Well, now this is interesting.....Looks like Florida may have gotten it's way.

[Mary229]

22 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

  Cruise ships historically are petrie dishes for spread . Thus ,imo the cruise lines must have protocols established so there are no  covid 19 breakouts .Main reason is further disruption  by any covid 19 breakout will doom the entire industry 

 

My personal thinking is how safe are we now even  have  been vaccinated against the new India variant of covid 19 ;which is supposedly even more contagious & is already here in the USA ?

The vaccine makes have clearly said that the vaccine affords protection for all variants, so far.  There are always those who expect a super-abundance of caution, they get to stay home if they want to.

[mcrcruiser]

5 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

The vaccine makes have clearly said that the vaccine affords protection for all variants, so far.  There are always those who expect a super-abundance of caution, they get to stay home if they want to.

Here is a new link which I just posted on this General  HAL board to get more information 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/10/health/delta-variant-india-explained-coronavirus-intl-cmd/index.html

There seems to be more concern about vaccines resistance to this new strain  in this report . The UK is already  preparing for a new outbreak 

This is imo a virus that is not going away & also imo we will all need boosters yearly just like the flu ,for the best protection .  Although I am no virus specialist my logic & common sense tells me this is going to be around civilization a long time 

  All of us decide on our best avenues to pursue 

[chengkp75]

12 hours ago, Hlitner said:

The judge was pretty crafty by writing that the CSO could be seen as guidelines or a recommendation (not his exact words).  I suspect that was to leave enough wiggle room to handle the AK issue.

 

Hank

Actually, I see this as waffling on the part of the judge, saying on one hand that the CDC does have the authority to issue regulations regarding public health, but also saying that the CSO is overreach.  I read part of the ruling, and the judge acknowledges that the federal government, and the CDC have the authority to issue "free pratique" and to inspect and detain any and all vessels wishing to enter US waters, but says that the CSO requirements are unfair and burdensome.  Don't know where the judge draws the line on "burdensome", since the cruise lines have been building ships and buying special equipment for the entire food service, laundry, child care, recreational water facilities, and other areas of hotel service, to meet the CDC's requirements of the VSP for decades.  Wonder if that will be the next to go.  I also feel that the part where the judge makes any future conditions on sailing "non-binding" will be a point of appeal, given his acknowledgement of the federal authority to make the regulations.  I know my viewpoint is not popular, but I really don't care.

[silversneakers]

12 hours ago, wdw1972 said:

I would prefer to have a ship where everyone's vaccinated, and life is normal like it was pre-covid.  However, if anyone regardless of status can book, then so be it - I'm still going.  I'm not worried about catching it or getting sick if I did catch it.  However, I'd just hope that if the unvaccinated pass it around onboard they get put off the ship at the nearest port, and the cruise goes on for the rest of us.  I'm long past the point of wanting to be inconvenienced to keep the anti-vax people safe.  A person who truly can't get it for medical reasons will most likely either stay home or stay masked up to protect themselves as much as possible.  I don't want to be wearing masks or enduring other restrictions because the ship can't ensure everyone is vaccinated - let the chips fall where they may.  

 

Sue/WDW1972

Holland America (Carnival Corp) does not require COVID testing pre-cruise, does not require masks, does not require ship only shore excursions but does require 100% vaccinated for ALASKA cruises right now. 

[kazu]

24 minutes ago, silversneakers said:

Holland America (Carnival Corp) does not require COVID testing pre-cruise, does not require masks, does not require ship only shore excursions but does require 100% vaccinated for ALASKA cruises right now. 

and requires 100% vaccination for European cruises. The covid protocols for European cruises have not yet been announced.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, kelleherdl said:

I wonder if some folks are inappropriately conflating the Florida v HHS/CDC lawsuit with the Florida statute banning Florida companies from requiring vaccinations.  This ruling has no direct bearing on that issue.

 

Dennis

I do believe you are correct. They are two distinctly different issues. This case was never about Florida's law about not being able to ask about vaccine status.

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, IslandThyme said:

Disclosure - I'm not a lawyer, but I am a former Federal employee on the regulatory side of things. What I don't understand about this ruling is what happened to the principle of agency deference, wherein the CDC, for example, is assumed to be the authority about issues within its domain? Attorneys among us, what say you? 

Not a lawyer, but let me say that that is an excellent question.

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, kelleherdl said:

It is a significant win for the rule of law over bureaucratic overreach.  Ironically, the judge referenced multiple times the historic preeminence of the power of the states to enforce quarantines.  This is in contrast to what readers of cruise critic would understand from some posters that the federal role has always been preeminent.

