howiefrommd

4 hours ago, flossie009 said:

Is it? Are you sure?

The only reason I thought this was what I read when I was searching around:

https://www.regentcruisedestinations.com/regent-seven-seas-navigator-navigator-suite.html

By an chance does anyone have any pictures/videos of this suite?  I realize it is smaller than the other Navigator Suites, but I do not like to location of the other suites (as they are below the pool) as people note that they hear noises from the dragging of the chairs, etc.

Any guidance, help or pictures would be greatly appreciated.

As always, thank you for your input.

Stay safe.  Howie

Have a few questions I would like to throw out there for some advice and guidance.

To preface my questions, we are referencing a London - Copenhagen - Copenhagen - Amsterdam (B2B) on the Navigator.

1. Has anyone stayed in suite (or have knowledge of) 1125?  If so, any thoughts? 

2. For the remaining Navigator Suites (on deck 9), do you get disturbed by the noise from the pool above?

3. A general question.  In your experiences, what were the seas like July/August?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.  Howie

16 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Everyone take a deep breath :).  This kind of posturing is quite normal in the world of government regulation (I helped regulate the healthcare industry in my State and we were routinely sued), but is probably a good move on the part of Governor Desantis.  It helps get some more attention paid to the issue.  We must remember that is was less then a month ago when the new CDC Director (Dr. Walensky) testified before Congress that she really did not have much knowledge about the cruise issue (she was not even aware her agency was the one that had shut down the cruise industry).

 

Will this suit go anywhere?  I will assume that there will be some kind of deal between the CDC and cruise industry before this suit moves anywhere in the Federal Courts.  When the DOJ responds they will likely move for the suit to be tossed out because the State of Florida has no standing.   There will need to be written arguments submitted by both sides and a period of time for a Judge to review the arguments and rule on that single motion.  All that takes time and if the CDC is truly thinking of letting things open in July (nobody has put that in writing) then the suit will become moot.

 

What I find interesting is that, at this time, no cruise line has joined the suit (which would probably resolve the standing issue).  

 

Hank

I also found it interesting that the cruise lines and/or their representative entities have not filed nor joined.  On a separate note, by the professional experience noted within your post, I would not be surprised if our paths have not crossed over the years.  

16 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

My experience is that what every bureaucrat wants is Power.  And every bureaucracy manager wants to expand their Fief.  I see no reason to believe that the CDC is different.

After years in clinical practice, I moved into the world of Medical/Healthcare Quality Analytics. Over the years,  I have sat on numerous professional advisory panels at three different Federal Agencies (CDC, CMS and FDA).  Overwhelmingly I have found very dedicated Physicians, Scientists and Researchers.  I have never witnessed nor encountered this conspiratorial animus you articulate. What I have found are clinicians and researchers who care about the work they are entrusted to do.  

6 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

First it was 'theater' because it was only a press conference without a lawsuit.  Now there's a lawsuit – so let's move the goalposts.  As usual.

After reading the PACER filing, you feel this motion has standing?

49 minutes ago, TrulyBlonde said:

Here you go:

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24742-florida-files-lawsuit-against-cdc-to-restart-cruise-industry-in-united-states.html

Pure political theater.  The wacky part about the filing, the motion references the APA yet the plaintiffs failed to seek any relief under the APA. 

3 minutes ago, BBWC said:

Florida has now filed a lawsuit against CDC.

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24742-florida-files-lawsuit-against-cdc-to-restart-cruise-industry-in-united-states.html

Pure political theater.  The wacky part about the filing, the motion references the APA yet the plaintiffs failed to seek any relief under the APA. 

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

I do believe your bias is showing.  😒

 

Why wouldn't Florida, Texas, California, Washington, New York, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina etc. be able to seek injunctive relief from the CDC's ban on cruising?

First, I have no political bias whatsoever.  When a politician (regardless of party) holds a news conference to threaten an entity, it is theater.  There are plenty of avenues open to apply pressure to potential litigants.  When in comes to dealing with Federal Agencies, having a news conference (threatening to sue) is not one that I have found with over 30 years of (in this arena) experience tend to be fruitful.  

Anyone (including yourself) can make application as a litigant and request Injunctive Relief.  

17 hours ago, XCoastie73 said:

I'm a retired senior career fed agency attorney, about half in a regulatory agency.

