Court grants Preliminary Injunction preventing Florida from enforcing Section 381.00316 against plaintiffs NCL, et. al.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

But what NCL wants is no regulation.  If a store posts "no shoes, no service", and this is shown to adversely affect a protected class, does that mean the business cannot enforce that?  I don't think that would hold water.

Definition of a "protected class"from Google......

"Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps."

 

Please note.......Every single item listed in this definition of a "protected class" covers something an individual CANNOT CHANGE about themselves. THAT is why they are a protected class. They have no way of changing what they are being protected for.

 

Someone who REFUSES a vaccine but can most certainly get the vaccine CAN change that about themselves. Why should they be considered "protected" when they can easily get the vaccine and no longer need that "protection"?

 

EDIT: Just wondering why this post is in a light purple box with no quote function and it says "Hidden" at the top. I've never seen this before. What gives?

Edited August 9, 2021 by coffeebean

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

The question I was asked by @coffeebean was whether documentation is the same as screening, to which I replied "no." They're not the same thing.

Screening could involve questioning "have you been sick in the past 14 days, been to one of the countries on this list, have you been vaccinated.." It could also involve getting your temperature taken or even a nasal swab. None of those things are written documentation. That's what I was talking about.

 

Thank you for explaining your stance. So, what you are saying is that the documentation part is not part of a screening process. The screening process can involve people lying like a rug and you know they do this. The documentation part sort of eliminated some of that lying. Where is the harm in that?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, jrapps said:

NCL does not want "no regulation", in fact they came out publicly to support the CDC in their lawsuit with FL. They didn't want the CSO to be nullified. How is that no regulation?

I am talking about the vaccination verification regulation.  They want no regulation as to whether or not they can demand vaccination status.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

The question I was asked by @coffeebean was whether documentation is the same as screening, to which I replied "no." They're not the same thing.

Screening could involve questioning "have you been sick in the past 14 days, been to one of the countries on this list, have you been vaccinated.." It could also involve getting your temperature taken or even a nasal swab. None of those things are written documentation. That's what I was talking about.

 

So, written documentation is not a "screening process"?  Is asking for a negative covid test result (in writing) not a screening process?

[coffeebean]

57 minutes ago, jrapps said:

To add to this, now that the injunction is in place, NCL is free to require ANY proof of vaccine they wish. They don't have to accept just the CDC card, but likely will because it is the simplest choice. They could legally say you must have a state-issues vaccine passport, but then no one but NY residents would be able to sail. They could say you need a printout from your vaccine provider (CVS, etc). heck they could say you cant board without a signed affidavit from the FL dept of health...the card is just the easiest way to go.

I have my CDC vaccine card and the list of all my vaccines since I was a child, including my Covid vaccines all on a form with a Florida Department of Health letter head. Is that considered an affidavit? I had requested this information from the State of Florida through my PCP who was able to get it to me by the following day.

[coffeebean]

52 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

Exactly 🙂. In the end consumers will dictate the policy NCL adopts. Right now it's a mixed bag. Alaska has decent numbers booking, but the Gem does not. I bet more would book the gem if things weren't so up in the air with the lawsuit, so we can't tell just yet.

 

Of course, people could book NCL over other cruise lines thinking they won't have to wear masks, but we now know that rule can change mid-voyage. Take a look at Carnival Vista. This ship is reported as 100% vaccinated but had a 'small number' of positive cases detected mid-voyage last week. Immediately the Captain initiated a mandatory mask rule and changed all the social distancing requirements.

 

If recent happenings on board Carnival Vista tell us anything, it's that no ship is guaranteed to be mask free the entire voyage and those booking cruises should accept this risk. In return, it sure does look like NCL is rolling out the red carpet for the first cruisers! 

So true about protocols changing mid cruise.

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

If cruise lines are "International commerce", then why are "they" jumping through all these hoops of fire? Why bother with these law suits if this is so "cut and dry"? Let's just get on with it and let the cruise lines do what they feel is necessary to run a safe operation for all on board their ships.

Cruise lines are "jumping through the hoops" to meet federal requirements (from the CDC), which governs the decision whether to grant free pratique to a vessel wishing to enter the US.  The Constitution reserves this authority to the federal government.  This is the third part of NCL's pleading, that the federal regulations supersede Florida law, as the regulations pertain to international commerce.  The judge did not rule on this, since she felt the other two constitutional challenges were sufficient to grant the injunction, but reserved judgement on the merits of the claim that the CSO supersedes the Florida law.  

