Jump to content

CDC definition of an outbreak on a cruise ship and more from the court case


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, unless the judge wants to dive into the epidemiology to the point of determining which aspects of the CSO are too restrictive, and which are not, I see him saying to the CDC "come up with something that is less restrictive, maybe work with the cruise industry, and until then, the CSO stands", and so cruising would start up under the CSO.  However, he may rule that by tossing the CSO, there are no requirements for protecting the public health at this time, so cruising should not start until the CDC comes up with a new plan.  I think my first outcome is the most likely, especially as the CDC is moving towards less requirements in the CSO all the time.  But, as I've said before, I believe that aspects of the CSO, like the port and service agreements/contracts, will become a permanent part of the VSP, and part of cruising in the future.  Even such things as requiring masks for the remainder of a cruise if a person comes down with something that is airborne, may become a permanent "emergency procedure" or "mitigation measure".

I don't believe the judge would rule in a way that would, in effect, invalidate the newly signed ATRA.

Edited by Keys2Heaven
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I don't believe the judge would rule in a way that would, in effect, invalidate the newly signed ATRA.

The ATRA does not mention the CSO specifically, just the CSC, which is based on the CSO.  There are arguments each way as to whether or not a CSC could be issued without the original CSO, or whether a new CSO would be required.  I know Alaska has joined the suit, but I'm not sure if they are an active partner in the suit, or merely an amicus, which would affect how a ruling could be considered.  If Alaska is an active partner, then the judge could rule that the harm from the CSO to Florida is worse than the harm to Alaska, and throw out the CSO.  If they are merely amicus, then any harm to Alaska would be mostly irrelevant to the ruling.  JMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mediation is still going so lowering of the threshold or an exemption for under 12 may gives both sides something they can live with that's in line with some of the questioning from the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the judge will have a hard time ignoring the unique environment of cruise travel and the unique conditions/challenges of close quarter accommodation. There is nothing else to compare it to, though many try and make false equivalences with regard to ball games, amusement parks, shopping malls etc. The favorite false equivalence, air travel, may be in the same zip code but even it's not a comparable equivalence (hours vs a week). I don't see how any person, looking at this objectivity, could gloss over these stark differences. The state has a heavy heavy burden IMO and I just don't see them overcoming those challenges with the weak arguments presented thus far.      

Edited by cruisingguy007
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cruisingguy007 said:

I think the judge will have a hard time ignoring the unique environment of cruise travel and the unique conditions/challenges of close quarter accommodation. There is nothing else to compare it to, though many try and make false equivalences with regard to ball games, amusement parks, shopping malls etc. The favorite false equivalence, air travel, may be in the same zip code but even it's not a comparable equivalence (hours vs a week). I don't see how any person, looking at this objectivity, could gloss over these stark differences. The state has a heavy heavy burden IMO and I just don't see them overcoming those challenges with the weak arguments presented thus far.      

The closest equivalent I see is an all inclusive resort. Many people fly to the resort and spend the majority of their time on the resort property, or take "excursions".  The majority of the time they sleep, eat, get entertained and party on the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Bevv said:

The closest equivalent I see is an all inclusive resort. Many people fly to the resort and spend the majority of their time on the resort property, or take "excursions".  The majority of the time they sleep, eat, get entertained and party on the property.

 

I'd concur it's very close but much more time is spent indoors on a cruise ship. At a AI, I am only sleeping indoors with fresh air, door open or individual AC, not recirculated shared air and even try to eat my meals by the pool/beach. Basically, indoors as little as possible. AI's are also much larger grounds and allow for much more distancing. Square foot per passenger/visitor isn't even close. Cruise ships afford these opportunities as well but not in equivalent abundance or equivalent space. It really depends on the passenger but some folks just aren't sun/pool people. I'd say it's approx 70%-80% comparable though. Certainly the closest thing to be sure.  

