CDC Officially Seeking Public Comments Through Sept 21st for future Cruising Protocols

[boze9999]

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/breakthrough-opening-cdc-seeks-public-comment-cruise-operations-covid-19-era

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by boze9999

[prescottbob]

Just a quickie response after a quick read, typical bureaucrats (including PH folks) are just placing their hopes that others of their ilk would present provide better constructive information in the future.

 

The ‘goal posts’ continue to move regardless of science & driven by the endless ‘panic’ . Ambivalence appears to be turning into apathy, no?

 

It’s all exhausting.

 

Cruising sometime soon? 
 

Not, IMHO.

 

Be well.

Bob

[Mandalay1903]

And certainly no decision reached until WELL after the public comment period expires on 9/21/20.  Forget those Q4 2020 cruises touching the US.

 

Thank you for boze9999 for posting this.

[Mandalay1903]

And certainly no decision will be reached until WELL after the public comment period expires on 9/21/20. By inviting public comment through late September, IMO the US Gov't has guaranteed an extension of the no-sail order until well into Q4 2020 at least. Forget those Q4 2020 cruises involving the US.

 

Thank you for boze9999 for posting this.

[DeeDee Groff]

3 hours ago, boze9999 said:

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/breakthrough-opening-cdc-seeks-public-comment-cruise-operations-covid-19-era

 

 

Greatly appreciate your sharing this link!

[kazu]

Thanks for sharing the link 🙂 

 

Since anyone can give their opinion, it means a lot of people who never cruise and/who have no plan on cruising could give input different than what cruisers do.  

 

I agree if they are waiting for the comments then there won’t be any ships sailing in  2020 mostly likely.  Looks like Princess’ pause until Dec. 15th was bang on.

[Mandalay1903]

I think the CDC just kicked the tin can (in this case the cruise ship) down the road another three months.

 

I read a report that Mein Schiff 1 just cancelled their upcoming August cruise quite possibly because several crew members tested positive for Covid-19. If that's the case, it tells me that the cruise industry is nowhere near ready with its protocols for handling crew or passengers who become ill while under way. At this point in July/August 2020, it seems they still feel that their best alternative is to cancel the entire voyage. A cruise ship might be able to screen crew and passengers before boarding, but in order to successfully restart operations they need to demonstrate that they can still safely deliver their product for the paying passengers when someone on board is diagnosed positive.

[KirkNC]

Yes but the Schiff 2 has set sail with 1,200 passengers:

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/23286-1-200-passengers-are-back-on-a-cruise-ship.html

 

they would have taken up to 1,700 but I guess demand was not there.  It’s a cruise to nowhere other then some Norwegian scenery.

 

Lets all hope this goes well.

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by KirkNC

[kazu]

Funny how the CDC didn’t ask for public input on flights 😉 😞 

 

I suspect more cases were spread from flying than from cruise ships.  JMO.

[CJcruzer]

17 minutes ago, Mandalay1903 said:

but in order to successfully restart operations they need to demonstrate that they can still safely deliver their product for the paying passengers when someone on board is diagnosed positive.

 

and this is what the whole situation boils down to, in a nutshell.  

 

When someone is diagnosed positive, will it be 1, 20, 100 or 500 people coming down with the virus?  And how many will be critically ill, requiring more urgent care?

 

Carol

[KirkNC]

While it’s good to see some movement on this topic why is the CDC asking our advice?  Aren’t they the medical experts that are supposed to provide us with guidance?  Take the question on limiting cruise length, why would public comments on that have anything to do with the safety of such.

[Cruzin Terri]

58 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

While it’s good to see some movement on this topic why is the CDC asking our advice?  Aren’t they the medical experts that are supposed to provide us with guidance?  Take the question on limiting cruise length, why would public comments on that have anything to do with the safety of such.

Having worked for the Federal Government and been part of the regulation process, once a proposed regulation is published in the Federal Register, there is a period, usually 60 days where it is open for comments from the general public.

Terri

Edited July 25, 2020 by Cruzin Terri

[Mandalay1903]

1 hour ago, KirkNC said:

While it’s good to see some movement on this topic why is the CDC asking our advice?  Aren’t they the medical experts that are supposed to provide us with guidance?  Take the question on limiting cruise length, why would public comments on that have anything to do with the safety of such.

While they're open for comments from the general public, I should think they're most interested in pertinent comments coming from other interested parties related to the cruise industry and its target markets, that are not part of the cruise line organization with whom they're having direct discussions. Travel agents, persons in the medical field, tour companies, airlines, AARP, and so on.

[Mandalay1903]

1 hour ago, CJcruzer said:

and this is what the whole situation boils down to, in a nutshell.  

 

When someone is diagnosed positive, will it be 1, 20, 100 or 500 people coming down with the virus?  And how many will be critically ill, requiring more urgent care?

 

Carol

Exactly. And how do you manage the remaining 1,000 or 2,000 people who are not ill with the virus?  There needs to be a standardized process for handling both the well and unwell groups, and whether or not the cruise can continue. There need to be advance agreements with countries and ports for safe harbor and disembarkation if Covid-19 is diagnosed on the ship. I should think this would be in the best interests of the cruise lines, the crew organizations, the governments, and the paying passengers. This could take a long time.