 

Generally, I would agree with you about States and standing when the regulatory/admin action seems aimed at the private sector.  But in the last Administration there were a ton of cases brought by States and other seemingly-outside entities, which I thought  would get tossed on the basis of standing -- yet they didn't.  I think District Courts have lowered the standing bar so much that lower State tax revenue or even a general negative effect on the State's inhabitants can give the State standing.

As we all know the Districts have been in flux.  We will have to wait to see what the new DOJ really wants to pursue and what will die on the vine.  I still believe that this was purely political theater. 

16 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Didn't the 9th circuit give standing to States of Washington and Minnesota because an immigration ban would affect the bottom line of their universities?

 

The states can sue

"We therefore conclude that the states have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the executive order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the executive order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave."

 

6 Highlights From the Ruling on Trump’s Immigration Order - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

 

The Ninth Circuit has always been a very unusual Circuit.  Interesting how they rule on behalf of two States not in their Circuit.   Additionally in the cases referenced, they were seeking Injunctive Relief (which was granted).  This case will see a long and arduous road ahead.  I am interested how you see this as precedence in regards to Florida's political theater of threatening to sue the Federal Government circumventing the APA?

3 hours ago, billf0401 said:

It's about time

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/florida-gov-desantis-threatens-to-sue-fed-if-they-dont-lift-no-sail-ban-by-the-summer

Although sounds good, unfortunately it is totally political theater.  For a State to have a “Standing” in Federal Court pursuant to any actionable matter set for via Regulations set forth in the CFR, requires an amazing amount of legal expertise. Certainly there are others who can claim “Standing” (ie cruise lines, other States, etc.) yet they have failed to apply for relief from the Federal Judiciary.

Should the amazing hurdle be made and “Standing” is granted, you are looking at many years of litigation before this would even be heard.  

20 hours ago, Daniel A said:

There is a legal concept that you cannot bring a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate you have suffered harm due to negligence or malfeasance.  Shutting down a major industry of a state without justification for more than a year may end up fitting into that concept giving Florida legal standing to bring a suit.  Maybe, it's taken until now for Florida to build up enough of a case for CDC malfeasance in light of their intransigence in the face of current conditions.  The conditions existing now are radically different from when the CDC did their first No Sail Order.  CDC can parse their words all they want but the Framework is just CDC's way of keeping their original No Sail Order in effect.  Neither CDC or Florida have the final word on whether or not CDC is justified in their actions.  It looks like the final word is going to need to come from a Federal Court.  Sometimes 'flapping your gums' with a state AG standing behind you can elicit proper conduct without even filing a suit.  As far as 'sitting idle' goes, it's the CDC doing that.  Even Walensky had no idea how to answer questions about the lockdown of the cruise industry other than saying 'No".

Although potentially an interesting argument (on an academic level) as to whether a State can have standing as a affirmative action to bring such a matter before the Federal Courts, my gut feeling is this has much more to do with theatrics than legal principle.  There are certainly other entities (other States, Cruise Lines and other potential  parties) that have explored such an action, and to date have failed to bring action.

I retired (from full time employment) over 8 years ago and have been involved as an expert witness in several complex Federal cases (all dealing with standing in regard to administrative law pursuant to CFR actions).  Here I sit 8 years later and they are still seeking trial time.  If Florida thinks they will rattle the Federal bureaucracy by having a news conference and threatening legal action, boy did they waste their time.

Pure theater. 

Just now, mrlevin said:

 

I can tell when my chip is transmitting; I feel a tingle in my left shoulder.  😀

See I learn something every day 🙂

19 minutes ago, Jimmcdaniel said:

Interesting. I wonder how Crystal is getting away with this requirement then?

As my dad used to say...that is way above my pay grade.  

I have been a bit out of touch with CC.  I did not even realize that Crystal was cruising.  

One additional tidbit....I recently (along with many other physicians and nurses) volunteered in an inner city drive to get people vaccinated.  I had several people tell me that the reason they are refusing the vaccine is that the Government is using this vaccination to implant a 5G chip in people to control them. 

When this is is a thought process,  how to you make sense out of anything.  

Another hiccup I have just learned about was that since the mRNA vaccines are being administered under an EUA order,  they are not considered approved vaccines by the FDA.  It turns out there appears to be both a Federal Law and an International Agreement that unapproved vaccines cannot be mandated as a requirement.

