CDC Approves Limited Restart of Cruising

[chengkp75]

I agree with njhorseman that the details have been known since April, the CDC has only back off on a few items from that document, so the cruise lines should have known that these were not going to go away.  As for the level of detail, the VSP goes into far more detail, and can stop a ship from sailing just like this certificate can.  I'm just a poor, dumb boat mechanic, but I saw back in September, with the "request for information" that the requirements of the no sail order were likely to become permanent, so the industry executives should have seen this coming.  But, now they know, that these requirements won't go away, and some, like the written contracts for health care, transportation, and quarantine, will likely become permanent.  Some will likely go away as the pandemic recedes (if it ever does), but some will likely remain, and become a cost of doing business for the cruise lines.

[MJC]

From the NYT:

 

"How soon will I be able to get on a cruise?

In short, not soon.

The first ships to sail in U.S. waters will be simulated voyages designed to test a vessel’s capabilities to implement health and safety protocols and prove the cruise line’s ability to mitigate the risks of Covid-19 onboard.

Cruise lines will not be allowed to commence passenger operations until they meet all the requirements and are granted a conditional Covid-19 sailing certificate issued by the C.D.C.

 

"What safety measures can I expect?

The ships will be required to provide rapid laboratory testing of all passengers and crew on the day of embarkation and the day of disembarkation. Onboard testing capabilities will be developed in coordination with the C.D.C. to test all symptomatic travelers, including crew members and future passengers.

 

Under the new order, cruise ship operators must meet standards for hand hygiene, face coverings and social distancing for passengers and crew as well as ship sanitation. Meal services and entertainment venues will be modified to ensure that physical distancing can be implemented.

 

Does that mean I’ll have to wear a mask?

For the test cruises, the C.D.C. said that masks are one of the measures that “may be required by C.D.C. technical instructions or orders,” but it does not lay out where and when they might be mandated. Mask use was included among the suggestions from the industry executives to the C.D.C."

 

So, crew only test cruises first, probably some tweaking required, then who knows.

Edited October 31, 2020 by MJC

[cbr663]

It will be interesting to see how itineraries are impacted with the requirement to have contracts with port medical facilities to provide needed medical care and hospitalization and a housing agreement with shoreside facilities to provide housing for quarantine and isolation.

 

Off the top of my head I would think that this requirement would eliminate all cruise lines private islands.

 

And how many ports and cities would agree to providing medical care and hospitalization for cruise passengers with so many are overwhelmed with their own citizens?

[Underwatr]

So let's do some math with some optimistic assumptions.

 

Assume the quick antigen test has a 10% false negative rate.

Assume one of the megaships sails with 3000 passengers and crew. (2/1 pax crew, in case it matters)

Assume 1% of those onboard have COVID.

Assume 2/3 of those with COVID would be far enough along to show up on a perfect test, the other 1/3 are too early to show symptoms.

 

So:

30 people will be infected, 10 of them too early to test positive.

Of the 20 who would test positive on a "perfect" test, 2 will test negative on the antigen test and be admitted.

The other 10 infected passengers will be infectious some time during the week.

So we have 12 passengers and crew among the general ship's population. 

What are the odds that none of the 12 exhibit symptoms during the week?

What's the plan again when 6-10 or more people test positive at the end of the cruise?

[Underwatr]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

or we will look for cruises that are not subject to the guidelines (any cruise that does not touch a US port).  

You'd take a cruise not subject to masking and distancing? Before or after you personally have received a potentially imperfect vaccine?

[zqvol]

21 hours ago, Roz said:

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5687/

Please read the CDC order, it doesn't say that, but it does lay out a framework to begin to allow cruising (maybe).

[Toofarfromthesea]

3 hours ago, Hlitner said:

The CDC's document is fascinating.  They do a pretty good job laying out the history of cruising and COVID, explaining the "whys" of the risk associated with cruising and COVID, and then laying out a framework to resume very limited cruising.  And "limited" it is with cruises not to exceed 7 days.  The cruise lines will follow these guidelines because they have no alternative but, at least in the short term, there is enough in those guidelines to turn off many cruise fans to cruising.   There is no way DW and I would consider spending our money to take a short cruise (we seldom cruise for less then 14 days) with the onboard restrictions imposed by the guidelines.   The only good news in that CDC document is that nobody believes the guidelines are permeant.   As a long time (over 45 years) extensive cruiser we will wait until a vaccine makes those guidelines fade away, or we will look for cruises that are not subject to the guidelines (any cruise that does not touch a US port).  

