Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

About Me

  • Location
    Sealy, Texas
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Royal Caribbean
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Doesn't matter anymore. RCL has canceled my cruise on October 20th. So won't be flying to the UK and wont be transiting to the Cruise Ship at Southampton.
  2. Sorry but the rules in the PHA are not that broad. They already gather the data from both planes and ships, do risk assessments and decide if there is sufficient reason to pull aside and question anyone more. It is all outlined in the 42 USC 264-269 and Quarantine and Isolation regulations in Part 70 and 71 of the 42 CFR. But the important part is that if they follow these rules to the letter they have to do it on a case-by-case basis. People also have rights of appeal, to a third party doctor's opinion as to their illness and limtis on time to do all these things. They can only detain a ship on which there is a proven outbreak, not just a suspicion of an outbreak and only until it is sanitized. They have the right to quarantine a ship there has an outbreak but it is spelled out as to what that is. Noehere do they get the right to issue mandates to the entire industry. Nor do they have the right to issue moritoriums on evictions or masks on all transports. See 2018 VSP operations manual Page 178; Subsection 12.9 Recommendations That the Vessel Not Sail: “12.9.2 Procedures: No Sail: “CDC will recommend or direct the master of a vessel not to sail when an IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD is identified and cannot be immediately corrected. Such a recommendation will be signed by the VSP Chief, with concurrence of the Director, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry or the Director’s designee. 2018 VSP Operations Manual, Section 12.0 Administrative Guidelines, Page 178, 12.9 Recommendations That the Vessel Not Sail, 12.9.1 Imminent Health Hazard “An IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD will be determined to be, but not limited to, one of the following situations: · Free HALOGEN residual in the POTABLE WATER distribution system is less than 0.2 MG/L (ppm) and this deficiency is not corrected before the inspection ends. · Inadequate facilities for maintaining safe temperatures for POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOOD. · Inadequate facilities for cleaning and sanitizing EQUIPMENT. · Continuous problems with liquid and solid waste disposal, such as inoperative or overflowing toilets or shower stalls in passenger and crew member cabins. · Infectious disease OUTBREAK among passengers or crew, and where it is suspected that continuing normal operations may subject newly arriving passengers to disease. As for their authority it is as follows: 2.1.1 Communicable Disease Prevention Communicable Disease Prevention Although cooperation by vessels with VSP is voluntary, the Public Health Service (PHS) is authorized by the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 264. QUARANTINE and Inspection - Regulations to control communicable diseases) to take measures necessary to prevent the introduction, TRANSMISSION, or spread of communicable diseases into the United States from a foreign country. Regulation Promulgation In addition, the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 269. QUARANTINE and Inspection - Bills of Health) authorizes the promulgation of regulations applicable to vessels for preventing the introduction into the United States of “any communicable disease by securing the best sanitary condition of such vessels, their cargoes, passengers, and crews.” Inspections Regulations promulgated to carry out these duties authorize PHS to conduct sanitary inspections on carriers traveling to a U.S. port from a foreign area (42 CFR Section 71.41. General Provisions, Foreign QUARANTINE - Requirements Upon Arrival at U.S. Ports: Sanitary Inspection). The purpose of the inspection is to determine the existence of vermin, contaminated FOOD or water, or other insanitary conditions that may contribute to the introduction, spread, or TRANSMISSION of communicable disease. What the Court found was the Conditional Sail Order was in excess of what was allowed by the PHS (CDC) to perform. They can do sanitation inspections and they can do a quarantine of a ship with an outbreak. But this is limited to a case-by-case basis. Note that the Bill of Health section referenced above is not allowed in the implementing statutes: 42 C.F.R. §§71.11 Bills of Health - A carrier at any foreign port clearing or departing for any U.S. port shall not be required to obtain or deliver a bill of health. The CDC has failed to enact statutes due to the fact they have eliminated any foreign port health officers. vsp_operations_manual_2018-508.pdf
  3. during the court case I contacted the AG's attorneys for Florida and Texas and stated I could not support their position on proof of vaccination. My position is that the CDC should be following the IHR. If they were following the IHR it allows them (the Competent Health Authority at the Port, could be state. could be federal based on your form of federalism) to ask for health history and that can include vaccination records. Remember it has always been a requirement in some countries to have to show proof of vaccination against Yellow Fever. I have one on my yellow International Certificate of Vaccination in 1997 so I could go to West Africa. I also have ten other immunizations received that were not required for entrance on my card. If the CDC were just to follow the IHR they could authorize the Cruise Lines to collect that information on their behalf and it would overrule the state law. Even the Judge during the oral arguments in Tampa made that observation. Yet the CDC's attorney admitted in open court they did not require it. They only required the Cruise lines to be able to prove to them that they met certain percentages of vaccinated crew and passengers to avoid the cost and delay of making test cruises. So the CDC is the culprit in all this.
