Does the CDC have jurisdiction outside of the US?

[Hlitner]

9 hours ago, Essiesmom said:

I agree, however if you say fully vaccinated no longer need to wear a mask, how are you going to ascertain all those people not wearing masks have been vaccinated?  EM

You are not!  However like with many public health issues we need to accept the doctrine of "personal responsibility."  If folks want to make themselves sick or even kill themselves our system gives them to rope to hang themselves.   So follow the logic.  According to Rochelle Walensky (CDC Director) folks that are fully vaccinated do not carry the COVID virus (there are a few rare exceptions which she did not acknowledge).   So those who are fully vaccinated do not endanger others whether they wear or do not wear a mask.  Those that are no vaccinated are not in danger from fully vaccinated folks (since Dr Walensky says they do not carry COVID).  If the unvaccinated make a personal decision not to do anything to protect themselves (i.e. get vaccinated, wear a mask, social distance, etc) then if they get COVID it is on them!  They take their chances and the reap the reward which is increasing their risk of getting COVID.   But masking fully vaccinated folks would not help anyone since according to Dr. Walensky they do not get sick and do not spread COVID.  

 

So why does the CDC insist on a policy that is contrary to their own statements.   Well after Dr Walensky said that fully vaccinated folks do not get sick her own agency (CDC) later contradicted her statements.   So I guess we can choose between the highly esteemed CDC Director or her underlings.   The NY Post actually wrote a pretty accurate story about this topic:

CDC walks back claim that vaccinated people can't carry COVID (nypost.com)

 

But why should we be surprised that the CDC continues to step on their own messages, contradict themselves, etc.  It has been that way for over 1 year.  So here are Dr. Walensky's own words,

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.”   “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data,” she added.

 

What changed after Dr. Walensky made this statement on several TV interviews? The only conclusion can be that her statement did not fit into somebody's agenda.  

 

Hank

[JABTPS]

7 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

What changed after Dr. Walensky made this statement on several TV interviews

Impeding doom for all of us !  We will all suffer because we are not following the letter of the order

[ldubs]

10 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Do you really mean regardless of the varying necessity of particular industries - or the different risks involved in the activities conducted by those industries?

 

10 hours ago, bigrednole said:

Yes, I mean ALL industries. The CDC has hand picked a single industry to attack to require unattainable requirements. Those same requirements need to be placed on everything and all industries operating in the US: healthcare, hospitality, private business, public business, airlines, public transportation, everything. If not, then the CDC cannot even get their own facts and data right.

 

 

I'm literally agog with astonishment that anyone would seriously believe this.   Asking for clarification of how different industries are handled is one thing.  Saying essential & nonessential activities should be treated the same is truly a wonderment, but not in any positive way.    

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

 

I'm literally agog with astonishment that anyone would seriously believe this.   Asking for clarification of how different industries are handled is one thing.  Saying essential & nonessential activities should be treated the same is truly a wonderment, but not in any positive way.    

There is a fair sized nucleus of folks who believe that cruising should take precedence over public health, and they support their stance by selectively citing reports, statements, releases, etc. which seem to support it ----- while happily ignoring the fact that we have lost a lot more than a half million fellow citizens (a couple million fellow humans) to a virus which is actively mutating.

 

Bluntly put -- many of them are too stupid to live, but a lot will --- in spite of their agitating against responsible precautions.

[CruiserBruce]

Oh boy @Hlitner, speaking of agendas, NYPost never has any agenda...ever.

[Hlitner]

23 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Oh boy @Hlitner, speaking of agendas, NYPost never has any agenda...ever.

Ok, you can attack the publication if it makes you feel better.  But can you find any errors in the facts within the story?   And by some weird coincidence I happened to be watching TV one day in late March when Dr. Walensky (on a live news show) made that very statement "fully vaccinated folks do not get sick and do not carry COVID."   For those that only trust left leaning shows she also made a similar statement on the Rachel Maddow show.