 

But the CDC's brilliance shines in that document.  It shifts all the blame and responsibility to the cruise lines without ever guaranteeing that the CDC will green light any cruise.  In the final analysis the cruise lines will need to jump through all kinds of hoops and then beg the CDC for approval which they may or may not get.  The restrictions are so onerous as to give the CDC an easy way out where they simply jerk around the cruise industry for many months without ever granting an approval for a real cruise with paying passengers.   Given the details in the guidelines there does not seem to be a clear path for any cruise line to advertise and sell a future cruise (involving US ports) since there is no way a cruise line can know if and when they will ever receive approval to cruise.

 

Hank

 

IOW, it is a CYA plan for the bureaucrats.

[zqvol]

1 hour ago, MJC said:

From the NYT:

 

"How soon will I be able to get on a cruise?

In short, not soon.

The first ships to sail in U.S. waters will be simulated voyages designed to test a vessel’s capabilities to implement health and safety protocols and prove the cruise line’s ability to mitigate the risks of Covid-19 onboard.

Cruise lines will not be allowed to commence passenger operations until they meet all the requirements and are granted a conditional Covid-19 sailing certificate issued by the C.D.C.

 

"What safety measures can I expect?

The ships will be required to provide rapid laboratory testing of all passengers and crew on the day of embarkation and the day of disembarkation. Onboard testing capabilities will be developed in coordination with the C.D.C. to test all symptomatic travelers, including crew members and future passengers.

 

Under the new order, cruise ship operators must meet standards for hand hygiene, face coverings and social distancing for passengers and crew as well as ship sanitation. Meal services and entertainment venues will be modified to ensure that physical distancing can be implemented.

 

Does that mean I’ll have to wear a mask?

For the test cruises, the C.D.C. said that masks are one of the measures that “may be required by C.D.C. technical instructions or orders,” but it does not lay out where and when they might be mandated. Mask use was included among the suggestions from the industry executives to the C.D.C."

 

So, crew only test cruises first, probably some tweaking required, then who knows.

Please read the CDC document and don't rely on some reporters interpretation of it.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, MJC said:

 

 

So, crew only test cruises first, probably some tweaking required, then who knows.

Not sure that a crew only simulation will work.  First off, there has to be crew (and only to the minimum required to provide services) and volunteer passengers.  The document states that the volunteers must be consensual, and not as any condition of employment.

[jtwind]

17 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

Not exactly sure what you mean but my quotes were directly from the CDC document.  Read it.

 

DON

 

I was pointing out that the article written by cruisecritic and referenced in the original post left out some of the major stuff that you pointed out in your post, like quarantining all of the passengers.  The cruise critic article sends a rosy, optimistic picture compared to the CDC document.  I know that I was fooled.  It should really be taken down or rewritten.

[cbr663]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I have no doubt that this is the CDC's very clever response to the White House's refusal to allow the No Sail Order to be extended into February. It virtually assures that it will take at least that long for the cruise lines to meet the order's requirements and resume cruising on a limited basis.

 

....

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with this.

[MJC]

2 hours ago, zqvol said:

Please read the CDC document and don't rely on some reporters interpretation of it.

I agree.

 

However, some people following this thread might appreciate that there is a story in a major paper about this. Not everyone is doing a deep dive into the CDC doc. I only meant to provide a taste of how this was covered today, as it's the first relatively positive article I've seen in the press about resuming cruising. As for crew tests, I interpreted that to mean that they will use crew members to simulate passengers for a few rounds to see how it goes before getting approval and opening to the public.

 

It just is what it is. It's not definitive in any way about anything.

 

 

 

 

 

[mnocket]

5 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I have no doubt that this is the CDC's very clever response to the White House's refusal to allow the No Sail Order to be extended into February. It virtually assures that it will take at least that long for the cruise lines to meet the order's requirements and resume cruising on a limited basis.

 

Is it possible that perhaps this is exactly what the White House wanted?  Essentially they were saying "Instead of telling the cruise lines they can't sail - tell them what they have to do in order to be able to sail".  Seems like a pretty solid approach.

[Luckiestmanonearth]

Has anyone even considered even if a cruise is allowed to sail, will the Caribbean ports even allow anyone to disembark on their island ?

 

Might be a bunch of 7 day cruises to nowhere

[chengkp75]

16 minutes ago, mnocket said:

 

Is it possible that perhaps this is exactly what the White House wanted?  Essentially they were saying "Instead of telling the cruise lines they can't sail - tell them what they have to do in order to be able to sail".  Seems like a pretty solid approach.

Actually, I think the CDC wanted a month's extension all along, but put it out as a 5 month extension as a bargaining tool to get the administration to give them a month.  This gave them the required waiting period after the request for information, and they did what I thought, they let the no sail lapse but kept the same requirements, with the new proviso that they can become permanent.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Luckiestmanonearth said:

Has anyone even considered even if a cruise is allowed to sail, will the Caribbean ports even allow anyone to disembark on their island ?

 

Might be a bunch of 7 day cruises to nowhere

Can't do them from the US.