Edited by cruisingguy007
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, unless the judge wants to dive into the epidemiology to the point of determining which aspects of the CSO are too restrictive, and which are not, I see him saying to the CDC "come up with something that is less restrictive, maybe work with the cruise industry, and until then, the CSO stands", and so cruising would start up under the CSO.  However, he may rule that by tossing the CSO, there are no requirements for protecting the public health at this time, so cruising should not start until the CDC comes up with a new plan.  I think my first outcome is the most likely, especially as the CDC is moving towards less requirements in the CSO all the time.  But, as I've said before, I believe that aspects of the CSO, like the port and service agreements/contracts, will become a permanent part of the VSP, and part of cruising in the future.  Even such things as requiring masks for the remainder of a cruise if a person comes down with something that is airborne, may become a permanent "emergency procedure" or "mitigation measure".

I think that each cruise line should be  able to set their own standards and retire the CSO. The cruise lines know better than anyone else how to deal with their passengers, and I trust them to make the right decision, because they depend on their passengers to stay afloat. 

 

Say for instance, they have to stay within the 1.5% threshold for a breakout, I don't care how they get there, as long as their results prove to be effective and they don't have breakouts. 

Edited by Radiioman46
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cruisingguy007 said:

I think the judge will have a hard time ignoring the unique environment of cruise travel and the unique conditions/challenges of close quarter accommodation. There is nothing else to compare it to, though many try and make false equivalences with regard to ball games, amusement parks, shopping malls etc. The favorite false equivalence, air travel, may be in the same zip code but even it's not a comparable equivalence (hours vs a week). I don't see how any person, looking at this objectivity, could gloss over these stark differences. The state has a heavy heavy burden IMO and I just don't see them overcoming those challenges with the weak arguments presented thus far.      

I've pointed this out before, but I think its pretty relevant to your comparison here.  We need to differentiate between short duration and long duration (more than 7-day) cruises.  Because of the long incubation time of Covid (2-14 days) most of the positive cases detected on a short duration cruise will be people that contracted the infection at home or while traveling to the cruise.  Those who actually catch Covid during a cruise will most likely disembark and disappear into the contact tracing abyss before becoming symptomatic (or able to test postive), similar to air travelers, sporting events, amusement parks, etc.  

Compare this to norovirus, with its 12-24 HOUR incubation time and its clear why noro is able to spread so easily, even on short duration cruises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cruisingguy007 said:

I think the judge will have a hard time ignoring the unique environment of cruise travel and the unique conditions/challenges of close quarter accommodation.

 

2 hours ago, Bevv said:

The closest equivalent I see is an all inclusive resort.

As the CDC does, I equate cruises to assisted living, being "close residential" environment, where the ability to leave the closed environment is much less than even an AI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

As the CDC does, I equate cruises to assisted living, being "close residential" environment, where the ability to leave the closed environment is much less than even an AI.

 

You're absolutely correct. That would be an acceptable equivalence for comparative sake. They represent the same set of challenges.  

Edited by cruisingguy007
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

Those who actually catch Covid during a cruise will most likely disembark and disappear into the contact tracing abyss before becoming symptomatic (or able to test postive), similar to air travelers, sporting events, amusement parks, etc.  

 

I'm sure cruise lines will contact passengers even after they disembark if there is a positive among them. If the cruise is not fully vaxxed, at a minimum non-vaxed cruisers will be tested at, or before disembarkation. The incubation period can be as little as 2 DAYS.

 

54 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

 


Compare this to norovirus, with its 12-24 HOUR incubation time and its clear why noro is able to spread so easily, even on short duration cruises.

 

One of the reasons Noro spreads so easily is too many people are pigs when it comes to personal hygiene. A reason to curtail self-service anything. Once someone is diagnosed with Noro, they are confined to their cabin for the duration of the illness. Can you say LOCKDOWN. It is historically one of the basic steps in dealing with a highly contagious virus. It was also what they did on a larger scale on Diamond Princess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Radiioman46 said:

I think that each cruise line should be  able to set their own standards and retire the CSO. The cruise lines know better than anyone else how to deal with their passengers, and I trust them to make the right decision, because they depend on their passengers to stay afloat. 

