Official: Mediation in lawsuit against federal gov., CDC over cruising shutdown has failed

[Pratique]

Just now, boatseller said:

Huh?  What blinders?

Exactly.

[boatseller]

Just now, Pratique said:

Exactly.

Cute, but you need to provide some context.  What blinders do you think I have?  I would like the opportunity to correct you. :)

[boatseller]

17 minutes ago, broberts said:

Talk about myopia. 🙄

Care to explain?  Please try.  Not expecting much though but I'd like to hear at some meaningful response.

[cruisegus]

11 minutes ago, Janet524 said:

Funny, I don't seem to remember anyone having to be put on a ventilator after contracting noro.  

Yes the poster you responded to with a valid fact is just another keyboard warrior that likes to spout facts that don't exsist.   Read the rest of their posts, it is evident

[ONECRUISER]

45 minutes ago, boatseller said:

No, you missed my point.  10% is 10% regardless of the individual persons.

 

You run into Jim 3 times on a ship, but Mary, Jody and Kelly in a park.  Same difference.

 

Hmm...that's in interesting video idea, how much time do you spend in/out doors at a park.  At Magic Kingdom or Universal Studios, it could be 50/50.  But even then, it's easier to find indoor low density spaces on any cruise ship than in any park.  Add the resorts and it's even.

Yes. My experience is spend more time in close quarters bumping into people at Theme Parks then ever have on a Cruise Ship. 

[Pratique]

9 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Cute, but you need to provide some context.  What blinders do you think I have?  I would like the opportunity to correct you. 🙂

Look, I don't agree with everything the federal government does either, but I have not written them off wholesale like you have, where the CDC can do no right and everyone there is corrupt and stupid. So I take what you say with a large grain of salt because of your clear bias against them. I know you will just tell me I'm the one who is blind, because you're so clear eyed and I'm not, or something like that. It's OK. I see your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it 100%.

[At Sea At Peace]

1 hour ago, jrapps said:

Yes, but that ONE person who has the flu, I am much more likely to catch it from him if I run into him over and over again vs just passing by him for a few seconds on one day of a theme park vacation. The odds of be being in that persons vicinity go up, and thus the odds of me catching the flu from him go up.

 

Also, when I am at a theme park, I spend a much larger percentage of my time outdoors than I do when on a cruise. At a theme park, I am outdoors for 60-70% of the trip. On a cruise, I am maybe outdoors for 30-40%.

 

All I am saying is they are different experiences, and can not be directly compared to one another when determining the risk factor for transmission of viruses. Similarities in certain situations of course, but as a whole they are different enough that I see why they get different rules.

 

Very familiar with the theme parks, now securing 2-week visits with next wave of grand kids annually.  👍

 

The queue lines are very much less spaced that when first opened.  The wait times in those lines around the same people, back and forth around the ropes, etc. is easily more than 15 minutes on a regular basis.  Then sitting on the same ride of close in a show.  Also, if staying at a resort, sunbathing poolside or lobby sitting are time cumulative.

 

The CDC guidelines are 15 minutes in a 24-hour period of close proximity (within 2 meters or approximately 6'+); in any combination of intervals that total 15 minutes.

 

So, the risk is there at the theme parks.  Also, and more so, at the full baseball stadiums, basketball playoffs, hockey playoffs, concerts, beaches, etc.

 

Just because the CDC has 'jurisdiction' over the cruise lines, it doesn't merit ignoring the enormous population re-entering activities with absolutely no data illustrated consequences.

 

The requirement for 98-95% vaccinated crew and cruisers or the alternate protocols' cruises are just so inconsistent with common sense about the real science that we now know.

 

If you're vaccinated you're essential safe, if you have natural immunity you're essentially safe, if don't have either, and are not very old, weak or have serious underlying illnesses, you are essentially at only a minimal risk of severe consequences.