 

Hank 

[Sky616]

13 hours ago, Keksie said:

We have an administration where a fully vaccinated man walks outside with no one near him wearing a mask to announce that the CDC has stated that people can be outside without masks.  We have a CDC director who comes out with impending feeling doom type statements.  No wonder a lot of people are afraid.  The Florida Surgeon General wrote in his resolution fully vaccinated people should no longer be required to wear masks or avoid social or recreational gatherings.  This is the message that needs to be promoted instead of the message of what if this, what if that, this could happen etc. that is making people afraid. 

And you may be able to have a BBQ on the 4th.   What a joke.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Sky616

[Keksie]

5 minutes ago, Sky616 said:

And you may be able to have a BBQ on the 4th.   What a joke.

I just wish I knew more people here so I can have a bigger party.  Maybe the town will have a big celebration.  We did have a Christmas parade and a Mardi Gras parade.  

[AF-1]

The OP stated the CDC picks and chooses between airlines and cruise ships.  Below is one reason airlines continue to fly during this pandemic.  Mail needs to be moved everyday and commercial jets help provide that mission. 

Just about every passenger flight is carrying some freight along with the passengers and their baggage. The U.S. Postal Service alone leases space on 15,000 of the approximately 25,000 scheduled passenger flights each day. Commercial airlines make about 5 to 10 percent of their revenue from hauling freight.

[navybankerteacher]

11 minutes ago, AF-1 said:

The OP stated the CDC picks and chooses between airlines and cruise ships.  Below is one reason airlines continue to fly during this pandemic.  Mail needs to be moved everyday and commercial jets help provide that mission. 

Just about every passenger flight is carrying some freight along with the passengers and their baggage. The U.S. Postal Service alone leases space on 15,000 of the approximately 25,000 scheduled passenger flights each day. Commercial airlines make about 5 to 10 percent of their revenue from hauling freight.

And airline passenger revenue comes from hauling people who have varying reasons (some vital) for being on board - while cruise ship passengers are on board solely for recreational reason.  Equating the two is beneath stupid — it is evasively stupid.

[AF-1]

19 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

And airline passenger revenue comes from hauling people who have varying reasons (some vital) for being on board - while cruise ship passengers are on board solely for recreational reason.  Equating the two is beneath stupid — it is evasively stupid.

Agree with you.

[DirtyDawg]

13 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

There is a fair sized nucleus of folks who believe that cruising should take precedence over public health, and they support their stance by selectively citing reports, statements, releases, etc. which seem to support it ----- while happily ignoring the fact that we have lost a lot more than a half million fellow citizens (a couple million fellow humans) to a virus which is actively mutating.

 

Bluntly put -- many of them are too stupid to live, but a lot will --- in spite of their agitating against responsible precautions.

'too stupid to live'  That's what I think of some of the university students I teach.  The university discourages my use of that term though. 🙂

 

As for some of our fellow CC posters, I've always thought that this place should have been call cruiseaddict and we all know addicts don't think rationally when they really, really need a fix. 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by DirtyDawg

[Flatbush Flyer]

34 minutes ago, DirtyDawg said:

'too stupid to live'  That's what I think of some of the university students I teach.  The university discourages my use of that term though. 🙂

 

Perhaps the poor quality of some of your university’s faculty is such that they only attract unqualified students?

[DirtyDawg]

1 minute ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Perhaps the poor quality of some of your university’s faculty is such that they only attract unqualified students?

 

LOL 

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, DirtyDawg said:

'too stupid to live'  That's what I think of some of the university students I teach.  The university discourages my use of that term though. 🙂

 

As for some of our fellow CC posters, I've always thought that this place should have been call cruiseaddict and we all know addicts don't think rationally when they really, really need a fix. 

 

 

I believe another site that is now defunct took the addict name. There are definitely some addicts on this site who don't think rationally about cruises. 

[ldubs]

18 hours ago, Hlitner said:

 So here are Dr. Walensky's own words,

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.”   “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data,” she added.

 

What changed after Dr. Walensky made this statement on several TV interviews? The only conclusion can be that her statement did not fit into somebody's agenda.  

 

Hank

 

What changed is a valid question, I think.   It appears the concern about her statement, and the need for the follow up clarification, is that no vaccine is 100% effective.   I'm guessing Dr. Walensky wanted to communicate about how well the vaccines are working.  To me she overstated things and of course people will jump on that in a heartbeat.  

