When Will The CDC Publish Their New Guidelines?

[iancal]

Bottom line for us is  do we trust the cruise lines?  Absolutely not.  Their decisions and actions in the early stages of covid speak volumes.

 

Do we trust the policians?  Absolutely not.  The numbers speak for themselves.

 

Do we believe that the CDC has acquiesced to politicians at the expense of public health?  Absolutely.   They are challenged to keep their advice consistent from one day to the other.

 

Would we actually consider flying into Florida or California to even board a cruise ship in November or December?   Or for any other purpose?  Absolutely not.

Edited October 1, 2020 by iancal

[evandbob]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

I have no interest in scientific methodologies, I will leave whatever justification they want for their actions to them.  What I want is leadership.  Leadership to me means being the guiding light.  Showing everyone who is worried and being told that it is the end of the world by msm, that there is a positive way out.  It is not saying masks are good and then mask are bad.  It is not saying deaths will be 500,000 then 800,000 then 2,000,000 then 60,000 (none of which are right btw).  It is not having the head of the organization say something to congress then hours later a press statement says they made a mistake.  They screwed up, often and big.  They have totally lop sides draconian view of the cruise industry.  They are part of the problem, not the solution.  Someone go ask Sagan his view on that.  

 

 

Can't asked Sagan directly, since he died in 1996.  But he answers your questions in his book "The Demon Haunted World".  He even devotes an entire chapter to how the public will formulate a theory without knowing any science or having access to any data, and then will "double down" on their supposition when proven wrong.  Think flat earthers or those who still believe dinosaurs and humans inhabited the same time span on earth.  There are numerous other examples.

 

But back to the CDC.  I  agree on some of your arguments.  But many of their decision reversals have come because of external factors like politics and bullying, as well as personal issues such as not getting fired for insubordination, not because of the science.  And I totally agree that the external pressures put on the CDC were done without true leadership and don't have the interests of the American public at heart.

[jimbo5544]

59 minutes ago, K32682 said:

 

The comment was a response to another poster who attempted to justify a return to cruising because flights, grocery stores and amusement parks were no safer.  

 

The best comparison to a cruise ship is a long term care home for seniors.  Neither are particularly appealing during a viral pandemic. 

Never understood the analogy philosophy, but the one you make is totally ridiculous and jaded.  

[jimbo5544]

20 minutes ago, iancal said:

Bottom line for us is  do we trust the cruise lines?  Absolutely not.  Their decisions and actions in the early stages of covid speak volumes.

 

Do we trust the policians?  Absolutely not.  The numbers speak for themselves.

 

Do we believe that the CDC has acquiesced to politicians at the expense of public health?  Absolutely.   They are challenged to keep their advice consistent from one day to the other.

 

Would we actually consider flying into Florida or California to even board a cruise ship in November or December?   Or for any other purpose?  Absolutely not.

Which actions?  Of course we can trust the, they have amazingly high amount at stake to gamble.

[jimbo5544]

9 minutes ago, evandbob said:

 

 

Can't asked Sagan directly, since he died in 1996.  But he answers your questions in his book "The Demon Haunted World".  He even devotes an entire chapter to how the public will formulate a theory without knowing any science or having access to any data, and then will "double down" on their supposition when proven wrong.  Think flat earthers or those who still believe dinosaurs and humans inhabited the same time span on earth.  There are numerous other examples.

 

But back to the CDC.  I  agree on some of your arguments.  But many of their decision reversals have come because of external factors like politics and bullying, as well as personal issues such as not getting fired for insubordination, not because of the science.  And I totally agree that the external pressures put on the CDC were done without true leadership and don't have the interests of the American public at heart.

I knew Sagan was no longer with us, it was a little satire...  If political p[ressure made them change their minds, then we are screwed, they have zero credibility. 

[jimbo5544]

29 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Well it's unfortunate for you, then, because this is largely a medical and scientific crisis.

 

Data has to be gathered and interpreted from many different sources. Predictive models have to be created, run, challenged, updated, and run again. Behavior of a brand new viral entity has to be studied and described. Tests have to be developed and confirmed.

 

All this in real time and complicated by huge amounts of political pressure that should NOT be applied and by having to communicate to and inform a public that often has no idea of the scientific complexity, through the medium of a communications media that often "gets it wrong", has no idea how to interpret statistical and scientific findings and has a vested interest in sensationalizing the information.