 

Given such, there is no real justification for cruise lines to have to muster port agreements to backstop virus breakouts like on the 2 Princess cruise ships at the outset of the pandemic or to continue with the draconian mask (they admit in emails they are ineffective) and social distancing mandates.

 

🚢

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by At Sea At Peace

[broberts]

7 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Care to explain?  Please try.  Not expecting much though but I'd like to hear at some meaningful response.

 

Sure I'll explain. Of course, since I disagree fundamentally with your positions I'm sure you will ignore my thinking.

 

Regardless of how benign covid might be in the vast majority of cases, it's impact on the population as a whole and the world economy should not be trivialized.

 

Concentratiing on the impact of covid in individuals is a fundamental error in thinking when considering communal activities. In a pandemic it is not nearly as important as the impact on the society as a whole. The error is exacerbated by the thinking that natural immunity will solve everything. It hasn't yet, and the science suggests that variants may out pace the growth in natural immunity.

[boatseller]

20 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Look, I don't agree with everything the federal government does either, but I have not written them off wholesale like you have, where the CDC can do no right and everyone there is corrupt and stupid. So I take what you say with a large grain of salt because of your clear bias against them. I know you will just tell me I'm the one who is blind, because you're so clear eyed and I'm not, or something like that. It's OK. I see your viewpoint, I just don't agree with it 100%.

Hardly, but now is when I ask what has the CDC done  that has been worthwhile?  What have they gotten right?  Which of their model and predictions were accurate?  What data-driven justification do they have to support the NSO?

 

My bias is justified.  

[not-enough-cruising]

13 hours ago, songbird1329 said:

Meanwhile, the CDC has approved cruises in other states...I heard Bayonne will be opening for cruising soon ...

The CDC has not approved anything different for any of the embarkation ports, they all have received the same CDC guidance and “blessing”

[harkinmr]

55 minutes ago, xpcdoojk said:

Or Hotels, or bowling alleys, or Chuck E Cheese, or Best Buy on Black Friday, or....

 

It is obvious Cruise lines are being treated as a special case, are they?

People keep on with this comparison ad nauseam.  The CDC had no "control" over these intrastate activities, and as I recall, had plenty to say about what should or shouldn't happen.  It was up to state and local officials to manage these activities and they are did or didn't.  Those are the people to go after if one did or didn't like what was happening.  The cruise lines are a different story and the CDC has long standing statutory authority.  A comparison as to treatment fails for that very point. It would seem that the cruise lines are accepting the limitations and proceeding with reopening.  My guess is even if the CSO were to disappear tomorrow, there would still be vaccination requirements and/or health protocols or both.  The cruise line execs are not stupid.

Edited June 4, 2021 by harkinmr

[Pratique]

If the CSO disappeared tomorrow, we could all start complaining about Royal Caribbean again. 🙂

[coldflame]

Judge, as predicted, just agreed to let the CDC/HHS file supplemental brief to, in essence, dismiss the PI lawsuit and and in so doing denied FL's opposition to this brief. Keep saying "Florida has all the cards" when in fact it holds none.

[Ocean Boy]

3 hours ago, zekekelso said:

If the CDC’s actions are so completely out of line, how come the cruise lines simply aren’t sailing normally out of non-US ports? 

I have no idea what either conditions or infrastructure is like outside of the U.S. Neither am I privy to cruise line board meetings.

[harkinmr]

2 minutes ago, coldflame said:

Judge, as predicted, just agreed to let the CDC/HHS file supplemental brief to, in essence, dismiss the PI lawsuit and and in so doing denied FL's opposition to this brief. Keep saying "Florida has all the cards" when in fact it holds none.

And let the "judicial bias" bus begin to roll...

[At Sea At Peace]

6 minutes ago, coldflame said:

Judge, as predicted, just agreed to let the CDC/HHS file supplemental brief to, in essence, dismiss the PI lawsuit and and in so doing denied FL's opposition to this brief. Keep saying "Florida has all the cards" when in fact it holds none.

 

Sometimes editorial summarization sort of lacks the details.  There is no one side has all the cards.