 

Say for instance, they have to stay within the 1.5% threshold for a breakout, I don't care how they get there, as long as their results prove to be effective and they don't have breakouts. 

So, you're okay with the industry "self-regulating"?  I agree that the cruise lines know better than anyone how to meet the CDC's requirements on their ships, but they are not epidemiologists, to understand the best practices to prevent transmission.  Are you okay with them doing away with the VSP as well?  We've seen some instances of how that works (Silverseas ship a few years ago), and how well they self-regulate in environmental matters.

 

But, what you say, that each cruise line should set their own protocols is exactly what the CDC has been waiting for since April 2020, when they published the recommendations.  There is nothing that precluded a cruise line, at that time, in submitting a proposed mitigation plan that met the requirements, and that could be individual to each cruise line, based on their business model.  It was only the lack of response to the April 2020 requirements that prompted the CSO and later its technical instructions, since there was no response to the CSO either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

As the CDC does, I equate cruises to assisted living, being "close residential" environment, where the ability to leave the closed environment is much less than even an AI.

I don't know of assisted living facilities that house 1000s of inmates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

But, what you say, that each cruise line should set their own protocols is exactly what the CDC has been waiting for since April 2020, when they published the recommendations.  There is nothing that precluded a cruise line, at that time, in submitting a proposed mitigation plan that met the requirements, and that could be individual to each cruise line, based on their business model.  It was only the lack of response to the April 2020 requirements that prompted the CSO and later its technical instructions, since there was no response to the CSO either.

I agree. The cruise lines did nothing except hope the virus would disappear like a miracle and try to hift blame to the CDC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

As the CDC does, I equate cruises to assisted living, being "close residential" environment, where the ability to leave the closed environment is much less than even an AI.

What is the average duration of a stay in "close residential"?  I would imagine it's considerably longer than the average cruise duration and thus more supportive of the long incubation time of Covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

I don't know of assisted living facilities that house 1000s of inmates.

 

You could easily scale up to account for population count in the statistical analysis.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

What is the average duration of a stay in "close residential"?  I would imagine it's considerably longer than the average cruise duration and thus more supportive of the long incubation time of Covid.

 

Fair point but for comparative sake it fits relatively well. Older population, many with heath challenges, close quarter living and sharing the same space for extended times. I'll concur that sticking to 7 day cruises will wash some of the data out; nonetheless, it's still comparative.  

Edited by cruisingguy007
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

You could easily scale up to account for population count in the statistical analysis.  

Lies, damn lies, and statistical analysis.

 

Assisted living duration is highly variable. Some people move on to nursing homes, some go back to their own, some stay for years, some die. It just is not equivalent to a cruise ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlerkOne said:

Lies, damn lies, and statistical analysis.

 

Assisted living duration is highly variable. Some people move on to nursing homes, some go back to their own, some stay for years, some die. It just is not equivalent to a cruise ship.

 

I think you enjoy being negative/argumentative. Hence "relatively well". Sheesh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

I don't know of assisted living facilities that house 1000s of inmates.

They are called prisons and on the same list according to the CDC🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kdr69 said:

They are called prisons and on the same list according to the CDC🤣

Also with much longer average stay duration than a cruise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jfunk138 said:

Also with much longer average stay duration than a cruise.

lol doesnt seem that way nowadays for some crimes😬

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kdr69 said:

lol doesnt seem that way nowadays for some crimes😬

Depends on where you are I guess... here in the US we still have many people in prison for "crimes" associated with a substance that isn't even illegal any more.

 

I also remember sitting on my balcony and smelling that substance billowing all over the ship despite the fact that both smoking on balconies and the substance itself were disallowed by Carnival.

And people think they are going to keep "viral proteins" that billow into the air the same way but you can't even see or smell them off the ship...

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, cruisingguy007 said:

 

I think you enjoy being negative/argumentative. Hence "relatively well". Sheesh. 

Considering more is unknown about the virus than is known I doubt any comparisons to anything is valid. Much less trying to extrapolate erroneous statistics.

Link to post
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
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com - June 2021
      • 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...