CDC only allowing 7 day cruises till Nov 2021

[senior lady]

15 hours ago, dog said:

And several people are coming into Canada by plane and not doing the 2 week quarantine. Why is that happening?  People in the Toronto hotspots are going to other towns for driver’s tests. So we do have issues here. 

Here in BC they do check.  My son had to fly to Seattle and rent a car to drive to our RV site to close it up for winter.  He quarantined in my basement for the 14 days.  We had 2 phone calls and 2 days before the quarantine ended the bylaw officers showed up at our door looking for him.   BC has hired 800 contact tracers and has made  almost all civil servants bylaw officers.

[senior lady]

13 hours ago, trbarton said:

FYI...I’ve seen a number of stories on YouTube where staff is being hired & are preparing to leave. Look at YouTube to see some of these posts even one from a crew member before he left. 
 

Tom😀

I think that might just be moving crew around the ships as some go home and more come on the ship.  They have to maintain a certain amount of crew on the ship.  I did see a video of a entertainer leaving for Singapore for 3 day cruises to nowhere on Royal Caribbean.  He also said the cruises were only available for locals

 

[nocl]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Your post hints at a personal "pet peeve" issue.  As the result of 9/11 we gave up some of our rights/freedom when it came to commercial flying.  Now, nineteen years after 9/11 we still have not regained those rights.  This is just one example, or many, of what happens when the public quietly agrees to sacrifice rights in the name of the public good.  So now we have COVID where we have quickly given up lots of rights.   History tells us that it is more likely, then not, that we will not get those rights back even when COVID is just a page in the history books.   In our country we have lost our right to peacefully assemble, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (churches are closed down), freedom to go out in public without wearing a mask, and even the freedom to dine at a restaurant of one's choice.   In some cases we have also lost our freedom to move about or simply drive to another State!    I will not even get into what has been done to the cruise industry, but have my doubts that industry will ever be able to fully recover.

 

Like most folks I have some fear of COVID and do use a lot of common sense in an attempt to avoid getting that disease.  But that fear pales in comparison to the fear that we (at least in the USA) have quietly given away some of the important rights that have partially defined our culture and country.  Just this morning I was reading about the new major shutdown that will likely happen in the UK.  That article also talked about how much easier it is to turn off the spigot (i.e. shutdown) then it is to turn it back on!  

 

As to the cruise industry, the CDC guidelines have put the cruise lines in a very bad/dark place.  We now have a group of unelected bureaucrats who have completely taken all rights away from the cruise lines to conduct business in the USA.  Do you honestly think that those rights will be restored after COVID?   Our nation was built and to some degree defined by the ability of anyone to form a business, conduct commerce, and essentially aim for the stars.  All that is now gone and folks can only chase the American dream if unseen bureaucrats give their blessing.  Are we much different then the old Soviet Union, or modern day Venezuela where nothing can happen without government approval?

 

Hank 

 

 

Considering that the CDC has access to the information on how the outbreaks on cruise lines have occurred and the timing of the development of the cases on board many of their rules appear to make use of that information such as the full testing of crew every 7 days and the testing of passengers at the start and end of each cruise.  The rules also seem to address the issues of what happens if a case develops as far as making sure that the ship will be able to return to the originating port and to make sure that agreements exist for treating passengers from such a cruise, housing them in case quarantine is necessary.

 

As far as starting a business in the US first of the cruise lines are not businesses formed in the US, they are foreign corporations that have a track record of using the advantages of incorporating their business in other countries and register their ships in other countries to minimize the impact of US law on them.

 

As far as the CDC being unreasonable.  Most countries are still banning cruise ships entirely from home porting in their countries  Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand.  The only countries currently allowing home ported large ships in Europe are Germany and Italy. That is with  lines that are registered in those countries.  Aida just announce canceling all November cruises due to increase in restrictions in Germany. The ones that are allowed are also doing so under very strict rules, while not exactly the same as the new CDC rules, are very similar in nature.

 

There are a couple of Asian countries that are allowing some cruises, but also under very strict rules, such as Singapore with the Quantum starting in December.

