New CDC guidelines released 5/5/21

[Gracie115]

29 minutes ago, ECCruise said:

Not true.

These are exactly their words in the CSO:

CDC acknowledges that it is not possible for cruising to be a zero-risk activity for spread of COVID-19.

 

They  may acknowledge it that way, but it still seems that's what they are trying to attain with the current protocols.

[Gracie115]

26 minutes ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Now if there policies and regulations reflected this reality, then we would be making progress.

Exactly

[ECCruise]

2 minutes ago, Gracie115 said:

 

They  may acknowledge it that way, but it still seems that's what they are trying to attain with the current protocols.

Well if people won't believe what is written right in front of them, there is absolutely no reason for discussion.

 

I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people (who don't post on a cruise addicts board) that think the CDC proposals are not strong enough.   And wouldn't get on a cruise ship if there was a fresh $1000 bill waiting in the cabin of a free cruise.

[Gracie115]

Just now, ECCruise said:

Well if people won't believe what is written right in front of them, there is absolutely no reason for discussion.

 

I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people (who don't post on a cruise addicts board) that think the CDC proposals are not strong enough.   And wouldn't get on a cruise ship if there was a fresh $1000 bill waiting in the cabin of a free cruise.

 

And that is their choice.  Just because something is "written" doesn't make it so.  

 

You believe what you want and I will do the same.  

[HMR74]

Here is the real issue:

the cruise lines do not have unlimited money, the CDC does and is running the clock down on the cruise lines.

 

CDC wins either way-if cruise lines give in  and do it the zero risk CDC way, or if cruise lines run out of cash, CDC wins.

 

The question is why?

[nocl]

1 hour ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Probably?  sure

the link you posted states developed in conjunction with OSHA.

[HMR74]

27 minutes ago, Gracie115 said:

 

And that is their choice.  Just because something is "written" doesn't make it so.  

 

You believe what you want and I will do the same.  

The ancillary problem for the people and cruise lines is that say 1/2 the people do not want to wear masks on a cruise, and 1/2 want everybody wearing masks.

 

There are not enough paying customers to fill the ships for both ways.  How we and cruise lines gonna deal with that little problem. The "my way or the highway" position only means +/- 50% occupancy.

You have to admit, the CDC did maneuver itself for this to occur.

 

Like in a chess game, before one makes a move, an analysis of what is possibly going to occur as a result of that move has to occur.

But the problem here is the CDC is holding all the cards.

 

Ever hear the term "don't fight city hall"?

However, if the CDC wanted a real win win situation, it woudl let the cruise lines go as they want and if everything turns out find, well of, if not, capitalism works and the lines that do not respond correctly, lose big time.

 

Radical approach ? Yep-but I bet it would work. If things bad happen people flock away from that cruise line.

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by HMR74

[nocl]

8 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

Here is the real issue:

the cruise lines do not have unlimited money, the CDC does and is running the clock down on the cruise lines.

 

CDC wins either way-if cruise lines give in  and do it the zero risk CDC way, or if cruise lines run out of cash, CDC wins.

 

The question is why?

Because the data shows the risk of transmission on cruise ships requires mitigation. while the cruise lines have been willing to work with other countries that have required similar mitigation such as masks, testing and even vaccinations. They have not demonstrated the willingness to move forward with the CDC.

 

It is and has been up to the cruise lines to submit their plans. Only NCL seems to be moving in that direction.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, KOWkittie said:

And yet the CDC and most of the intelligent medical community now admit that once you've had the vax, that it's safe to ditch the masks especially outdoors😨, cant wait to see some crazy mask tans!

as long as you are with small groups of vaccinated individuals. the numbers on cruise ships are neither small nor guaranteed to be fully vaccinated until the cruise sign the attestation documents that commits them to make sure that the passengers are fully vaccinated.

[ipeeinthepool]

14 minutes ago, nocl said:

the link you posted states developed in conjunction with OSHA.

 I'm sure this makes sense to all of the government bureaucrats around the beltway.  I'm sure that's exactly what happened

[grandgeezer]

57 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Which they did for the European and Mediterranean cruises.  It's been mentioned before, but it's worth mentioning again:  400,000+ passengers, only 50 cases of Covid.  PRE-vaccine.

The conditions they are sailing under, with reduced capacities and others, if left in place would put the lines out of business. Unless I missed something, they haven't changed much of anything since they started sailing last August.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Which they did for the European and Mediterranean cruises.  It's been mentioned before, but it's worth mentioning again:  400,000+ passengers, only 50 cases of Covid.  PRE-vaccine.

All of which were done on cruising with social distancing, heavy testing, mask mandates. restricted to cruise line only excursions. cruise lengths limited.

 

 basically the same things the CDC is requiring until a cruise line submits there attestation documents that vaccination will be required.

 

Just as a note even with those restrictions there were 33 cases on one Hurtigrutin cruise. So a breakdown of exactly what cruises generated those numbers. After all Royal first start cruises in Singapore (a country with extremely low number of cases) doing very short cruises to nowhere so understanding how many of their passengers were sailing from where, on what type of cruise, under what type of restrictions would provide much more info than  blanket we have has X cases out of y passengers.  I would not expect any cases out of their Singapore cruises for example.

[HMR74]

On the other hand, faced with this problem of mask no mask, vaccine no vaccine, the cruise ships can stay away from US ports, but then would the CDC make reentering the US difficult?

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

On the other hand, faced with this problem of mask no mask, vaccine no vaccine, the cruise ships can stay away from US ports, but then would the CDC make reentering the US difficult?

