not going to change much for the cruise industry. The SARS2 pandemic solidified a slew of health protocols for cruise ships that are going to persist. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial. It's like "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Requiring that you meet requirements established by a cruise line to board is legal.

What will help will be global acceptance from the WHO that SARS2 has reached an endemic state. Once that happens, there's a good chance vaccination and testing requirements will be gradually, if not too slowly for us, dropped. Nobody's getting tested for influenza or required to get a flu vaccination. We're headed in that direction with SARS2.

We'll take one step closer to that if, in the next 6 months, we don't experience another sharp increase in new SARS2 infections and a run on hospital space by patients sick with COVID. Even if we get a bump, if the disease impact is decreased by higher vaccination rates, emerging treatments and improved testing approaches to curb spread precisely instead of with a club, we'll be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JeffB said:

If I'm not mistaken, a lot will. See the link to current vaccine and testing requirements in my post. 

RCL pursued a family friendly policy from the start. Currently, vaccinations are not required for 12 and under guests. If they are vaccinated, they don't have to comply with the additional layer of protocols the unvaxed have to comply with when sailing on RCL.

The Vaccinated Standard of Excellence means 95% boosted.  The odds of 95% being boosted is nearly zero on an RC ship. Even on Celebrity it'll be tough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the likelihood of this going in effect immediately on the 18th? Because that is exactly 14 days before my March 4th sailing and my girlfriend who is vaccinated but not boosted, would require 14 days after a booster to be considered fully vaccinated and allowed on the ship, except that would leave us virtually no time to get her a shot if it becomes a requirement past the 18th.

I guess my question is there a chance we are going to need boosters for the March 4th sailing of the Wonder? I can't imagine everyone already booked is fully boosted so it would cause a major headache for that particular sailing and any other ship that leaves within the two week window after an announcement of boosters being required.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffer91 said:

vaccinated but not boosted, would require 14 days after a booster to be considered fully vaccinated

If eligible for the booster, one is considered "up to date" the second the booster is administered. If one isn't eligible for the booster yet they are considered "up to date".

 

Per: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date

When Boosted
A person is considered “boosted” and up to date right after getting their booster dose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CGTLH said:

If eligible for the booster, one is considered "up to date" the second the booster is administered. If one isn't eligible for the booster yet they are considered "up to date".

 

Per: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date

When Boosted
A person is considered “boosted” and up to date right after getting their booster dose.

Great. Thank you! Totally wasn't aware there was a different timeframe for being considered fully vaccinated for when you receive the booster versus the original vaccination but yeah obviously that makes sense. Still would be frustrating if boosters suddenly became a requirement but at least she would have time to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately this will all come down to money.  What is obvious is there is a fairly large group of folks that will not be cruising until all of the testing and mask stuff go away.   Those restrictions aren't in place on land in most vacation spots, avoid the hassles.

Looking forward to see what RCL does this Friday, supposed to be heading out on the Wonder in 2 weeks, hope RCL gets its act together quickly.  We were out in September to Aruba on an 8 nighter and by day 3 the masks were definitely not a thing anymore, so it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be.  It is much easier now to get a test as no one is needing them except for vacationers.

Cheers Cruisers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that may not fully through the wash cycle yet...   this may level the playing field to some extent.  

Under the original CSO there was two distinct paths offered by the CDC.  One was to do test cruises and at that time anyone could sail (even unvax way back then).  The second was 95% vax on board but no test cruise.  The choice was more distinct for a ship of any ration of vax versus nearly fully vaxxed. 

The new guidance may streamline most cruise lines under the same rules.  Since Royal adopted the harder and more strict test cruise path from the beginning it's possible the difference for Royal could prove to be easier to transition towards.  If the NCL and Celebrity type lines are forced to adopt these more strict guidelines and there is no longer the "easy" 95% path that could be more of a culture shock for those guests.

Indeed it appears the 95% boosted replaces the old "easy" 95% path in terms of on board protocols.

This should be very interesting to watch as it unfolds, especially for NCL.

The CDC has the opportunity to be agile and adjust protocols over time based on the progression or regression of the virus but the CDC has not proven itself to be very agile.  Although some of that agilify may be found in the private back channel communication we don't ever see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, twangster said:

One thing that may not fully through the wash cycle yet...   this may level the playing field to some extent.  