 

The establishment of rules in a pandemic that has already resulted in over 200k deaths in around 8 months, one that appears to be moving from mostly cluster areas to broad penetration across the country is a far cry form not allowing the american dream.  Though without a doubt that nature of some business are impacted more than others.  But those businesses are largely ones where data indicates spread is more likely to occur (inside dining, spas. entertainment venues, large groups indoors and to some degree outdoors).  Unfortunately cruising contains all of those impacted businesses on the same ship.

 

Much of the rest of the economy is functioning well.  Some businesses thriving, some less so.  THe best way to get beyond all of this is to get the counts down, but that would take a measure of cooperation and discipline that the US appears to be lacking.

Edited November 1, 2020 by nocl

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

That would be the test before boarding for the new cruise. However, you will likely need to present a negative result from a PCR test taken within the previous 72 hours, not easy to do if you have been on a cruise ship. That will not be the type test given after disembarking.

That is one of the complexities that come up depending upon implementation.  If they do their own testing at the pier (like MSC) or require the testing done in advance.  If required in advance then as you say it would pretty much eliminate the B2B possibility.

 

Or they could accept the disembarkation test as proof.

 

I am checking the different companies web sites to see if any of the companies are adding the required disclosures and warning that the CDC is requiring.  I think that might be the first sign of intent to move forward with and sail under the terms of the order.

[Cruise Raider]

19 hours ago, Shaver John said:

I guess my question is "Can a cruise even go from San Francisco if the cruise can only go for 7 days?" Since you have to go to a port in another country is it even possible to make it to another country, other than Canada which I doubt will allow the Princess cruises to put thousands of folks ashore from the US, and return within 7 days. I have not studied the possibility, but just curious as I know some of you have kept up with all the routes and how long trips take. Thanks.....

 

Sure they can.  They have a few 5 night roundtrip sailings out of SF with a stop in Mexico or Canada, that latter having locked down their borders for now. We've done a few 3 night sailings from SF to Vancouver and the reverse.  

They could probably even shave that down to 2 nights each way if need be, without any other stops.  They also have some 4 night sailings on Carnival out of SF down to Mexico, so it is quite doable.  7 night sailings have been going out of SF for a number of years, as well.  

[capriccio]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

We now have a group of unelected bureaucrats who have completely taken all rights away from the cruise lines to conduct business in the USA. 

 

I personally trust civil servants (or 'unelected bureaucrats') with expertise in their specific fields much more than I do politicians with little or no expertise answering to their most important donors on whatever topic is at hand. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by capriccio

[jagoffee]

On 10/31/2020 at 11:14 AM, CineGraphic said:

 

Sorry, I prefer logic over believing we only have more positive results because we have more tests.

I did not say that or even implied “only”.  Looking at total cases without considering the number of tests being conducted is not very logical nor scientific, even if it supports your personal opinion.

[Hlitner]

3 minutes ago, capriccio said:

 

I personally trust civil servants (or 'unelected bureaucrats') with expertise in their specific fields much more than I do politicians with little or no expertise answering to their most important donors on whatever topic is at hand. 

LOL.  I have previously posted that I spent a "lifetime" as unelected bureaucrat (I prefer technocrat) civil servant and always found it interesting how many in the general public trusted us to do things in their "best interests."  I do agree that most politicians are not to be trusted (I did meet a few good ones during my career).   In the case of the recent CDC order for the cruise industry I suspect the White House COVID task force pressured the CDC to do something other then a continuous series of No Sail orders.  So the cruise lines finally got some guidelines which still do not give them any guarantee that they can operate cruises.   Lacking a safe/effective vaccine I believe the mass market cruise industry is doomed.  A decent vaccine will change everything so let us all pray that the pharm companies do a great job.  Personally, as much as I love cruising (usually 70-100 days a year) I have no interest in short cruises to handful of ports with all the onboard (and shore) restrictions that will be imposed on passengers.   We have 3 cruises booked in 2021 which are 30, 18 and 14 days in duration and I suspect that at least two of them will go the way of our 4 cancelled 2020 cruises.

 

Hank

[Daniel A]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:06 PM, Jadn13 said:

Seems although the ban was lifted it comes with many restrictions including only 7 day cruises till Nov 2021.