All of the CDC requirements are for reentering the US.  That is the CDC's mandate, giving health clearance to allow a ship to enter US waters.  So, a ship could sail without stopping at a US port for years, but just like when a ship reenters the US after a long hiatus, it gets an immediate VSP inspection, or in this case, it would have to have shown that it at least followed the CDC "covid operations manual" for a certain amount of time prior to being granted entry.  There would not be any punitive actions just because a ship sailed around staying away from the US.  I believe the CSO has a timeline for when a ship wants to start calling at US ports.

Edited May 10, 2021 by chengkp75

[nocl]

21 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

On the other hand, faced with this problem of mask no mask, vaccine no vaccine, the cruise ships can stay away from US ports, but then would the CDC make reentering the US difficult?

the rules for return to the US via international flights is pretty clear negative test within 72 hours prior to boarding flight. if one tests positive 10 day quarantine before return.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

And, have you read MSC's policies?  Pretty much what the CDC is requiring, but guess what, they did it all on their own, not waiting for CDC to issue specific instructions, so their plan would very likely meet with approval from the CDC.  Have they submitted their plan for review?  Do they not want to get the port/service agreements?  They have some of these same things in Europe, just with less strict outlines due to the differences in the health care industries between US and Europe.

MSC did it in conjunction with Italian health authorities who had to approve their plan before they could sail from Italian ports.  Not unlike what the CDC is requesting here.

 

The only real differences are that CDC is 1. making the cruise lines be responsible for cases that occur on board with the port agreements. and 2. a cruise line and their senior managements faces legal liability if they do not implement the plan as approved.

[wrk2cruise]

Right and I think it's really #1 which is holding things up.   The phase 2A requirements have been out for some time and I've heard nothing about any line having any contracts in place.   To me this is what the lines are really trying to make go away.  Once they get you off the ship they want no responsibility as it has always been.

 

I'm sure the cruise line really cares less what the CDC requires for mask wearing onboard as it costs them nothing other than maybe a percentage of passengers who will decide not to cruise which probably wouldn't impact their revenue when forced to sail with reduced capacity.

[HMR74]

23 minutes ago, nocl said:

the rules for return to the US via international flights is pretty clear negative test within 72 hours prior to boarding flight. if one tests positive 10 day quarantine before return.

change my comment to "More difficult".

[Gracie115]

49 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

On the other hand, faced with this problem of mask no mask, vaccine no vaccine, the cruise ships can stay away from US ports, but then would the CDC make reentering the US difficult?

 

Undoubtedly!

[4774Papa]

3 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Nope, but meat packing plants and manufacturing facilities are a lot different than companies that deal directly with customers.  However I'll bet those meat packing plants have a lot of procedures and restrictions based on CDC regulations that make no sense because the CDC doesn't have expertise in these areas.  The meat packing plants are likely less efficient than they could be and the price is paid by the customer.

Wouldn't the FDA be the agency the regulates meat packing.

[markeb]

Just now, 4774Papa said:

Wouldn't the FDA be the agency the regulates meat packing.

USDA for meat and meat containing products. It’s complicated. 

[kirtihk]

2 hours ago, ECCruise said:

Not true.

These are exactly their words in the CSO:

CDC acknowledges that it is not possible for cruising to be a zero-risk activity for spread of COVID-19.

Only death is zero-risk activity.

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, 4774Papa said:

Wouldn't the FDA be the agency the regulates meat packing.

Responsibilities split between different agencies. FDA provides scientific expertise and gets involved if there is a product recall. FDA Center for Food Safety and Nutrician.

 

Inspections are under Department of Agriculture.

[jagoffee]

9 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, also remember, that the President has said there will be no federal requirement for a vaccination document.  So, while the cruise lines have said what they intend to do (require vaccination), they still have not submitted a plan of how they intend to do this, so the CDC sets the requirements assuming that the stated goal of 100% vaccination (or even 95%) will not actually be met, or verified.

I suspect that the only reason that the CDC is not requiring a vaccine for everyone is because they legally cannot.  My understanding is they would need for the vaccine to be approved by the FDA.

On the surface the 95% language might be just a way to get around the law.  If the CDC stipulates rules that are not workable without a vaccine,  then they are pushing each cruise to do what they cannot do.  (Require a vaccination)

 

Is this right?

[markeb]

1 minute ago, jagoffee said:

I suspect that the only reason that the CDC is not requiring a vaccine for everyone is because they legally cannot.  My understanding is they would need for the vaccine to be approved by the FDA.

On the surface the 95% language might be just a way to get around the law.  If the CDC stipulates rules that are not workable without a vaccine,  then they are pushing each cruise to do what they cannot do.  (Require a vaccination)

 

Is this right?

 

Other than for immigration purposes, last I looked the CDC (and the rest of HHS for that matter) has no legal authority to require general immunization. There is a specific list of vaccines required for applicants for an immigrant visa. Even once licensed by the FDA, it would be state, local, territorial, and tribal governments who would have the authority to mandate its use. (And private employers, universities, potentially school districts depending on the state, etc.) That bothersome 10th Amendment at work, once again.

 

Regarding the 95% language. There is probably a greater concentration of biostatisticians at the CDC than just about anywhere else in the country. And if I count the public health school at Emory right next door, I'm sure there's more than anywhere else. 100% is for all intents and purposes a statistically impossible number, especially in biology. There's no way on earth they were going to say 100%. They'd implode like Dracula in sunshine in those bad 1970's Hammer movies. Just wasn't going to happen.