Let's assume all the lines opt in. There is nothing in the voluntary program that I'm aware of that says a cruise ship can't sail if they are not in compliance with components of the program.  They'll just get a certain color rating and vaccine status classification. The CDC learned it's lesson in that regard. What's gained by opting in is a sort of CDC endorsement. In that the lines have sought cooperation with the CDC instead of confrontation, it remains a strong possibility they'll buy into this silliness. But they will be asking what is the cost to them of opting in?

It seems to me this presents a marketing challenge in that one line can crow it sails at the highest level of COVID related health safety at the risk of loosing bookings among people who either are unvaccinated, refuse to get boosted or simply don't want to deal with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops to cruise.  IMO, the risks of lost revenue would exceed any gains the company might obtain by selling this higher level of COVID related health safety to the cruising public.

The public in general is numb regarding COVID warnings and not likely to be moved in a positive direction by anything the CDC says. I think it is clear that the administration is using the CDC and this program to obtain higher vax rates among a very small group of citizens in what amounts to a "no-shoes, no shirts, no service" approach that is so wrong headed as to once again raise the specter of government over-reach

I agree, this WILL be interesting to see how this plays out. I think revenue gains and the potential these will be harmed is a factor in whatever path the lines choose to take.

In a related story, the CDC reduced its travel warning for cruise ships from level 4 to level 3. CLIA praised the move. The CDC said: 

"Cruise ship travel is not a zero-risk activity," the CDC said. "The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads easily between people in close quarters on board ships, and the chance of getting COVID-19 on cruise ships is high, even if you are up to date with your COVID-19 vaccines......... and told cruise guests to check the color and vaccination status of the ship they plan to sail on."

I really have a problem with the CDC's statement that the "risk of getting COVID on a cruise ship is high." If a .0065 risk probability is high, the CDC might want to check the risk of serious injury from a host of other routine activities that people undertake everyday without worrying about risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some changes were made in the operations manual the other day.

One standout is "up to date" vaccinated can now be tested 3 days out. Fully vaccinated remains 2 days.

Mask use policy changed. Back to fully vaccinated or "up to date" can be mask free ship wide 95% threshold. Those not meeting the 95% threshold can have designed areas fully vaccinated or "up to date" only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I missed this (the top vaccination status requires 95% of guests to be boosted) when I posted in response to a Smokeybandit, I'm assuming the 17th changes now drop the booster requirement and a line can achieve the highest vaccination status by simply having 95% guests and crew "fully vaccinated."

Clearly, the 17th changes are a result of the lines pushing back on this "up to date" includes a  booster thing. IMO, the CDC has once again made things a mess by issuing unnecessary, often confusing guidance and definitions that are driving health compliance departments at the state and private business levels nutz.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JeffB said:

I'm assuming the 17th changes now drop the booster requirement and a line can achieve the highest vaccination status by simply having guests and crew "fully vaccinated."

That is the way it is looking. However, the Cruise Ship Status Dashboard does have a catch separating "Highly Vaccinated" and "Vaccination Standard of Excellence".

Guess ship status now becomes meat grades... Choice = Highly Vaccinated, Prime = Vaccination Standard of Excellence.

15 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Clearly, the 17th changes are a result of the lines pushing back on this "up to date" includes a  booster thing. IMO, the CDC has once again made things a mess by issuing unnecessary, often confusing guidance and definitions that are driving health compliance departments at the state and private business levels nutz.  

Agree on all accounts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Since I missed this (the top vaccination status requires 95% of guests to be boosted) when I posted in response to a Smokeybandit, I'm assuming the 17th changes now drop the booster requirement and a line can achieve the highest vaccination status by simply having 95% guests and crew "fully vaccinated."

Clearly, the 17th changes are a result of the lines pushing back on this "up to date" includes a  booster thing. IMO, the CDC has once again made things a mess by issuing unnecessary, often confusing guidance and definitions that are driving health compliance departments at the state and private business levels nutz.  

 

Looks like the biggest change in the new CSO is scrapping the importance of a ship being 95% boosted and treating "up to date" at the individual level, not at the cruise ship level. Now if you're up to date, you quarantine as a close contact for 5 days (which is still absolutely idiotic, but I digress). Before, the entire ship had to be 95% boosted in order to quarantine for "only" 5 days instead of 10.