[mom says]

9 minutes ago, Luckiestmanonearth said:

Has anyone even considered even if a cruise is allowed to sail, will the Caribbean ports even allow anyone to disembark on their island ?

 

Might be a bunch of 7 day cruises to nowhere

As has been pointed out on many threads over the previous months, there won't be cruises to nowhere from US ports. No ship can be allowed sail with pax unless they have a port or ports to call at. So, yes, this alone could cause further delays in sailings, and/or severely restrict itineraries to only a very few places. Especially if the US case counts continue to remain high. Who wants a ship full of possible COVID carriers dumping thousands on their shores? The rapid tests will be insufficient in preventing all infected pax from boarding, and the Caribbean countries know this.

[Underwatr]

19 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Can't do them from the US.

An executive order could fix that in a jiffy.

[evandbob]

2 hours ago, Underwatr said:

An executive order could fix that in a jiffy.

 

  But it won't make COVID disappear no matter how many times he states that lie.

Edited October 31, 2020 by evandbob

[SelectSys]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Can't do them from the US.

 

From Florida they don't really need to do that.  Wouldn't a stop at a private island/beach cover the foreign port requirement?  I am sure the Haitian government would by on board with something like this to get money coming in.  Bahamas would do the same and it would have extremely limited risks to the general population.

 

Mexico is willing on the west coast.

 

20 minutes ago, evandbob said:

 

  But it won't make COVID disappear no matter how many times he states that lie.

 

I don't think the poster was suggesting that an executive order would make COVID disappear.

Edited October 31, 2020 by SelectSys

[mom says]

20 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

From Florida they don't really need to do that.  Wouldn't a stop at a private island/beach cover the foreign port requirement?  I am sure the Haitian government would by on board with something like this to get money coming in.  Bahamas would do the same and it would have extremely limited risks to the general population.

You seem very confident that other countries would be willing to risk the health of its citizens just to boost their economy ( as in your country). Since the lines employ locals who reside amongst the general citizenry, they would in fact risk infecting the population. Especially considering how rampant the virus is currently in the US

[SelectSys]

15 minutes ago, mom says said:

You seem very confident that other countries would be willing to risk the health of its citizens just to boost their economy ( as in your country). Since the lines employ locals who reside amongst the general citizenry, they would in fact risk infecting the population. Especially considering how rampant the virus is currently in the US

 

I am 100% confident that the countries I listed  above would take the deal in a heartbeat.  You can't look at the situation through the eyes of someone living in a very rich, first world country.  Those with much less make other decisions in terms of balancing economics and health.

 

Heck, I can drive to Tijuana, Mexico for dinner tonight if I want and I would be welcomed with open arms by the Mexican Immigration service at the border with a wave and a smile.   This is with the border being closed to non-essential visits!  I guess spending money at a restaurant is viewed by the Mexican government as essential.

 

BTW,  Tijuana has really great restaurants worth visiting if you have the chance someday.  A nice local wine country as well.

 

Please note that the virus is active in many locations and not just the US as the chart below will indicate.  Congratulations to Canada for doing a good job so far!

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by SelectSys

[njhorseman]

4 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

Is it possible that perhaps this is exactly what the White House wanted?  Essentially they were saying "Instead of telling the cruise lines they can't sail - tell them what they have to do in order to be able to sail".  Seems like a pretty solid approach.

Possibly, but given that the CDC and the White House have been butting heads about almost everything associated with the pandemic from day one and given that the CDC knows far more about  cruise industry operations than the White House because of the CDC's long running regulation of health-related issues on cruise ships, I think they put one over on the politicians who are too busy worrying about getting the incumbent reelected to pay much attention to something that superficially appears to satisfy what the White House apparently wants. I think the scientists snookered the politicians.

[ontheweb]

10 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Possibly, but given that the CDC and the White House have been butting heads about almost everything associated with the pandemic from day one and given that the CDC knows far more about  cruise industry operations than the White House because of the CDC's long running regulation of health-related issues on cruise ships, I think they put one over on the politicians who are too busy worrying about getting the incumbent reelected to pay much attention to something that superficially appears to satisfy what the White House apparently wants. I think the scientists snookered the politicians.

Considering that the news reports headlined cruising to resume and the initial response from those on these boards seem to have seen this as a big immediate step forward, maybe both sides got what they wanted.

[mom says]

59 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

Please note that the virus is active in many locations and not just the US as the chart below will indicate.  Congratulations to Canada for doing a good job so far!

Yes it is true that many European countries are struggling with their second wave, and most are reimposing lock downs in an effort to suppress it. But they will not be cruising out of US ports anytime soon. We are in our own second wave, and while not as bad as many, is bad enough that our chief medical officers continue to warn against nonessential travel. I sincerely hope you are wrong about the Caribbean ports being eager to reopen.