  4. I saw that before and it was the basis for my confirmation of and paying in full my RCL reservation. I alos made my plane reservation based on that written statement. But I have been unable to find it again. Is it still in effect? I had people in the UK try to tell me it did not apply to a Heathrow to Southampton transit. They do not beleive it is a landside transit. They must believe it only applies going from Heathrow to another airport, like Gatwick although I cannot for the life of me see any difference. Also why not give credit for our Moderna vaccinations?
  5. You haven't read the International Health regulations have you. Canada ratified them as well. Do you also not comply with other treaties your country has signed? Like the Geneva Conference on war time prisoners? It does matter what the WHO says. Read Article 43.
  6. My wife and I and a friend have a cruise on RCL Anthem of the Seas for October 20 booked (for soem time) and we have already been allowed to check in online. We have reservations on a flight into London's Heathrow (originally it was from Newark but now from Chicago, due to recent change by United) we are supposed to arrive by 7:30 am and we have transfers arranged by RCL's Air to Sea to take us direct to the ship with 12 noon check in. We wanted to be able to do what the UK was calling a "Land Transit" but last time I looked they are not allowing that any longer. They are now requiring a 14 day quarantine and testing. I cannot afford that? Also my wife, her friend and I are all fully vacinated with the Moderna shots, mine by the clinic that was doing the Phase 3 trials in Texas. My wife and her friend by other State authorized vaccination sites near Houston. They have their CDC/WHO proof of vaccination cards. I have my Moderna clinical vaccination card. Yet I am reading that unless you have a vaccination approved by the UK NHS and it was administered by the UK NHS, you are not fully vaccinated. Now that seems to run against the latest WHO guidance on that very matter that was just issued July 1st.(see page 9 Proof of Vaccination section in Italics and the first dashed sentence after it). Isn't the UK a party to the WHO's International Health Regulations and doesn't that mean they should be complying with the guidance issued by the WHO. (Not the bad that played We won;t be fooled again, but the World Health Organization) WHO-019-nCoV-Risk-based-international-travel-2021.1-eng.pdf
  7. I filed my motion to file an amicus brief with the Appeals Court dated Juky 16) but due to some issues with electronically filing it, (which was finally granted on Monday I did not get it filed until Monday July 19.) I was really disappointed the Appeals Court had not waited the allowed period for the Amicus Briefs to be filed to originally rule. That is seven days after the party supported filed. Sinc mine supported Florida, it should have been the 19th. I later on Friday heard about the reversal (diect e-notice from appeals court) before I heard about the filing with the SCOTUS so it had me baffled for about an hour or so. Had my amicus brief really had that great an impact? Had they actually read it? It almost made all I had been put through worth it. But then I found out about the SCOTUS filing. (I even have a copy of it) That along with the latest Moritorium ruling in another appeals court was more likely the motovator. Yet maybe my arguments, which I still think were valid, may have helped tip the scales. Also, as to the CDC trying to use their mask mandate to extort the cruise lines to follow their conditional sail order, they must be very careful for they were relying on the same part of 42 USC 264(a) to empower them on the mask mandate. Judge's ruling was they exceeded their power in not following the limitations in the next sentence in trying to impose "other measures" like the Conditional Sail order and not limiting those "other measures" related to the ones itemized in the statute, like deratting, inspections and sanitation measures. I don't seem to recall requiring masks to be on that list. It is very possible that if that threat is real as reported by Reuters, and they have now brought this to bear in this case, the Judge might just rule that the CDC is in Contempt of his ruling and sanction them. That sort of action is really showing contempt, both for the District Court and the Appeals Court who now have sided with him. Just my two cents from someone intimately familar with the case. Note there is nothing beign said about a virus in this post. Might be in the State of Florida's SCOTUS filing that is attached, but I am not responsible for that content. 21A5.pdf
  8. If it was only 600 passengers and 600 crew the thresholds would have been 9 and 6 respectfully. Still more than the 2.