We live in a time where politics are totally polarized.  I don’t care.  I don’t care about the added pressure.  I don’t care about their modeling issues (which frankly stink).  We hired them to save us from JUST this type of thing.  They should be held to high standards and their performance should be criticized when it stumbles and fails.  THEY are much more the reason many people died than any politician.  MSM are lemmings that look at a press conference and pull the 2 facts that tie to THEIR agenda, they ARE part of the problem.

 

To your earlier point, medicine has stepped up to the plate a dramatic way, so far the scientists are down three runs in the middle of the 9th and it does not look good.  If science does not have an amasser...then say that.  The absolute worst thing is flip flop on it, instills zero confidence.  The bottom line is that this country wants and needs to get to some form of normalcy.  While it may not the normal we had (at least for a time), then tell them what it will be.  Saying a vaccine will be available and then say available 3 months from then them say another 6 months (when the testing has not taken noticeable delays) doe not instill confidence.  We want them to have near impossible deadlines, not comfortable ones, have an extreme sense of urgency, not complacency.  

[cruisemom42]

4 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

We live in a time where politics are totally polarized.  I don’t care.  I don’t care about the added pressure.  I don’t care about their modeling issues (which frankly stink).  We hired them to save us from JUST this type of thing.  They should be held to high standards and their performance should be criticized when it stumbles and fails.  THEY are much more the reason many people died than any politician.  MSM are lemmings that look at a press conference and pull the 2 facts that tie to THEIR agenda, they ARE part of the problem.

 

To your earlier point, medicine has stepped up to the plate a dramatic way, so far the scientists are down three runs in the middle of the 9th and it does not look good.  If science does not have an amasser...then say that.  The absolute worst thing is flip flop on it, instills zero confidence.  The bottom line is that this country wants and needs to get to some form of normalcy.  While it may not the normal we had (at least for a time), then tell them what it will be.  Saying a vaccine will be available and then say available 3 months from then them say another 6 months (when the testing has not taken noticeable delays) doe not instill confidence.  We want them to have near impossible deadlines, not comfortable ones, have an extreme sense of urgency, not complacency.  

 

It is pointless to pursue this discussion when you assign all of the fault to those with little power to change the dynamic. Why not blame those putting pressure on, rather than those being pressured? 

 

As for the rest, our philosophies differ greatly so best agree to disagree.

 

[mnocket]

12 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

I knew Sagan was no longer with us, it was a little satire...  If political p[ressure made them change their minds, then we are screwed, they have zero credibility. 

Sorry, I just don't get the outrage about this.  

 

The CDC recommended extending the no sail order until Feb'21.  The task force decided that a one month extension followed by a month-to-month reassessment was a better overall approach.  Why?  Most likely because a 5 month extension would send shock waves through the cruise industry and would likely drive some lines out of business.  Ships would move from warm lay up to cold lay up, industry layoffs would accelerate, etc.  A month-to-month reassessment may still bring us to this same place, but it allows for a more optimistic outcome should industry progress on safe cruising succeed. What's so wrong about this???

[jimbo5544]

39 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is pointless to pursue this discussion when you assign all of the fault to those with little power to change the dynamic. Why not blame those putting pressure on, rather than those being pressured? 

 

As for the rest, our philosophies differ greatly so best agree to disagree.

 

Because the ones doing the job have to do the job.  That is the way it works, nobody said it was easy.  If they cannot do it get out of the way.  I will give you an example and then move on (we agree on that😉).  The inspector general (I think that it is who it is) when NYC looked like they would not have enough ventilators or beds or whatever else they thought.  This guy looked at the problem, did not make excuses, and got it done.  It might not have been pretty, but it worked.  That is what should be going on here. Get it done.  That is NOT what is appending, it is not about blame, it is about performance.  They have done a lousy job, that is all that matters.  

[jimbo5544]

43 minutes ago, mnocket said:

Sorry, I just don't get the outrage about this.  

 

The CDC recommended extending the no sail order until Feb'21.  The task force decided that a one month extension followed by a month-to-month reassessment was a better overall approach.  Why?  Most likely because a 5 month extension would send shock waves through the cruise industry and would likely drive some lines out of business.  Ships would move from warm lay up to cold lay up, industry layoffs would accelerate, etc.  A month-to-month reassessment may still bring us to this same place, but it allows for a more optimistic outcome should industry progress on safe cruising succeed. What's so wrong about this???

