Jump to content

I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, slidergirl said:

If you were referring to me - you are incorrect.  Where I live, we enter with our masks on and leave them on until the food comes.  If it's in courses, we take off to eat, put it back when we're done and we talk to each other.  When the next course arrives, we repeat.  When finished with the meal, the masks are back on.  What is so hard to understand?

That may be the standard where you live. That certainly isn't required or done where I live. Personally, when I am enjoying a multicourse meal I often have wine or a cocktail with it. So between courses I may be munching on a piece of  bread or sipping my cocktail. I can't see replacing the mask and glad that isn't required or expected here. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

👎

15 hours ago, slidergirl said:

If you were referring to me - you are incorrect.  Where I live, we enter with our masks on and leave them on until the food comes.  If it's in courses, we take off to eat, put it back when we're done and we talk to each other.  When the next course arrives, we repeat.  When finished with the meal, the masks are back on.  What is so hard to understand?

🤣🤣

 

🤣Even people who are fully vaccinated do this?

 

 

Edited by mafig
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who think the CDC is too careful in their approach will probably bust a gasket when they hear that in response to a certain amount of pressure from the scientific community, CDC on Friday published updated guidance about the way that COVID-19 spreads, explicitly stating that transmission and subsequent infection with the novel coronavirus can occur via inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets as well as aerosolized particles, and that such spread is more common than previously believed.

 

If you will remember, initially it was thought that COVID spread was mainly via large respiratory droplets which do not tend to linger in the air over time like the aerosolized particles do. The scientists involved have also been active in trying to get WHO to to give more attention to airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Avoiding aerosolized transmission means avoiding close or prolonged contact with other large groups of people, particularly in indoor or poorly ventilated areas. (Gee, am I the only one who, when picturing "close and prolonged contact in indoor areas that may be poorly ventilated" pictures a large main dining room on a cruise ship?....)

 

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- this is one reason for the continued mandate to wear a mask. Especially given the potential for spread of variants. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sanger727 said:

That may be the standard where you live. That certainly isn't required or done where I live. Personally, when I am enjoying a multicourse meal I often have wine or a cocktail with it. So between courses I may be munching on a piece of  bread or sipping my cocktail. I can't see replacing the mask and glad that isn't required or expected here. 

Masks are not even required when walking into a restaurant here much less having one on between courses.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mafig said:

👎

🤣🤣

 

🤣Even people who are fully vaccinated do this?

 

 

Yes.  If nothing else, it's showing the anti-vaxxers that some of us are being responsible.  No way for a restaurant to know if you are/not vaccinated, so everyone participates.  If a place asked for your vax card, that would be one way to cull the herd and be able to not worry about the others.

If you are sucking wine and chowing down bread in between courses, then you are actively eating, so no mask.  I do not undertand why this is so hard to understand.  
It's going to be moot anyway in a few days; the CDC is supposedly giving those responsible enough to get vaccinated a "carrot" of being able to be maskless indoors IF the place you are in does not require it.  

 

Happy now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy?  Yes.  Your post provided me with the biggest laugh I've had in days.

 

I'm imagining the entire restaurant doing the mask on/off dance.  

 

Be honest now, didn't you feel just a little foolish doing this?

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

If nothing else, it's showing the anti-vaxxers that some of us are being responsible.

 

Those folks couldn't care less that you are doing that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Yes.  If nothing else, it's showing the anti-vaxxers that some of us are being responsible.  No way for a restaurant to know if you are/not vaccinated, so everyone participates.  If a place asked for your vax card, that would be one way to cull the herd and be able to not worry about the others.

If you are sucking wine and chowing down bread in between courses, then you are actively eating, so no mask.  I do not undertand why this is so hard to understand.  
It's going to be moot anyway in a few days; the CDC is supposedly giving those responsible enough to get vaccinated a "carrot" of being able to be maskless indoors IF the place you are in does not require it.  

 

Happy now?

So happy that you are virtue signaling to the anti-vaxxers.  That will show them.  The restaurant does not need to know who is and who isn't.  The people who are not vaccinated know they are not and are therefore vulnerable to more serious effects.  That is the risk they take.  The people who are vaccinated do not need to worry because  if they should contract covid they will not be subject to serious effects.  What is difficult to understand is the science that says it is necessary to wear a mask walking to a table or between courses when it is not necessary to wear one while eating or drinking.  Unless of course a person is just shoveling the food in and chugging the drinks without breathing or talking to their companions until their mask is back on.  I don't think that "carrot" will be very effective since people are maskless indoors anyway.  The Florida Surgeon General is already ahead of the CDC in that regard.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Keksie said:

So happy that you are virtue signaling to the anti-vaxxers.  That will show them.  The restaurant does not need to know who is and who isn't.  The people who are not vaccinated know they are not and are therefore vulnerable to more serious effects.  That is the risk they take.  The people who are vaccinated do not need to worry because  if they should contract covid they will not be subject to serious effects.  What is difficult to understand is the science that says it is necessary to wear a mask walking to a table or between courses when it is not necessary to wear one while eating or drinking.  Unless of course a person is just shoveling the food in and chugging the drinks without breathing or talking to their companions until their mask is back on.  I don't think that "carrot" will be very effective since people are maskless indoors anyway.  The Florida Surgeon General is already ahead of the CDC in that regard.