  9. For what it is worth. The latest guidance on the CDC website only references the threshold for simulated test voyages (See Technical Instructions for Simulated Voyages by Cruise Ship Operators under CDC’s Framework for Conditional Sailing Order | Quarantine | CDC) and it is "During simulated voyages, this threshold is met when 1.5% of COVID-19 cases is detected in passengers or 1.0% of COVID-19 cases is detected in crew." It would seem that it also depends on what level they are cruising at. For Celebrity Millennium it has capacity for 2,138 passengers (but slightly more than 1200 on board) and 920-990 crew would require 32 cases in the passengers at capacity or 18 at 1,200 passengers. It the crew the threshold would be about 9. (2 cases doesn't meet the threshold). Now this is for the test cruises for the CDC and this is a cruise outside US waters so the CSO is not applicable.
  10. Of course we all know that the same thing happened with some of the cruises out of Europe when they started only to later prove to be false positives. What kind of test was used. If it was the rapid test, they are often wrong (40-60% of the time) with asymptomatic people or those not exhibiting any symptoms. My nephew's wife "tested positive" to a rapid test only to retest negative to the pCr test. I sent him the data from the FDA on the number of false positives for the rapid test. So unless they failed a rapid test and have subsequently failed a pCR test, I would not report them as a case. But some people just want to shout "Fire" in the theater will not allow honest facts to be published. Just my opinion.
  11. If what I heard in court yesterday is right it is more than 1.5% or 1.1% of the passengers and crew on board. It is in the CSO. The judge was querying the DoJ attorney as to the basis for that number.
  12. First let me say I am not asking for a lot of opinions just making an observation so others may consider this in their dealing with RCL. Also I am not offering legal advice since I am not an attorney. That said, has anyone else noticed that when RCL cancels your cruise in its entirety it makes Section 6(e)(i) of their "Check In Contract" apply. It clearly states that you have a right to a "full refund of the Cruise Fare". I am having some difficulties with their Club Royale folks claiming that they will not extend a free cabin certificate which is not reflected in the Cruise Fare on my final fully paid itinerary. It is just shown as a subsequent discount under the "Cruise Fare". My argument is once the certificate was tendered, payment was received. Thus I am entitled to a refund of the full fare (plus any upgrade fee paid to go up to a balcony cabin) This would include the value of the certificate which has been thus redeemed . Now if they want to offer me a new certificate and I want to accept it on the T&Cs that it is offered under then they can reduce their liability, but it seems to me that is my option. They appear to be obligated to pay me a full fare refund if they want to cancel. That is their contract not mine. Note: This was already rescheduled to a later cruise from the first one and frankly the certificate was offered and submitted on April 8 well after the CDC No Sail order so I find it disingenuous to try to claim that things have changed. This was always in their control as they have always claimed they are voluntarily shutting down not that the CDC is forcing them to do anything. Especially now that they are cancelling sailing after the Conditional Sail Order has been in effect since November 1. That makes a Force Majeure argument moot. Just sayin. I tried to post this on their Crown and Anchor website but their moderator refused to post it. What are they afraid of? Page from Cruise Ticket Contract.pdf
  13. I found the article on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on the CDC's coronavirus reference page. Seems to be scientific in origin. I read the articles by the French showing an 100% effective rate on those that accepted to use the treatment of HCQ+Z pack. As an engineer who has taken a much worse anti-malarial drug (larium) just to be a le to work about five weeks in West Africa, I would be more than willing to take my chances that this works. It is reported that the protective mechanism is a modification of the pH at the cellular interface which interferes with the virus' ability to attach to the cell and inject the RNA. What has lead to the fatalities is the damage done in the lungs to the cells which allows bacteria normally in the upper respirator to invade the lungs and cause pneumonia. I must assume the Zpac which is a penicillin derivative is effective in stopping the invasion of pnemonococus bacteria thus helping to cure the patient. I read this somewhere but cannot put my finger back on it. Seemed a reasonable hypothesis. Yes clinical trials and effaciency trials would be good but time is not on many Americans side.
  • Create New...