 

That’s not great for many of the itineraries currently being offered on various lines are over 7 days 

I have gone through the Framework document and I cannot locate where it says "only 7 day cruises till Nov 2021"  I did read the section about the 7 day cruise limit and it appears the Framework has a built in flexibility to the 7 day requirement that cruises may be shortened or lengthened based on public health considerations.

 

I hope I'm not repeating any prior posting on this thread.

 

 

[trbarton]

20 hours ago, Shaver John said:

I guess my question is "Can a cruise even go from San Francisco if the cruise can only go for 7 days?" Since you have to go to a port in another country is it even possible to make it to another country, other than Canada which I doubt will allow the Princess cruises to put thousands of folks ashore from the US, and return within 7 days. I have not studied the possibility, but just curious as I know some of you have kept up with all the routes and how long trips take. Thanks.....

John...Yes a cruise can go from San Francisco for 7 days. It’s done many times. Here’s my 2 cruises, 7 days from San Francisco. Both in April 2021. Cruises many times go from Ensenada & Victoria in one day to San Francisco. 
 

Of course anything could change btw now & then. 
 

ITINERARY
Day 1: San Francisco Depart: 4:00pm Day 2: At Sea Day 3: Santa Barbara Arrive: 7:00am Depart: 6:00pm Day 4: Los Angeles Arrive: 7:00am Depart: 10:00pm Day 5: San Diego Arrive: 8:00am Depart: 10:00pm Day 6: Ensenada Arrive: 8:00am Depart: 5:00pm Day 7: At Sea Day 8: San Francisco Arrive: 7:00am

ITINERARY
Day 1: San Francisco Depart: 4:00pm Day 2: At Sea Day 3: Astoria Arrive: 9:00am Depart: 4:00pm Day 4: Seattle Arrive: 9:00am Depart: 9:00pm Day 5: Vancouver Arrive: 9:00am Depart: 11:00pm Day 6: Victoria Arrive: 7:00am Depart: 2:00pm Day 7: At Sea Day 8: San Francisco Arrive: 7:00am

Tom😀

[nocl]

47 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

LOL.  I have previously posted that I spent a "lifetime" as unelected bureaucrat (I prefer technocrat) civil servant and always found it interesting how many in the general public trusted us to do things in their "best interests."  I do agree that most politicians are not to be trusted (I did meet a few good ones during my career).   In the case of the recent CDC order for the cruise industry I suspect the White House COVID task force pressured the CDC to do something other then a continuous series of No Sail orders.  So the cruise lines finally got some guidelines which still do not give them any guarantee that they can operate cruises.   Lacking a safe/effective vaccine I believe the mass market cruise industry is doomed.  A decent vaccine will change everything so let us all pray that the pharm companies do a great job.  Personally, as much as I love cruising (usually 70-100 days a year) I have no interest in short cruises to handful of ports with all the onboard (and shore) restrictions that will be imposed on passengers.   We have 3 cruises booked in 2021 which are 30, 18 and 14 days in duration and I suspect that at least two of them will go the way of our 4 cancelled 2020 cruises.

 

Hank

So if you were an unelected bureaucrat, that the public trusted to do things in their best interest, and you do not trust unelected bureaucrats, does that mean that as one of that category you could not be trusted?

 

I spent many years in various portions of government agencies and research institutions including involvement with National Science Foundation (field work in Antarctica), DOE (University of Chicago - Argonne National Laboratory), FDA (National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA Headquarters).  I found that most people working for those institutions were very interested in doing what was right.  Even those that I may have disagreed with were almost, universally, trying to do their job the best that they could in the interest of both the Agency and the public.  Those that were not  interested in doing such tended not to stay in those positions very long.

 

While there were times that there were political pressure, the good thing about the structure is that most of the management and work structure are not political appointees and outlast the bad portions of any administration.  Those cases where political pressure was applied tended to get bogged down very quickly and impact limited. Most professional knew that they would be there after any current administration and it political employees were long gone.  It made it difficult to make improvements, but it also prevents major disasters due to the whims of any given administration.  Administrations come and bureaucracies are forever.