 

[ldubs]

15 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

There is a fair sized nucleus of folks who believe that cruising should take precedence over public health, and they support their stance by selectively citing reports, statements, releases, etc. which seem to support it ----- while happily ignoring the fact that we have lost a lot more than a half million fellow citizens (a couple million fellow humans) to a virus which is actively mutating.

 

Bluntly put -- many of them are too stupid to live, but a lot will --- in spite of their agitating against responsible precautions.

 

 

Clearly there is a lot of frustration and, I believe, a need for more effective communication.  Name calling is probably not going to accomplish much.  I do think a lot of people are letting their frustrations cloud their thinking for sure. 

 

I really don't have an issue with questions.  Why ban cruises but not flights frequently comes up and is a valid question.   I'm not convinced the primary reason is one of essential vs non-essential travel.   I would guess the majority of folks on flights are not on "vital" trip.  I think the primary reason is experience shows flights are pretty safe.   We know the track record with cruises.   

[Hlitner]

4 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

What changed is a valid question, I think.   It appears the concern about her statement, and the need for the follow up clarification, is that no vaccine is 100% effective.   I'm guessing Dr. Walensky wanted to communicate about how well the vaccines are working.  To me she overstated things and of course people will jump on that in a heartbeat.  

 

Actually she was pretty accurate in that the odds of a serious breakthrough (when a fully vaccinated patient gets the disease) is a remote possibility.  As you say, no vaccine is perfect but the Pfizer and Moderna are darn close.  I think the issue at the CDC was that if one accepted the "bosses" statement there is absolutely no justification for fully vaccinated folks to wear a mask or social distance.  If a cohort of  14,000 people all wore the best masks and wore them properly you would statistically only prevent one case of COVID (and 90% of those cases would be asymptomatic or mild).   Accepting the current masking and social distancing policy for fully vaccinated folks would mean that folks would need to wear masks and social distance for the rest of their natural lives.  That is because there will always be a slight risk of COVID and other diseases.  In the past we (society) have accepted that there is always some risk to catching a disease otherwise we would all be living in spacesuits with their own filtered air supply.

 

And that gets to the point that Frank del Rio has been trying to make to the CDC.  He simply argues that any ship that has 100% of vaccinated folks is not a statistical risk...in terms of COVID.  His argument is fully supported by the CDCs own statistics.  So where does this leave us.  We might see two different types of cruises.  Those that depart from non-US ports and do not visit any US port might soon be operating in a relatively normal manner.  But ships that are allowed to operate from a US port (or visit any US Port) might need to be operated like a big isolation unit with passengers needing to mask in the dining rooms (when they do not have a utensil in their mouth), wear masks when sitting outdoors (even if 6 feet from the nearest person), only be allowed to spend limited time in a pool or hot tub (so as to allow others to also have a chance), etc.  Show rooms would only be to operate at about 1/3 capacity (to achieve a 6 foot spacing in all directions) and they would likely need to set up an exit program where folks would need to leave the showroom row by row in order to maintain a 6 foot social distancing radius.  This all sounds crazy but that is what it will take to even begin to comply with the current CDC guidelines.   And folks should also understand that the current CDC guidelines mandate that passengers can only leave the ship (at any port) as part of a small group cruise line excursion and they must stay within the "bubble" of that group at all times.  This means no shopping, no using local eateries, no walking on a beach, etc..  And one can only guess what that will cost the passengers.  

 

Hank

 

 

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, Hlitner said:

Actually she was pretty accurate in that the odds of a serious breakthrough (when a fully vaccinated patient gets the disease) is a remote possibility.  As you say, no vaccine is perfect but the Pfizer and Moderna are darn close.  I think the issue at the CDC was that if one accepted the "bosses" statement there is absolutely no justification for fully vaccinated folks to wear a mask or social distance.  If a cohort of  14,000 people all wore the best masks and wore them properly you would statistically only prevent one case of COVID (and 90% of those cases would be asymptomatic or mild).   Accepting the current masking and social distancing policy for fully vaccinated folks would mean that folks would need to wear masks and social distance for the rest of their natural lives.  That is because there will always be a slight risk of COVID and other diseases.  In the past we (society) have accepted that there is always some risk to catching a disease otherwise we would all be living in spacesuits with their own filtered air supply.