 

The Defendant now has until Monday to file the 'no more than 5-page supplemental memorandum, the Plaintiff to Reply in 5-or fewer pages by Wednesday and the Hearing on Thursday.

 

ORDER granting 67--defendants' motion to submit a supplemental memorandum; permitting the defendants to submit by noon on 6/7/2021 a supplemental memorandum of five or fewer pages addressing only those issues specified in the motion; permitting the plaintiff to respond by 6/9/2021 in five or fewer pages; scheduling a hearing for 10:00 a.m. on 6/10/2021 in Courtroom 15A; requiring the attendance of at least lawyers Percival, Hilborn and Powell. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 6/4/2021. (BK) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING

 

The defendants move (Doc. 67) to submit a supplemental memorandum “[i]n light of recent developments.” Specifically, the defendants argue that Congress recently ratified the conditional sailing order and that “cruising is set to resume as planned.” (Doc. 67 at 3) Partially opposing (Doc. 69) supplemental briefing, the plaintiff argues (1) that Congress “decided not to ratify the CDC’s conduct as to Florida,” (2) that recent case law gravitates against the conclusion that Congress ratified the conditional sailing order, (3) that the defendants’ understanding of ratification creates non-delegation issues, and (4) that a supplemental brief might delay resolution of this action.

[ONECRUISER]

32 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Hardly, but now is when I ask what has the CDC done  that has been worthwhile?  What have they gotten right?  Which of their model and predictions were accurate?  What data-driven justification do they have to support the NSO?

 

My bias is justified.  

You are not only one questioning few of the CDC calls, Polls show current Trust for them now underwater. But hey under Oath, Heads of CDC & NIH along with Fauci admitted that as of last week only about half have their Organisations have decided to get Covid Vaccine

Edited June 4, 2021 by ONECRUISER

[harkinmr]

2 minutes ago, At Sea At Peace said:

 

Sometimes editorial summarization sort of lacks the details.  There is no one side has all the cards.

 

The Defendant now has until Monday to file the 'no more than 5-page supplemental memorandum, the Plaintiff to Reply in 5-or fewer pages by Wednesday and the Hearing on Thursday.

 

ORDER granting 67--defendants' motion to submit a supplemental memorandum; permitting the defendants to submit by noon on 6/7/2021 a supplemental memorandum of five or fewer pages addressing only those issues specified in the motion; permitting the plaintiff to respond by 6/9/2021 in five or fewer pages; scheduling a hearing for 10:00 a.m. on 6/10/2021 in Courtroom 15A; requiring the attendance of at least lawyers Percival, Hilborn and Powell. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 6/4/2021. (BK) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING

 

The defendants move (Doc. 67) to submit a supplemental memorandum “[i]n light of recent developments.” Specifically, the defendants argue that Congress recently ratified the conditional sailing order and that “cruising is set to resume as planned.” (Doc. 67 at 3) Partially opposing (Doc. 69) supplemental briefing, the plaintiff argues (1) that Congress “decided not to ratify the CDC’s conduct as to Florida,” (2) that recent case law gravitates against the conclusion that Congress ratified the conditional sailing order, (3) that the defendants’ understanding of ratification creates non-delegation issues, and (4) that a supplemental brief might delay resolution of this action.

Coldflame was right.  CDC's motion to submit was granted and Florida's objection to the supplemental brief was effectively denied. There will be a response by Florida no doubt, but a hearing on the CDC motion to dismiss is scheduled.  Not a great position for Florida to be in and the injunction remains in the balance.  Prediction: motion to dismiss denied, injunctive relief denied, case goes down the trial rat hole.  

[Pratique]

 

1 minute ago, harkinmr said:

Coldflame was right.  CDC's motion to submit was granted and Florida's objection to the supplemental brief was effectively denied. There will be a response by Florida no doubt, but a hearing on the CDC motion to dismiss is scheduled.  Not a great position for Florida to be in and the injunction remains in the balance.  Prediction: motion to dismiss denied, injunctive relief denied, case goes down the trial rat hole.  