Cannot answer it until we see what they do in the month to month.  Why the delay in announcing?  More lousy performance.  Their explanation was atrocious.  They have already made up their minds and unless the government intervenes, the ax will continue to fall month to month.  If any thinks 5 extensions and month to month denials is better than a 5 month delay (with no vindication as to why 5 months btw) then I would disagree with that also.  If the cruise lines meet the cdc requirements they should be able to sail.  Have they replied to the Royal and NCL submission?  More lousy performance. Lousy leadership in the cdc and extremely lousy performance.  

[mnocket]

2 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Cannot answer it until we see what they do in the month to month.  Why the delay in announcing?  More lousy performance.  Their explanation was atrocious.  They have already made up their minds and unless the government intervenes, the ax will continue to fall month to month.  If any thinks 5 extensions and month to month denials is better than a 5 month delay (with no vindication as to why 5 months btw) then I would disagree with that also.  If the cruise lines meet the cdc requirements they should be able to sail.  Have they replied to the Royal and NCL submission?  More lousy performance. Lousy leadership in the cdc and extremely lousy performance.  

It sounds to me like you have an ax to grind with this administration and complain even when they take a stance that supports your assertion that " If the cruise lines meet the cdc requirements they should be able to sail".  By making it a  month-to-month reassessment rather than a 5 month extension, they are keeping the door open to exactly what you seem to want.

[chengkp75]

55 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Get it done.  That is NOT what is appending, it is not about blame, it is about performance.  They have done a lousy job, that is all that matters.

I could say the same thing about the cruise line executives.  They have never stepped up to the plate until just recently, and that is just sending a "recommendation" or "position paper" to the CDC, not an action plan.

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, mnocket said:

It sounds to me like you have an ax to grind with this administration and complain even when they take a stance that supports your assertion that " If the cruise lines meet the cdc requirements they should be able to sail".  By making it a  month-to-month reassessment rather than a 5 month extension, they are keeping the door open to exactly what you seem to want.

Actually I do not.  Is it wrong to have and demand high expectations?  People are dying, businesses are going under, people are losing their jobs.  If that is having an ax to grind...then I guess I do.  Is the CDC in my cross hairs?  You bet and will be, have a lot on that agenda, but will wait on most of it.  We will see if the month to month works any differently, I sincerely hope it does.  

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by jimbo5544

[jimbo5544]

49 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I could say the same thing about the cruise line executives.  They have never stepped up to the plate until just recently, and that is just sending a "recommendation" or "position paper" to the CDC, not an action plan.

You could and can say that. What response has the CDC given on what was submitted?  Why the 5 month plan?

[mnocket]

28 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

 We will see if the month to month works any differently, I sincerely hope it does.  

 

As someone who complains about leadership,  I hope you realize that leaders don't have the luxury of waiting to see if month-to-month works out.  They need to make a decision now. I see a whole lot of Monday morning quarterbacking from people who complain about lack of leadership.  Leaders make decisions based on the best available data and opinions available.  This was one such decision.  A month-to-month reassessment sounds like a smart decisions to me.  If you don't like it, step up and tell us what you think would be better.  Complaining and then hiding behind "we will see if month-to-month works out" it the antithesis or leadership.

[mnocket]

53 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

You could and can say that. What response has the CDC given on what was submitted?  Why the 5 month plan?

 

Will you put that ax down.

 

"What response has the CDC given on what was submitted?"

The Safe Sail recommendations took 4 months to prepare.  They were submitted to the CDC last week.  Find something real to complain about.

 

 Why the 5 month plan?

None of us knows for sure.  That said, I think it's a safe bet that it's based on a purely health-based analysis of the best data and opinions available - including projected availability of a vaccine and the projected trajectory of the pandemic. Is this really the basis of your gripe with CDC leadership?

 

Please put that ax down.

Edited October 1, 2020 by mnocket

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

You could and can say that. What response has the CDC given on what was submitted?  Why the 5 month plan?

So, the Healthy Sail board spent 4 months preparing their recommendations, according to some articles, and the CDC has had it for about 10 days?  Whatever.  Why 5 months?  Perhaps because they suspect that that is how long it will take to get community transmission under control in home port states for the ships, without introducing the possibility of more from cruise ships.  But I suspect that the 5 months was a bargaining tool, and they are pretty satisfied with the 30 day extension, given the new regulations that come into effect mid-October, and about a month after the close of the "request for information" will be the end of October, and I suspect new regulations at that time again.