Restaurants I go to in Florida still require masks while you walk to your table or to the restroom. Private businesses still have the right to ask you to wear a mask.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti vaxxers?  Ha!  I was one of the first people in the country to get vaccinated.  I was fully vaccinated in January.  That shows how eager I was to get it. Yet, I still think it’s highly nonsensical to place your mask back on between courses while still seated at the table. There’s no logic to that whatsoever. If you’re not a danger to others while eating, then you’re not a dangers to others while talking. 
 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 12:02 PM, ontheweb said:

I have posted several times in response to those extolling the chances of the lawsuit being won by Florida (and Alaska added) that the courts give great weight to regulatory agencies and expecting the CDC to lose especially during a pandemic was fanciful. But, now I note that they just lost a lawsuit by landlords opposing the not being able to force tenants to leave for non payment of rent. The CDC claimed this would cause homelessness, and that would lead to the spread of Covid. The courts did  not see the connection with Covid, and ruled in favor of the landlords. Now looking at some of the requirements that seem to be in the new order such as putting your mask on between bites of food or sips of a beverage that are so opposite of the general direction of what is allowed after vaccinations, it does seem that they may very well become so arbitrary and capricious to have judges say you have gone too far. JMHO.

 

It doesn't matter what the courts rule regarding Alaska unless it includes a repeal of the PVSA. Cruises will not be sailing in Canadian waters until March 2022 at the earliest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

There’s no logic to that whatsoever. If you’re not a danger to others while eating, then you’re not a dangers to others while talking. 

 

How about if you try looking at it this way:  You are in danger anytime you are in an enclosed area with a lot of people who are not in your "pod".  Recognizing that people have to eat, one does what one can to eat in a safe manner and not PROLONG the exposure by not wearing a mask when not actively eating or drinking.

 

Edited to add:  I look at it as something like grocery shopping. It may not be safe to be in a grocery store with a large number of others, so you do what you can to social distance, run in only for a few items, etc. But at the end of the day you have to have food, so you occasionally have to balance the relative risks (e.g., between increased infection risk versus going hungry....)

 

Edited by cruisemom42
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

Those who think the CDC is too careful in their approach will probably bust a gasket when they hear that in response to a certain amount of pressure from the scientific community, CDC on Friday published updated guidance about the way that COVID-19 spreads, explicitly stating that transmission and subsequent infection with the novel coronavirus can occur via inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets as well as aerosolized particles, and that such spread is more common than previously believed.

 

If you will remember, initially it was thought that COVID spread was mainly via large respiratory droplets which do not tend to linger in the air over time like the aerosolized particles do. The scientists involved have also been active in trying to get WHO to to give more attention to airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Avoiding aerosolized transmission means avoiding close or prolonged contact with other large groups of people, particularly in indoor or poorly ventilated areas. (Gee, am I the only one who, when picturing "close and prolonged contact in indoor areas that may be poorly ventilated" pictures a large main dining room on a cruise ship?....)

 

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- this is one reason for the continued mandate to wear a mask. Especially given the potential for spread of variants. 

 

I could be wrong, but doesn't this literally explain why masks are way less useful than we thought? The large droplets, which we intended to block, fall out of the air quickly, and don't seem like a huge concern. Aerosol particles stay in the air for hours and a mask will not help with those.

 

I get the whole "it's better than nothing" argument. However, at this point, wouldn't it make more sense to talk more about air circulation/hepa filtration vs masking? I mean, we're still talking about touching the spoons at the buffet, and surface transmission was already written off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

 

I could be wrong, but doesn't this literally explain why masks are way less useful than we thought? The large droplets, which we intended to block, fall out of the air quickly, and don't seem like a huge concern. Aerosol particles stay in the air for hours and a mask will not help with those.

 

I get the whole "it's better than nothing" argument. However, at this point, wouldn't it make more sense to talk more about air circulation/hepa filtration vs masking? I mean, we're still talking about touching the spoons at the buffet, and surface transmission was already written off.

How about the medium size particles -- or is everything exhaled by an infected person always a large glob or a micro-mini particle?

 

Also not touching a spoon licked by an infected person is still advisable.  