 

Another key addition is they now allow "proof of recovery in 90 days" as a way around being symptomatic or a recent close contact at the time of boarding (you still need a negative test)

Those who are boosted or not yet booster eligible (both are considered "up to date") get an extra day (from 2 to 3) in the window for their pre-cruise test

This is a big one. The threshold for not having to mask was reduced back down to 95% vaccinated, not 95% "up to date"

 

With all these changes I think it's more likely lines opt in.

 

Even though child vaccination is still generally low across the board, I would think RC ships would largely meet the 95% vax rate on any given cruise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the link to the dashboard. It's interesting looking at it. You can select filters that allow you to look at a company, line or ship. What I see is that "opting in' appears to be a ship by ship process. What suggests that is that NCL has a cruise line product, Oceania, that has one of it's ships, Marina, that has not yet opted in. There are other examples line by line, ship by ship.

Another thing I see is that it appears the companies/ships that have opted in aren't going to give a rat's patoot that they won't achieve this BS "Vaccination Standard of Excellence." While my preference would be to have the cruise lines give the middle finger to the CDC on this one, it doesn't matter to me if they opt in.

Cruise line execs are probably asking, how many serious cruisers are paying attention to what the CDC is saying about cruising? How many newbees to cruising are going to find and then look at this dashboard? Not to mention everything, including this dashboard is hard to find on the CDC web site but it takes a good deal of study to understand what the color coding and vax status thing actually means. As I write this the whole voluteer program is laughable but that the CDC thinks it's not is both sad and scary. 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/cruise-ship-color-status.html 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cruiser4Life said:

Per the CDC dashboard, 67 ships have now opted in... including Carnival and Disney...... Royal is not showing a decision yet....

List of lines that have a ship opted in as of 2/17 filtering the latest: Carnival (21 opt in/22 total listed), Disney (4/4), Holland America (8/8), NCL (13/14), Oceania (3/4), Princess (11/11), Regent (4/4), Seaborn (1/1), and Viking (2/2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, these ships are betting on not having a circumstance where a guest exposure results in locking those guests and their traveling party in the same cabin down for 10d.

My take is that the probability of an exposure isn't low enough for me to make that bet. Guests will be livid and the press will be all over that. The cost to the company joining into this ridiculousness if it goes down like I just suggested it could, would be enormous .........

........ "you mean if I cruise with Disney and a guest gets tested positive for COVID, I sat next to him at dinner and that gets me locked into may cabin and ends my cruise? NOT GOING!!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RC has opted in according to the color code report. What I haven't seen yet is how long a ship remains in a non-green status. Seems like once you're there, you're there for a while no matter what.

What's interesting is all 21 ships are listed as highly vaccinated, which would mean no masks would be required for the vaccinated.

 

image.thumb.png.d0d8666516adefcf4b2ca987cfb58b4b.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

Two important takeaways from Royal's decision to opt in:

1. They were already pretty much at 95% on every sailing ever since kids started getting vaccinated.

2. This change means face masks will become optional indoors. That's a big change.

Any idea when the new program would kick in?  And any indication that RC would *not* change its mask policy to align with the new guidelines?

 

The other interesting thing in this program is that if you're up to date on your vax, your pre-cruise test can to be within three days, not two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Any idea when the new program would kick in? 

Not yet, but I expect an update on that soon.

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

And any indication that RC would *not* change its mask policy to align with the new guidelines?

From what I understand, it will change to align and masks will become optional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

Two important takeaways from Royal's decision to opt in:

1. They were already pretty much at 95% on every sailing ever since kids started getting vaccinated.

2. This change means face masks will become optional indoors. That's a big change.

👏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

It makes no sense for (vaccinated) kids to wear masks in AO, but if it's otherwise a normal AO and kids can actually play and interact like normal, that'd be a compromise.

 

If they're masked and still required to keep their distance, then I'm not sure what message they're trying to send to parents.

Not much of a vacation for the kiddos if they have to wear the masks the whole time in Adventure Ocean.

I was surprised to see in the message you posted from Mr. Bayley that this “highly vaccinated” status   takes effect in 1 week - sailings from next Friday.   Right before Spring Break cruises.   
 

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...