As a disclaimer, I heard this while attending a Continuing Medical Education Zoom (to obtain credits required to renew my license).  This topic was certainly not part of the purpose of the training, but came up (almost as an aside) as an unexpected consequence of utilizing a EUA vs getting FDA approval.  Once again the presenters are physician scientists not attorneys, so it would be interesting to hear from anyone that is versed in FDA compliance law.

Thanks so much for your response.  I was able to find your amazingly comprehensive review with accompanying pictures.  I was unable to find the video, but I am not the best with the nuances of Cruise Critic.  Once again, thanks for answering my question.  Howie

In the Royal Suite have they ever added electric plugs by the bedside?  Last time (pre refurbishment) there were no electric plugs.  Thanks in advance.  

2 hours ago, pinotlover said:

I agree with you totally. Great recent article in one of the rags by scientists that clearly said “ the coronavirus is now endemic to the world. It’s not going away. The only question is how we decide to live with it.”

 

Over time countries decide what level of normalcy they want to bring back. Are cruise ships, ski slopes, swimming pools permanently closed? Hot tubs, steam baths, hydrotherapy pools, saunas, casinos, on ships or in hotels a thing of the past. Sporting events, concerts, Symphony all only remote? Or, do we learn to live with it and assume some risks? I truly believe some will stay hunkered the rest of their lives. Others won’t accept that.  How long will the governments leave everything shuttered before a near total economic collapse happens? Will it take marshal law to stop all the riots, and recall elections, to turn around the shutdowns?

 

 

Eventually things will level out, albeit we will probably have a new level of normal.  Taking off my clinicians hat for a second, my real concern if how the cruise lines and public health officials react when there are positive cases identified on a cruise ship forthcoming.  My personal concern is that I do not want to be held captive like we have seen earlier.  An additional concern I have, should I test positive, quaranting in a third world country because that is where they decided to dump me off.  

1 hour ago, clo said:

"lack of information" YET. It's going to take awhile to get that data. And I think it would help if CDC would issue at least some 'rules.'

Although cruising is important to us, I am not sure (given what is going on as a public health extent) that cruising is high on their list of priorities.  

I have been attending several continuing medical education (for licensure renewal requirements) online events during the past few months.  For some reason people think that once vaccination occurs and we obtain herd immunity (70 to 80 percent of the general population vaccinated) that life will return to normal.  Once we obtain herd immunity, that will be the beginning of a long and arduous task towards normalization. 

Given the premise that everyone is immunized on a cruise ship,  continued social distancing, etc. will be needed for some time.  I deliberately do not bring up masks as they for some reason have turned quite political. 

The other concern of the Infectious Disease and Epidemiology communities is the lack of information regarding length of immunity and how the current mRNA vaccines will deal with variants.  

J & J launched a second dose global Phase 3 trial via their ENSEMBLE study.  Enrolling 30,000 participants primarily from the UK, France, Germany, South Africa, Belgium and the Philippines. It is a double blind study in which they receive a dose 57 days after their initial dose.  

1 hour ago, mj_holiday said:

If every thing else about cruising to Alaska is a go, the PVSA, Jones Act, would be the least of their worries.  There is an exemption for the Caribbean, so temporary exemptions could be possible.  There is also a fine for situations (prior to COVID) when someone gets on or off a ship prior to the foreign port.

 

It would be interesting to know what has caused this new restriction for Canada.

On one of the Public Health forums for clinicians, it was articulated that one of the decisions that went into Canada's methodology was the potential of a surge and the strain that would put on the health care system.

As far as a "Caribbean exemption." COVID patients (and their treatment) are very complex.  Due to the nature and level of care that these patients require, you just cant dump them off at the next port and wish them well.  They require a very high level of complex care which has been challenging to some of most prestigious Medical Centers around the world. 

I attended a zoom update yesterday provided by the University of California at Irvine on clinical updates on COVID, the variants, vaccines, etc.  One of the professors did indicate that masks will be indicated long after we have herd immunity.  It was interesting that another one of the Professors indicated that the United States  will theoretically have herd immunity when we get between 70 - 80 percent of total population.  That will be a significant challenge given the political and conspiracy theorists.