Edited November 1, 2020 by nocl

[caribill]

43 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I have gone through the Framework document and I cannot locate where it says "only 7 day cruises till Nov 2021" 

 

Page 40 has this statement:

 

 

 

[Daniel A]

8 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

Page 40 has this statement:

 

So at this point then the latest that there would be a 7 day limit would be Nov 2021.  Numbers 1 & 2 are provisions for lifting that limit sooner.  The 7 day limit articulated on page 32 clearly indicates this is a 'fluid' restriction that will be under constant review based on then existing conditions.  I just think the title of the thread is somewhat misleading.

[Ken the cruiser]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I have gone through the Framework document and I cannot locate where it says "only 7 day cruises till Nov 2021"  I did read the section about the 7 day cruise limit and it appears the Framework has a built in flexibility to the 7 day requirement that cruises may be shortened or lengthened based on public health considerations.

We agree. This part of that 7 day stipulation gives us hope that longer cruises might be allowed if vaccines become available to the general public and the pandemic starts to subside well before Nov 2021.

Edited November 1, 2020 by Ken the cruiser

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, Ken the cruiser said:

This part of that 7 day stipulation gives us hope that longer cruises might be allowed if vaccines become available to the general public and the pandemic starts to subside well before Nov 2021.

Precisely my point!  😃

[Hlitner]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Really, Hank?  So, I guess that MARPOL, SOLAS, the Clean Water and Air Acts, OSHA, the FAA and the ICC, to name just a few, should all be abolished because they place restrictions on companies doing business in the US?

LOL  that is a thought :).   Sorry 😞  Can't help myself as it is the libertarian mind set that lies within.   By the way, my idea of the perfect chief engineer is Charlie Allnut!  (look it up).

 

Hank

[Daniel A]

25 minutes ago, nocl said:

While there were times that there were political pressure, the good thing about the structure is that most of the management and work structure are not political appointees and outlast the bad portions of any administration.  Those cases where political pressure was applied tended to get bogged down very quickly and impact limited. Most professional knew that they would be there after any current administration and it political employees were long gone.  It made it difficult to make improvements, but it also prevents major disasters due to the whims of any given administration.  Administrations come and bureaucracies are forever.

I think you are only viewing this through the lens of an embedded bureaucrat.  The bureaucrats who bogged down policies and procedures promulgated by the elected politicians just because they disagreed were in fact disregarding the will of the People who elected those politicians to a position of responsibility and authority.

 

That constitutes the true danger to a Democratic Republic.  It should always be the will of the electorate to determine what is best for them not that of embedded civil servants.

 

[LACruiser88]

43 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

So at this point then the latest that there would be a 7 day limit would be Nov 2021.  Numbers 1 & 2 are provisions for lifting that limit sooner.  The 7 day limit articulated on page 32 clearly indicates this is a 'fluid' restriction that will be under constant review based on then existing conditions.  I just think the title of the thread is somewhat misleading.

 

I agree, the title of this thread is not only misleading but is incorrect...

[nocl]

20 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I think you are only viewing this through the lens of an embedded bureaucrat.  The bureaucrats who bogged down policies and procedures promulgated by the elected politicians just because they disagreed were in fact disregarding the will of the People who elected those politicians to a position of responsibility and authority.

 

That constitutes the true danger to a Democratic Republic.  It should always be the will of the electorate to determine what is best for them not that of embedded civil servants.

 

Oh while I worked with the bureaucrats, I was never one of them.  I was always a consultant/contractor  Though I did chair committees for the FDA that senior personnel sat on.  As well as had to have a federal register notice submitted such that I, a non-FDA employee, could represent the Agency in international negotiations. So I don't think that I ever looked at things through the lens of an embedded bureaucrat.  Most of the time I was tasked to make changes. Changes that were designed to enhance procedures and process. Often to lead initiatives that fairly senior folks would not take on because they thought that they were doomed to fail.  I was successful because my focus was strictly on the best way to get effective results for the organization. Not tied to any existing structure or the battles between the various fiefdoms in the agency. 

 

However, in those roles I got quite a bit of experience in how things work and to observe when pressure was being applied solely for political purposes.  There have certainly been times before this administration where political pressure has been applied.  Those you refer to as embedded bureaucrats have a very strong sense of mission.  They can also recognize when something makes sense to accomplish that mission and pressure applied that will result in a negative impact on the mission of the Agency. I have seen some good political appointees and some rather incompetent ones.  At the FDA the political appointees tend to be in the Office of the Commissioner (the level at which I worked).  The 7 Center Directors and those that work in the centers are long term professionals.