[ldubs]

It is good to have plans in place.  But absent an anti-covid force field,  I just don't see how we should allow cruises to start in the next few months.   I pretty sure that will be the case for California ports.  Based on what I hear, Florida departures may happen sooner.  

[jimbo5544]

19 minutes ago, mnocket said:

 

Will you put that ax down.

 

"What response has the CDC given on what was submitted?"

The Safe Sail recommendations took 4 months to prepare.  They were submitted to the CDC last week.  Find something real to complain about.

 

 Why the 5 month plan?

None of us knows for sure.  That said, I think it's a safe bet that it's based on a purely health-based analysis of the best data and opinions available - including projected availability of a vaccine and the projected trajectory of the pandemic. Is this really the basis of your gripe with CDC leadership?

 

Please put that ax down.

How about a date to review the plan instead of dead air...any feedback....an acknowledgement?  When the cdc does something other than swing that ax against this industry (interesting metaphor you use, I have been using for months), than I will. Until then, not a chance.   I will give you my take on the 5 month plan, they are not going to open the no cruise mandate until the virus is GONE,  unless the feds step in.  If my posts bother you....ignore them😉

Edited October 1, 2020 by jimbo5544

[jimbo5544]

22 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, the Healthy Sail board spent 4 months preparing their recommendations, according to some articles, and the CDC has had it for about 10 days?  Whatever.  Why 5 months?  Perhaps because they suspect that that is how long it will take to get community transmission under control in home port states for the ships, without introducing the possibility of more from cruise ships.  But I suspect that the 5 months was a bargaining tool, and they are pretty satisfied with the 30 day extension, given the new regulations that come into effect mid-October, and about a month after the close of the "request for information" will be the end of October, and I suspect new regulations at that time again.

I only see what I see.   Whatever the justification for the 5 months is...they should tell the industry what it is.  What do you think the type of new regs they will put out?   More invasive?

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

I only see what I see.   Whatever the justification for the 5 months is...they should tell the industry what it is.  What do you think the type of new regs they will put out?   More invasive?

Do you know that they didn't tell the industry what they were thinking regarding the extension?  Do you think the cruise lines would willingly announce that the no sail order was being considered to be extended for 5 months?  How do you know that they haven't informed the cruise lines as to a timeline to review the recommendations?  The cruise lines have not been exactly forthcoming with information any more than the CDC.  As to regulations, I would expect that the requirements of the no sail order will become permanent, or at least permanently invokable during an epidemic of quarantinable infectious diseases.

[jimbo5544]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Do you know that they didn't tell the industry what they were thinking regarding the extension?  Do you think the cruise lines would willingly announce that the no sail order was being considered to be extended for 5 months?  How do you know that they haven't informed the cruise lines as to a timeline to review the recommendations?  The cruise lines have not been exactly forthcoming with information any more than the CDC.  As to regulations, I would expect that the requirements of the no sail order will become permanent, or at least permanently invokable during an epidemic of quarantinable infectious diseases.

Last post on this topic until something happens and I will move on.  I don’t know the answer to any of those questions.  That said, why the secrecy?  Why is the public the ping pong ball?  Thanks for the replies...

[chengkp75]

I find it extremely interesting that those who blame the CDC for a failure in their area of expertise, infectious diseases, then expect that same agency to "step up and provide leadership" in an industry, the cruise industry, that they have no expertise in, while giving those who have the expertise, the cruise line executives, a pass on their failure to provide leadership.

[LoriPhil]

A reminder that the CDC is a government agency under HHS, with the current Director appointed by the president.  The scientists do indeed need to consider the whims, alternative agendas and egos of a governing Administration, but also modify recommendations as new data is gathered and understood.  Sorry to be political or perhaps misunderstand the points some are making, but you shouldn’t ignore those realities when discussing the capabilities of an organization.  Off my soapbox now, and time to leave these discussions, lest they harsh my calm.

[clo]

23 minutes ago, LoriPhil said:

A reminder that the CDC is a government agency under HHS, with the current Director appointed by the president.  The scientists do indeed need to consider the whims, alternative agendas and egos of a governing Administration, but also modify recommendations as new data is gathered and understood.  Sorry to be political or perhaps misunderstand the points some are making, but you shouldn’t ignore those realities when discussing the capabilities of an organization.  Off my soapbox now, and time to leave these discussions, lest they harsh my calm.

Thanks. The CDC has a 'big boss' and if they speak then the CDC must obey. Period.