I'd say CDC has the upper hand on this one, because the judge is permitting them to argue their "in light of recent developments" position (new arguments) and Florida must limit their response to those same issues. Florida will not have much more of a chance to introduce new arguments of their own unless they are on point to the CDC's supplemental brief, so they are boxed in on their reply.

[cured]

41 minutes ago, boatseller said:

Looks like you need to re-read my posts also.  Never challenged ventilators.  Unless you can provide the quote.

 

Seriously, are my facts about asymptomatic noro or covid wrong?  People keep saying I have no facts but never actually mention the ones I use...hmm...why is that....????

How many people with Noro suffer debilitating consequences for 6 months or more? What are your numbers for Long Noro? 1/3  who have contracted covid, both asymptomatic and symptomatic, suffer from long covid.

 

It is not just deaths that need to be taken into account, but the number of people now disabled for long periods of time who cannot provide for their families and all the other difficulties with disability.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270

Edited June 4, 2021 by cured

[harkinmr]

7 minutes ago, Pratique said:

 

I'd say CDC has the upper hand on this one, because the judge is permitting them to argue their "in light of recent developments" position (new arguments) and Florida must limit their response to those same issues. Florida will not have much more of a chance to introduce new arguments of their own unless they are on point to the CDC's supplemental brief, so they are boxed in on their reply.

Agreed.  I would be surprised if the judge grants the motion to dismiss, but would like to hear your thoughts.  Who knows though, he could just grant dismissal to get the mess off his bench provided the CDC meets the bar for support.

Edited June 4, 2021 by harkinmr

[MommaBear55]

1 hour ago, cruisegus said:

Yes the poster you responded to with a valid fact is just another keyboard warrior that likes to spout facts that don't exsist.   Read the rest of their posts, it is evident

The "ignore" feature is a lovely thing

[Pratique]

4 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Agreed.  I would be surprised if the judge grants the motion to dismiss, but would like to hear your thoughts.  Who knows though, he could just grant dismissal to get the mess off his bench provided the CDC meets the bar for support.

I'm not sure a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is on the docket yet? I think it's just the motion for the preliminary injunction. I agree it is not likely the judge would dismiss the case now because the CDC has still not even filed their answer to the complaint (although we pretty much already know what they are going to say). Well we have at least a week to wait! And continue this discussion until the thread gets tired or locked or whatever.

[cured]

2 hours ago, exm said:

 

Without DeSantis and this lawsuit there wouldn't be anything sailing this summer. In my opinion he and this lawsuit definitely forced CDC to expedite the process. So yes, DeSantis is helpful. However, I do disagree with his law to block vaccination status.

That is completely your opinion.

 

My opinion being a middle of the road independent, is that if DeSantis really cared about cruising and Florida, he would have engaged the CDC when the parks, the movie theaters, and everywhere everyone is clamoring is safe and open.

 

No, he is politically hungry and saw an opportunity to be a hero to his slipping base. His actions are so transparent it is almost laughable. He saw that vaccines were on a fast track, that ships now had an opportunity to sail vaccinated.  Things were already starting to look good for the restart of cruising. He is also quite savvy that a good portion of his base is antivaxx.

 

If he really cared about Florida's cruising economy, he would have made waves with the CDC long ago. His timing screams that this is just a political ploy to gain national political points for his presidential run in 2024.

 

I agree that the CDC has been heavy handed with the cruise industry, but personally, I would rather have them err on the side of caution. It is just a vacation for crying out loud. There is a whole world opening up to again explore.

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by cured

[Ocean Boy]

8 minutes ago, cured said:

 

I agree that the CDC has been heavy handed with the cruise industry, but personally, I would rather have them err on the side of caution. It is just a vacation for crying out loud. There is a whole world opening up to again explore.

 

That is true. However, our vacations are other people's livelihoods.