 

And that gets to the point that Frank del Rio has been trying to make to the CDC.  He simply argues that any ship that has 100% of vaccinated folks is not a statistical risk...in terms of COVID.  His argument is fully supported by the CDCs own statistics.  So where does this leave us.  We might see two different types of cruises.  Those that depart from non-US ports and do not visit any US port might soon be operating in a relatively normal manner.  But ships that are allowed to operate from a US port (or visit any US Port) might need to be operated like a big isolation unit with passengers needing to mask in the dining rooms (when they do not have a utensil in their mouth), wear masks when sitting outdoors (even if 6 feet from the nearest person), only be allowed to spend limited time in a pool or hot tub (so as to allow others to also have a chance), etc.  Show rooms would only be to operate at about 1/3 capacity (to achieve a 6 foot spacing in all directions) and they would likely need to set up an exit program where folks would need to leave the showroom row by row in order to maintain a 6 foot social distancing radius.  This all sounds crazy but that is what it will take to even begin to comply with the current CDC guidelines.   And folks should also understand that the current CDC guidelines mandate that passengers can only leave the ship (at any port) as part of a small group cruise line excursion and they must stay within the "bubble" of that group at all times.  This means no shopping, no using local eateries, no walking on a beach, etc..  And one can only guess what that will cost the passengers.  

 

Hank

 

 

 

I was responding specifically to "what changed".   

 

I'm not following this as closely as you or others.  My understanding, per CDC, was a group of vaccinated folks do not need a mask.  A vaccinated person does not need to wear a mask outdoors or among small groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated.  But they should wear a mask if in a very crowded venue like a concert.   Of course, an unvaccinated person also does not need to wear a mask outdoors if social distancing is maintained.  What science exactly is behind all of these rules I don't know.   I'm speculating we will see relaxed guidelines relatively soon as the war against covid progresses.  

 

[slidergirl]

3 hours ago, DirtyDawg said:

'too stupid to live'  That's what I think of some of the university students I teach.  The university discourages my use of that term though. 🙂

 

As for some of our fellow CC posters, I've always thought that this place should have been call cruiseaddict and we all know addicts don't think rationally when they really, really need a fix. 

 

If I didn't see your location as "We The North", I would have tghought you might be a professor at one of the universities and colleges in South Central Pennsylvania... 😉

 

Uni kids are in that "invincible" period of life.  The "do it for those around you" is sometimes what is needed for them.  "You may get it and be unaffected,  but you could pass it to Grandma and she could die from it."   Some of the carrots getting offered could help - entrance to clubs, dances, games...

[mnocket]

I don't think the CDC has jurisdiction outside of the USA, but the USA does have some jurisdiction over ships that depart from US ports.  The clearest example of this is the US restriction on cruising to Cuba. The US can't restrict all cruise ships from visiting Cuba, but it can, and has, restricted ships that depart from US ports from visiting Cuba.  I imagine this principle could be extended to controlling onboard Covid restrictions even when outside of US waters.  Can't say for sure.

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

...

 

I think the issue at the CDC was that if one accepted the "bosses" statement there is absolutely no justification for fully vaccinated folks to wear a mask or social distance.  ...

 

Hank

 

 

You have made this sort of statement a number of times and it needs some feedback. Agreed that fully vaccinated folks do not need to wear masks or socially distance.  But, there are more than 160,000,000 non- vaccinated people in the US - and they are the ones who should wear masks.  The anti-vaxxers areprobably also the most anti-maskers also.

 

Do you really think these folks will voluntarily identify themselves and wear masks and socially distance?  The only practical approach is for everyone to take such precautions.  We still have enough population at risk to require even the responsible, thinking members of society to take such action - admirredly largely for the benefit of the others.

 

If ships can EFFECTIVELY achieve 100% immunized passengers and staff- there is no need for such steps on board.  Can that be achieved?