[D C]

27 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I also believe businesses should have the ability to conduct their businesses as they see fit. Surely, this Florida law is hindering businesses from doing that.

 

If cruise lines are "International commerce", then why are "they" jumping through all these hoops of fire? Why bother with these law suits if this is so "cut and dry"? Let's just get on with it and let the cruise lines do what they feel is necessary to run a safe operation for all on board their ships.

It's international commerce AND interstate commerce in some cases.  

Unfortunately, unconstitutional laws don't automatically become null and void.  It takes those lawsuits and rulings to make it official that the laws are invalid. 

[coffeebean]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, written documentation is not a "screening process"?  Is asking for a negative covid test result (in writing) not a screening process?

Good point!

[coffeebean]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Cruise lines are "jumping through the hoops" to meet federal requirements (from the CDC), which governs the decision whether to grant free pratique to a vessel wishing to enter the US.  The Constitution reserves this authority to the federal government.  This is the third part of NCL's pleading, that the federal regulations supersede Florida law, as the regulations pertain to international commerce.  The judge did not rule on this, since she felt the other two constitutional challenges were sufficient to grant the injunction, but reserved judgement on the merits of the claim that the CSO supersedes the Florida law.  

Thank you.

[RumRunner2021]

59 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

Take a look at Carnival Vista. This ship is reported as 100% vaccinated but had a 'small number' of positive cases detected mid-voyage last week.

Is NCL testing during the cruise?  If not, how will any positive cases be detected?

[Daniel A]

18 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, written documentation is not a "screening process"?  Is asking for a negative covid test result (in writing) not a screening process?

I consider making sure someone is ,in fact, currently healthy enough to be in your business establishment is entirely different than making sure somebody had undergone a particular medical treatment at some point in their past.

 

Refusing entry to a person exhibiting symptoms of a contagious illness is very different than requiring medical documentation from customers.

 

I think the concept of screening is entirely different from the concept of eligibility.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Daniel A

[RumRunner2021]

16 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Will be interesting to see how they choose to implement that, since they are advertised as 100% vaccinated. If they approve exemptions, then it isn't 100%.

They haven't issued any exemptions.  They've just left the door open for that if things change.

[dswallow]

10 minutes ago, RumRunner2021 said:

Is NCL testing during the cruise?  If not, how will any positive cases be detected?

 

Few if any cruise lines are testing during the cruise with the intent of finding positive cases. They are testing during the cruise to assist with the passengers who need a test to travel after the cruise ends. They are testing inbetween cruises to assist passengers doing a B2B who need to be tested before each sailing. They are testing unvaccinated people during the sailing to ensure they have not been infected and are at risk or posing a risk to others. They are testing people showing symptoms to diagnose the possibility of infection that could put others at risk.

 

And almost all of that testing is still above and beyond testing being done at any other resort or entertainment venue.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by dswallow

[BermudaBound2014]

10 minutes ago, RumRunner2021 said:

Is NCL testing during the cruise?  If not, how will any positive cases be detected?

 

Best I can tell in the case of Carnival Vista is that one of the fully vaccinated passengers was ill enough to go to medical where they tested positive. Then Carnival tested all the close contacts and several more ended up positive. Carnival immediately implemented ramped up covid protocols includiinig mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, and no smoking anywhere indoors (since indoors you'd have to remove a mask to smoke I presume). What I find particularily interesting is that Carnival has not disclosed exactly how many people tested positive before implementing mandatory mask wearing mid-voyage.

Edited August 9, 2021 by BermudaBound2014

[RumRunner2021]

1 minute ago, dswallow said:

They are testing unvaccinated people during the sailing to ensure they have not been infected and are at risk or posing a risk to others.

But there aren't any unvaccinated people on NCL ships.

[dswallow]

Just now, RumRunner2021 said:

But there aren't any unvaccinated people on NCL ships.

 

I was referring to any cruise line.

[RumRunner2021]

1 minute ago, dswallow said:

 

I was referring to any cruise line.

But my question was specific to NCL.

[JamieLogical]

16 minutes ago, RumRunner2021 said:

Is NCL testing during the cruise?  If not, how will any positive cases be detected?

 

NCL will definitely be testing anyone who reports to the medical center with symptoms (as happened to a vaccinated passenger on my 7/26 Equinox sailing) and they will be testing non-US residents who are returning to the US as well as any other passengers that need to test to travel internationally post-cruise.

 

Edit: I am sure they will also contact-trace and test any close contacts of anyone who does test positive onboard.

Edited August 9, 2021 by JamieLogical

[BermudaBound2014]

7 minutes ago, RumRunner2021 said:

But there aren't any unvaccinated people on NCL ships.