Yes, the states have preeminence in enforcing quarantines, in their states.  The judge, however, acknowledges the federal government's, and CDC's, authority to issue "free pratique", and for the Director of the USPHS to "inspect and detain" any vessel wishing to enter US waters.  While you and I, and even Judge Merryday, may argue the relevance and burden of various points of the CSO, he does not, and calls for any future requirements to be "non-binding", which waffles completely on the issue of jurisdiction.  Which is it, you honor, can the CDC issue binding regulations, or not?  This I see as a point of appeal.

 

[kelleherdl]

6 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Not a lawyer, but let me say that that is an excellent question.

Having read the complete ruling, I believe that Judge Merryday was bending over backwards trying to ‘defer’ to the CDC.  In the end he ruled that the CDC behavior in the case of the CSO was not within the purview of the agency.

[ontheweb]

1 minute ago, kelleherdl said:

Having read the complete ruling, I believe that Judge Merryday was bending over backwards trying to ‘defer’ to the CDC.  In the end he ruled that the CDC behavior in the case of the CSO was not within the purview of the agency.

Since as @chengkp75 has reminded us several times that that the CDC has to approve a ship returning to the US, how can it be said that the CSO of the CDC was not in the purview of the agency? One could reasonably disagree with parts of it, but I do not see how you can say they lack the authority.

[kelleherdl]

22 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Since as @chengkp75 has reminded us several times that that the CDC has to approve a ship returning to the US, how can it be said that the CSO of the CDC was not in the purview of the agency? One could reasonably disagree with parts of it, but I do not see how you can say they lack the authority.

The judge did not contest the USPHS authority to control contagion.  He spent significant effort outline the ‘letter’ of the Public Health Services Act which codified the historic role of the PHS in taking certain specific action to control contagion on vessels, the 7 numbered actions.  The judges ruling hinged on number 7) other measures.  He ruled that the CDC’s actions under its interpretation of ‘other measures’ far exceeded the scope of the prior actions 1 thru 6.  Often when interpreting the law, in fact most of the time, judges rule on degrees not just black and white. In this case, in my opinion, a black and white ruling  would go against the CDC; as most of the actions of the CDC ARE NOT innumerated in legislation.

[Mary229]

3 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

  All of us decide on our best avenues to pursue 

Exactly.  

[NavArch64]

There are 2 references required in this discussion .... the USC (U.S. Code, i.e. the law as passed by Congress and signed by the President) and the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, i.e. the process and procedures by which the law is implemented and executed by the Departments and Agencies of the federal government). IMHO, the CDC CSO is essentially an extension of the CFR by the Department of Health and Human Services under a national heath emergency, a legitimate responsibility and authority under the USC. Additionally, the CSO exclusively affects the operation of foreign registered ships owned by foreign entities entering and operating in U.S. territorial waters. I believe that the ruling of the Tampa judge will no doubt be overturned on appeal, unless there is a revision of the order by July 18th.  

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, the states have preeminence in enforcing quarantines, in their states.  The judge, however, acknowledges the federal government's, and CDC's, authority to issue "free pratique", and for the Director of the USPHS to "inspect and detain" any vessel wishing to enter US waters.  While you and I, and even Judge Merryday, may argue the relevance and burden of various points of the CSO, he does not, and calls for any future requirements to be "non-binding", which waffles completely on the issue of jurisdiction.  Which is it, you honor, can the CDC issue binding regulations, or not?  This I see as a point of appeal.

 

I think the problem is not government overreach but CDC overreach.  The problem lies in the CDC charter and the powers THEY assumed.   Once again, the Congress and the Executive branch ceded their power to another player but in this case the player has questionable authority.  If HHS had created this protocol it would be an entirely different outcome.   The CDC is not a 100% governmental authority as they receive major funding from private sources,  perhaps creating grave conflicts of interest.  

[kelleherdl]

7 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

There are 2 references required in this discussion .... the USC (U.S. Code, i.e. the law as passed by Congress and signed by the President) and the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, i.e. the process and procedures by which the law is implemented and executed by the Departments and Agencies of the federal government). IMHO, the CDC CSO is essentially an extension of the CFR by the Department of Health and Human Services under a national heath emergency, a legitimate responsibility and authority under the USC. Additionally, the CSO exclusively affects the operation of foreign registered ships owned by foreign entities entering and operating in U.S. territorial waters. I believe that the ruling of the Tampa judge will no doubt be overturned on appeal, unless there is a revision of the order by July 18th.  

Ok.  Let’s go to the next count which Judge Merryday ruled in favor of Florida, inattention by the CDC to the Adminstrative Procedures Act.  The judge was quite clear in his ruling the the CDC clearly did not comply with the letter and spirit of the APA, both in timing of its efforts and its apparent lack of consideration of the ‘comments’ that were submitted.

Edited June 19, 2021 by kelleherdl

[NavArch64]

To Mary 229 ... the CDC is an integral part of DHHS. It is a federal government agency funded by the U.S. Congress.