 

If anything in the FDA the people working there are risk adverse and as such may be slow to take deviate from accepted and proved protocols.  

 

I left my role there with the Agency and shifted to the industry side when there was a change and the only way I could continue was if I became an FDA employee.  In my opinion that would reduce my effectiveness to do what I needed to do so I left.

 

 

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I think you are only viewing this through the lens of an embedded bureaucrat.  The bureaucrats who bogged down policies and procedures promulgated by the elected politicians just because they disagreed were in fact disregarding the will of the People who elected those politicians to a position of responsibility and authority.

 

That constitutes the true danger to a Democratic Republic.  It should always be the will of the electorate to determine what is best for them not that of embedded civil servants.

 

let me clarify one point by defining what I consider to be political pressure it is any attempt to make arbitrary changes to process, structure  regulations  that does not follow the legal requirements for making such changes or is counter to existing law without either modification to that law or without a court ruling that indicates the interpretation of the law is incorrect.

 

I do not use the term political pressure to changes that are appropriately vetted, in compliance with the procedures that exist for making such changes and or are supported by changes in law.

[Daniel A]

14 minutes ago, nocl said:

Oh while I worked with the bureaucrats, I was never one of them. 

 

So I don't think that I ever looked at things through the lens of an embedded bureaucrat.  

 

However, in those roles I got quite a bit of experience in how things work and to observe when pressure was being applied solely for political purposes.  Those you refer to as embedded bureaucrats have a very strong sense of mission.  They can also recognize when something makes sense to accomplish that mission and pressure applied that will result in a negative impact on the mission of the Agency. 

Please don't misunderstand me.  I was saying that when the topic is viewed through the lens of an imbedded bureaucrat that lens is skewed to a belief of the bureaucrats being the ones in charge.  I didn't mean to infer that you are/were an imbedded bureaucrat.  To take the concept of bureaucrats sabotaging the will of the elected officials a little further, I'm sure that many of the third world military leaders who stage military coups think they are doing the best for the population because of a belief that they know better.  It still doesn't make it right.

 

I served in the Civil Service for more than 40 years and had the standard Civil Service job security.  I saw the imbedded bureaucrats at work all the time.  I always understood that my work was subject to the will of the elected officials appointed above me and my oaths of office required such subjugation.  Even when I served in very senior positions I did what I was told as long as it was legal.  My personal feelings were left at the door.  One thing the imbedded bureaucrats had in common was their belief in the "ends of the roast."   If you're not familiar with the story of the ends of the roast, google it.  I think this is to what @Hlitner was referring.

 

Good discussion!

 

[cruisequeen4ever]

 

1) I’m happy there is a plan to allow at least some cruises. 
 

2) I am quite disappointed we won’t be able to take cruises longer than 7 days.

 

3) I wonder if they start a cruise from a foreign port and end in a foreign port, they can operate longer cruises, like the ones to Tahiti and Europe. 
 

4) I am happy that the end date is not firm if COVID is deemed better sooner than that.

 

5) I’m a bit concerned by Princess’s statement I mean, I know this has completely upended their plans for the next year, but I wish there had been a bit more encouragement in their statement.

 

6) I hope a B2B would be possible. I’m sure we’d have to be tested back in FL, but that’s fine if it gets me another 7 days! 

7) I wonder if foreign cruises happen if we’ll be allowed on them. 

[dog]

3 hours ago, senior lady said:

Here in BC they do check.  My son had to fly to Seattle and rent a car to drive to our RV site to close it up for winter.  He quarantined in my basement for the 14 days.  We had 2 phone calls and 2 days before the quarantine ended the bylaw officers showed up at our door looking for him.   BC has hired 800 contact tracers and has made  almost all civil servants bylaw officers.

It is same here for those driving in across border. An article in news mentioned Pearson airport having very high numbers entering and being exempt from quarantine. 

[d9704011]

5 minutes ago, dog said:

It is same here for those driving in across border. An article in news mentioned Pearson airport having very high numbers entering and being exempt from quarantine. 

Very high numbers?

[dog]

Just now, d9704011 said:

Very high numbers?

I don’t have link to article,  try google if interested