,

In the case of Carnival Vista it doesn't matter. It was a VACCINATED person that fell ill. That person went to medical and was tested. Then they tested via contact tracing. Several more vaccinated passengers tested positive initiating the mid-voyage mask wearing protocol. I can't tell for certain, but it sure looks like all the passengers that tested positive on Vista were vaccinated. As is the case with passengers who have tested positive on Equinox, Apex, Edge, Adventure, Millinimum, etc... In fact, it appears the majority of those testing positive onboard are indeed vaccinated.  

 

What is important to note is that it doesn't appear anyone has become seriously ill from covid onboard, but I am absolutely convinced that it is impossible to keep the virus off cruise ships at this time. 

 

IMO: If you cruise at this time you are accepting the risk that at any moment the ship could ramp up the covid protocols regardless what the rules were when you embarked.  In other words, it is possible you could be wearing a mask by the time you debark even on fully vaccinated cruises. All it takes is one person feeling ill.  

Edited August 9, 2021 by BermudaBound2014

[Honolulu Blue]

Florida has announced it is appealing this ruling:  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/09/florida-appeals-ruling-allowing-cruise-to-use-vaccine-passports.html

[RumRunner2021]

10 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

Best I can tell in the case of Carnival Vista is that one of the fully vaccinated passengers was ill enough to go to medical where they tested positive. Then Carnival tested all the close contacts and several more ended up positive. Carnival immediately implemented ramped up covid protocols includiinig mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, and no smoking anywhere indoors (since indoors you'd have to remove a mask to smoke I presume). What I find particularily interesting is that Carnival has not disclosed exactly how many people tested positive before implementing mandatory mask wearing mid-voyage.

Thanks.  That makes sense.

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I consider making sure someone is ,in fact, currently healthy enough to be in your business establishment is entirely different than making sure somebody had undergone a particular medical treatment at some point in their past.

 

Refusing entry to a person exhibiting symptoms of a contagious illness is very different than requiring medical documentation from customers.

 

I think the concept of screening is entirely different from the concept of eligibility.

So, businesses should not be allowed to request covid test results from people who show no symptoms?

[JamieLogical]

5 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

,

In the case of Carnival Vista it doesn't matter. It was a VACCINATED person that fell ill. That person went to medical and was tested. Then they tested via contact tracing. Several more vaccinated passengers tested positive initiating the mid-voyage mask wearing protocol. I can't tell for certain, but it sure looks like all the passengers that tested positive on Vista were vaccinated. As is the case with passengers who have tested positive on Equinox, Apex, Edge, Adventure, Millinimum, etc... In fact, it appears the majority of those testing positive onboard are indeed vaccinated.  

 

What is important to note is that it doesn't appear anyone has become seriously ill from covid onboard, but I am absolutely convinced that it is impossible to keep the virus off cruise ships at this time. 

 

IMO: If you cruise at this time you are accepting the risk that at any moment the ship could ramp up the covid protocols regardless what the rules were when you embarked.  In other words, it is possible you could be wearing a mask by the time you debark even on fully vaccinated cruises. All it takes is one person feeling ill.  

 

My suspicion is that it was a relatively high number of people who ended up testing positive on the Vista in order for the mask requirement to kick in. They also could have had some breakdown in contact tracing that was making it difficult for them to contain the spread. On my Equinox sailing, we only had one person test positive. That was a fully vaccinated person who had reported to the medical center with symptoms. We were wearing tracelets, and all of the close contacts of the infected person were quickly tracked down and tested. The infected person and their party were isolated and then evacuated from the ship in Nasssau. No one else on board tested positive and the whole situation had virtually no impact on the rest of the crew and passengers. The only slight inconvenience was a delay in being able to get off the ship in Nassau.

 

For Carnival to jump to mandatory masking mid-cruise, I suspect that the outbreak had to be fairly large and their other mitigation measures were no longer adequate.

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, Honolulu Blue said:

Florida has announced it is appealing this ruling:  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/09/florida-appeals-ruling-allowing-cruise-to-use-vaccine-passports.html

I believe the judge anticipated this appeal.  Florida won an injunction in the 11th Circuit regarding the constitutionality of the CSO.  Therefore, the judge did not rule on NCL's argument that the Florida law is superseded by the CSO, which could have made a contradictory ruling to the 11th Circuit's decision that the CSO is legal.  So, now the 11th Circuit has to decide this on the free speech and dormant commerce clause arguments, not anything to do with the CDC or CSO.