 

The fact that a particular precaution is not 100%  essential/effective is not grounds for dismissing it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

While swimming and eating seem to be busy topics of discussion, I can’t help but wonder what will transpire  when they take out 2/3 of the deck chairs to keep people 6’ apart.

Edited by Pudgesmom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

 

It doesn't matter what the courts rule regarding Alaska unless it includes a repeal of the PVSA. Cruises will not be sailing in Canadian waters until March 2022 at the earliest. 

Yes, I know that. I added Alaska in parentheses to the post you quoted because they joined the lawsuit that Florida filed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

How about if you try looking at it this way:  You are in danger anytime you are in an enclosed area with a lot of people who are not in your "pod".  Recognizing that people have to eat, one does what one can to eat in a safe manner and not PROLONG the exposure by not wearing a mask when not actively eating or drinking.

 

Edited to add:  I look at it as something like grocery shopping. It may not be safe to be in a grocery store with a large number of others, so you do what you can to social distance, run in only for a few items, etc. But at the end of the day you have to have food, so you occasionally have to balance the relative risks (e.g., between increased infection risk versus going hungry....)

 


Good heavens. You’re kidding right?  You’re saying eating out at a restaurant is equally as necessary as grocery shopping? 
 

Just stop. There’s nothing you and SG can say to make sense out of the table mask dance. If you think you’re such a threat while sitting at a dining table, then stay home. 

Edited by Cruzaholic41
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

There’s nothing you and SG can say to make sense out of the table mask dance.

 

I can help you with your pain.

 

Actually,  somebody already did.   I think it was called HYPERBOLE.

 

It makes sense to me.

 

 

 

 

Edited by JRG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cruzaholic41 said:


Good heavens. You’re kidding right?  You’re saying eating out at a restaurant is equally as necessary as grocery shopping? 
 

Just stop. There’s nothing you and SG can say to make sense out of the table mask dance. If you think you’re such a threat while sitting at a dining table, then stay home. 

 

You've missed my point entirely. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

I can help you with your pain.

 

Actually,  somebody already did.   I think it was called HYPERBOLE.

 

It makes sense to me.

 


So the hyperbole (capitalized for some weird reason) that you cannot spread COVID while eating but you suddenly become a threat while conversing between courses makes sense to you?  I am not at all shocked to read that. 
 

Wow. I bet these are the same people who wear masks while alone in their car. 🙄

Edited by Cruzaholic41
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing apples to oranges is always a bit risky, but since it has become known that covid tends to spread indoors more than outdoors, a northern state - which essentially means living indoors half the year is likely to be at greater risk than a sub-tropical one where outdoor activity is essentially year round. 

 

Of course, at the end of the day, when covid is in the past and the fat lady has sung, it will be interesting to compare the results.  I am inclined to think that states which are considering incentives to people who immunize will do better than those which actively try to stop private enterprises from requiring immunization.

 

At this point, now that vaccines are largely available, CT's daily new cases run about 500 (still indoor season) while FL's is about 3,500.   

 

But let's wait until it is over --- as every plague in history has wound up being over, usually after about two years -- before doing the tally;   but I suppose it is difficult for a generation weaned on 30 minute sitcoms to think long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky cruiselines have East Asia to keep the industry running. They don't make such a big deal over mask wearing🙄 they just get on with life. This debate is so exhaustive😩

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mafig said:

Happy?  Yes.  Your post provided me with the biggest laugh I've had in days.

 

I'm imagining the entire restaurant doing the mask on/off dance.  

 

Be honest now, didn't you feel just a little foolish doing this?

No, I don't.  Apparently no one else in the restaurant felt foolish, either.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article in the New York Times today on the CDC basing its outdoor mask guidance on a grossly overestimated percentage of COVID infections outdoors. They estimated less than 10 percent of cases occurred outdoors, when the actual rate is less than 0.10 percent. As the article points out, "less than 10 percent" is factually true, but it so far above the actual rate that it only causes confusion and distrust. 

 

"Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.

This isn’t just a gotcha math issue. It is an example of how the C.D.C. is struggling to communicate effectively, and leaving many people confused about what’s truly risky."

 

 

"These recommendations would be more grounded in science if anywhere close to 10 percent of Covid transmission were occurring outdoors. But it is not. There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table."

 

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?abVariantId=2&campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210511&instance_id=30578&nl=the-morning&productCode=NN&regi_id=61223809&segment_id=57734&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2Fa1606adc-e1e1-5581-9f2e-aee007a098ea&user_id=62d7d697d0b3a5001308c3122f8093b6

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will all come out this week in a Federal court. First off, I believe the CDC operates in an imperfect world where true facts are based on a lot of guess work, it is not exact science. However, grossly using that data almost maliciously is wrong at any level.

 

This is gross negligence on their part and need to be held accountable. This is like saying we only pay 3% in taxes but the Federal and State governments take 30%.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...