[Hlitner]

58 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

You have made this sort of statement a number of times and it needs some feedback. Agreed that fully vaccinated folks do not need to wear masks or socially distance.  But, there are more than 160,000,000 non- vaccinated people in the US - and they are the ones who should wear masks.  The anti-vaxxers areprobably also the most anti-maskers also.

 

Do you really think these folks will voluntarily identify themselves and wear masks and socially distance?  The only practical approach is for everyone to take such precautions.  We still have enough population at risk to require even the responsible, thinking members of society to take such action - admirredly largely for the benefit of the others.

 

If ships can EFFECTIVELY achieve 100% immunized passengers and staff- there is no need for such steps on board.  Can that be achieved?

I completely agree with you when it comes to the unvaccinated and antivaxers.  But at this point is is relatively easy for anyone in the US who wants to be vaccinated to get a shot.  I have zero sympathy for those that procrastinate or simply refuse.  If they choose not to wear a mask to protect themselves then it is on them!  I am not willing to completely alter my life because of their actions or inactions.  The point is that when our "experts" say that fully vaccinated folks need to mask to protect others from them (the vaccinated) they are lying.  And I am sick and tired of the lies, deception, mis information, constant power grabs, etc.  Our nation was built on the idea of personal responsibility and I am still a big believer in that concept.  I was very supportive of our government's efforts to fend off COVID though some drastic measures (which they told us would take 2 weeks).  But now that we have a viable solution (vaccines) that are readily available it is time to go back to normal.  Those that choose to get sick or die.....well they will live or die with their decisons.

 

Today we cancelled a 14 day October cruise out of Miami and booked a different cruise line's 14 day out of Barbados!  I would prefer to cruise out of Florida, give some support to the Florida economy and have fun.  But the CDC has made this impossible through their asinine policies which are no longer based on science!  So we reluctantly are switching all of our travel plans (for the next year) to places outside the power of the CDC.  I cannot fight "city hall" but I can certainly take advantage of good options outside of their influence.  We have another cruise (16 days) in December that is supposed to depart from Miami to Lima.  I now hope that the cruise line moves the embarkation outside of the USA...even if it costs me more money in airfare.  Since Frank del Rio controls that line it is likely they will make a move and the US will again lose money (and related jobs).   It is a darn shame but there is no reason to think that the CDC will not play their games for another decade.

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

6 hours ago, mnocket said:

I don't think the CDC has jurisdiction outside of the USA, but the USA does have some jurisdiction over ships that depart from US ports.  The clearest example of this is the US restriction on cruising to Cuba. The US can't restrict all cruise ships from visiting Cuba, but it can, and has, restricted ships that depart from US ports from visiting Cuba.  I imagine this principle could be extended to controlling onboard Covid restrictions even when outside of US waters.  Can't say for sure.

They also have jurisdiction in the sense that they do not have to let a ship enter US waters.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I completely agree with you when it comes to the unvaccinated and antivaxers.  But at this point is is relatively easy for anyone in the US who wants to be vaccinated to get a shot.  I have zero sympathy for those that procrastinate or simply refuse.  If they choose not to wear a mask to protect themselves then it is on them!  I am not willing to completely alter my life because of their actions or inactions.  The point is that when our "experts" say that fully vaccinated folks need to mask to protect others from them (the vaccinated) they are lying. 

 

...

 

Hank

The fact is:  it is NOT all on them.  If the fools take actions - or fail to take actions - and thereby cause the pandemic to continue, it is NOT all on them - it impacts all of us.   The "experts" are not saying  that the vaccinated need to wear masks to protect others from them - they are saying that EVERYBODY should wear masks -- because only if EVERYBODY wears masks will those masks do much good.  

 

The EVERYBODY includes the unvaccinated -- who (not being tattooed or otherwise identified) are essentially indistinguishable from the vaccinated -- and unless there is a clear way to know that ALL the unvaccinated are wearing masks, the only way to insure that everyone capable of hosting and transmitting the virus is to require everyone to wear masks.

 

I am sorry -- it is unfair -- but controlling the virus requires that the responsible people have to go the extra mile to pick up the slack left by the irresponsible.

 

Controlling the virus, in the presence of the ignorant or selfish who will not do their part requires EVERYONE to play.

Edited May 9, 2021 by navybankerteacher