[NavArch64]

To kellherdl ... that is a legitimate point. The Administrative Procedures Act is a necessary part of the discussion.

[NavArch64]

To Mary 229 .... no Federal Government agency can "take" money from private sources for any purpose. You are correct ... that would be a conflict of interest. However, Federal agencies can execute Cooperative Agreements with private parties to accomplish a "public purpose" and share in the cost of such agreements under the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act. In this case, appropriated funds can flow to the recipients of such agreements, but not in the reverse direction.

[NavArch64]

To Mary 229 ... on a lighter note, of course the IRS can "take" money from private entities in order to fund the Federal Government, and regularly does so.

[kelleherdl]

1 minute ago, NavArch64 said:

To Mary 229 .... no Federal Government agency can "take" money from private sources for any purpose. You are correct ... that would be a conflict of interest. However, Federal agencies can execute Cooperative Agreements with private parties to accomplish a "public purpose" and share in the cost of such agreements under the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act. In this case, appropriated funds can flow to the recipients of such agreements, but not in the reverse direction.

Correct.  They do it all the time.  I believe it is always authorized by specific statutory authority.  I don’t see where that issue is relevant.  The CDC is undeniably a subordinate agency to USPHS and HHS.

[Mary229]

6 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

To Mary 229 ... on a lighter note, of course the IRS can "take" money from private entities in order to fund the Federal Government, and regularly does so.

Not at this scale and not considered partners:   

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations

 

If only this directive had been done from fully accountable sources then the lawsuit would have failed.  

Edited June 19, 2021 by Mary229

[NavArch64]

To Mary 229 ... one interesting note on "taking" money from private entities. When the Federal Government is shut down due to lack of appropriated funds, all non-essential personnel must go home. If anyone stayed to "volunteer"  their services, that would be interpreted as "taking" money from a private entity, i.e. the employee. 

[sofietucker]

7 hours ago, Caribbean Chris said:

 

Yes, we saw this on ABC national news tonight (Friday), and it described a highly-modified cruising experience for non-vaccinated people that would either convince them to get vaccinated (assuming no medical reason not to), or not book in the first place.

 Yep: for those cruises that start internationally (SXM, for one) they set their own rules--Celebrity says 95% vaccinated--and 100% for crew--except for those under 16 (and that changing to "under 12" on Aug. 1); as soon as the 5% is reached, no more unvaccinated will be allowed.

 

And Celeb's cruises out of FLL also have those parameters (95% "recommended"); the unvaxed will have an uncomfortable experience: repeat tests, wear masks ALLLL the time except bites and sips--even by the pool--bubble excursions, separate seating requirements, distancing, etc.

 

They currently have even abolished the distancing, along with no masks, on their "fully vaccinated" cruises, btw... Bright note: I bet noro goes away permanently, lol.

[NavArch64]

To Mary 229 .... the CDC Foundation appears to be a methodology for the Congress to authorize multiple Cooperative Agreements with industry partners to accomplish a broad range of "public purposes" in the public health field. The Congress would have "oversight" responsibility to insure that these multiple programs were in the "public interest". Seems OK to me.

[SumoCitrus]

Do you think in the end a practical approach to this will need to be taken?

 

Someone check my math and logic please:

 

You can agree or disagree with the current status of the CDC vs. FL dispute, but at the end of the day, cruise lines are a business. They must make good business decisions.

 

Assuming CC Polls Are Accurate - 80% of PAX pool insists on vax / 20% doesn't

 

Don't you think it's possible, or even probable, that those 20% are unvaxxed and will remain so? If that is the case, and the CC poll respondents make up a good approximation of the cruise passenger pool, can HAL or any other cruise line survive with ships that are only 80% full?

 

I honestly don't know the answer to that question but my assumption is no. If I am correct, the market will make the decision here with regard to vax mandates.

 

Then you have the Country (USA) as a whole

 

We are not likely going to get to 70%+ vaxxed nationwide. Maybe 50-60%. If you are a business, does it make sense to exclude 50% of your pool of potential customers? Disregard your notions of safety for a moment - because we're going to disagree on that point - but seriously, how long can a cruise line go on while unnecessarily cutting down its customer base by half?

 

You have to move on from Diamond Princess

 

"But Diamond Princess!" doesn't cut it anymore. Weren't there just two recent cruises that had covid positive crew and/or pax? What happened to those? Are they in the gulag? We've changed how we react to this virus because we know more now.

 

The real challenge will be foreign nations

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the challenge isn't CDC, FL, cruise lines, pax polls, or any of that. The challenge will be foreign ports. They will set the rules they see fit. If they insist on vaccinated pax and proof or passports, they will get what they want if you want to put in at their port. I hope the market forces play out here too, but I think cruise itineraries will be weird for the next few years on this basis. I don't know about you, but I am not interested in 80% sea days.