[CJcruzer]

15 minutes ago, Mandalay1903 said:

Exactly. And how do you manage the remaining 1,000 or 2,000 people who are not ill with the virus?  There needs to be a standardized process for handling both the well and unwell groups, and whether or not the cruise can continue. There need to be advance agreements with countries and ports for safe harbor and disembarkation if Covid-19 is diagnosed on the ship. I should think this would be in the best interests of the cruise lines, the crew organizations, the governments, and the paying passengers. This could take a long time.

 

Absolutely.

 

In addition, several countries (i.e. Canada being one) have travel advisories for non-essential travel - which nullifies out of country travel insurance should someone require medical attention, both on or off the ship - for Covid 19.   And we all know how expensive long hospitals stays can be.   This puts a SERIOUS crimp on recreational travel outside one’s country.

 

Carol

[CJcruzer]

27 minutes ago, Mandalay1903 said:

Exactly. And how do you manage the remaining 1,000 or 2,000 people who are not ill with the virus?  There needs to be a standardized process for handling both the well and unwell groups, and whether or not the cruise can continue. There need to be advance agreements with countries and ports for safe harbor and disembarkation if Covid-19 is diagnosed on the ship. I should think this would be in the best interests of the cruise lines, the crew organizations, the governments, and the paying passengers. This could take a long time.

 

This could present a problem, as the Covid-19 situation is very fluid and dynamic.  One day a country/city/town could have “good numbers”, flattening the curve. A week or 2 or more later, they could be  experiencing a surge, hospitals overwhelmed, step back in phase - any or all of these could impact on whatever advance plans or arrangements had been negotiated.

 

Carol

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, KirkNC said:

While it’s good to see some movement on this topic why is the CDC asking our advice?  Aren’t they the medical experts that are supposed to provide us with guidance?  Take the question on limiting cruise length, why would public comments on that have anything to do with the safety of such.

I'm guessing that they are required by law to allow comments from the public.

[Tampa Girl]

It all boils down to:  No sailing until either a treatment or a vaccine.  There is no other way to control COVID aboard a ship. even if the passengers can be protected, the crew cannot.  As long as the danger exists, the cruiselines will be vulnerable to ports suddenly closing on them.

[KirkNC]

37 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

It all boils down to:  No sailing until either a treatment or a vaccine.  There is no other way to control COVID aboard a ship. even if the passengers can be protected, the crew cannot.  As long as the danger exists, the cruiselines will be vulnerable to ports suddenly closing on them.

Agreed, if you read the text on the Federal Register, the questions they ask will quickly show you cruising is a looooooong way off.

[KirkNC]

3 hours ago, Mandalay1903 said:

Exactly. And how do you manage the remaining 1,000 or 2,000 people who are not ill with the virus?  There needs to be a standardized process for handling both the well and unwell groups, and whether or not the cruise can continue. There need to be advance agreements with countries and ports for safe harbor and disembarkation if Covid-19 is diagnosed on the ship. I should think this would be in the best interests of the cruise lines, the crew organizations, the governments, and the paying passengers. This could take a long time.

Personally I believe it is impossible to comply with some of CDC's wish list.

[rkacruiser]

5 hours ago, KirkNC said:

While it’s good to see some movement on this topic why is the CDC asking our advice?  Aren’t they the medical experts that are supposed to provide us with guidance?  Take the question on limiting cruise length, why would public comments on that have anything to do with the safety of such.

 

Reading this thread for the first time, I shared your thinking and still do.  The CDC has failed our country.  The responsibility is to be determined at some point in time, but not now.  I do not blame those public servants who do the daily work.  I blame the agency's leadership.  

 

Being able to respond to a public agency's request for the public's input before some action is taken is appropriate in a democratic society.  How much of that input will "make a difference" as to what that agency knows needs to be done is questionable.  (As an example, those who live in my area have received a letter and request for comments about a road and bridge being closed for badly needed repair and replacement from our County Engineer.  That road and it's bridge is the shortest route for an EMS vehicle to get a patient from my area to the closest hospital.  There is no other shorter detour route available.  Whatever we say in response to the request, the road/bridge will be closed and I can only hope I won't need urgent EMS service during that time period.)

 

Unsure as I write this whether I will respond for public comments or not.  

[npcl]

7 hours ago, kazu said:

Funny how the CDC didn’t ask for public input on flights 😉 😞 

 

I suspect more cases were spread from flying than from cruise ships.  JMO.

They have an established process for flights, how they are handled via the public health departments.  How contact tracing is handled.  The major issue is the attack rate demonstrated on cruise ships is considerably higher than has been air craft.

 

 

[npcl]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Reading this thread for the first time, I shared your thinking and still do.  The CDC has failed our country.  The responsibility is to be determined at some point in time, but not now.  I do not blame those public servants who do the daily work.  I blame the agency's leadership.  

 

Being able to respond to a public agency's request for the public's input before some action is taken is appropriate in a democratic society.  How much of that input will "make a difference" as to what that agency knows needs to be done is questionable.  (As an example, those who live in my area have received a letter and request for comments about a road and bridge being closed for badly needed repair and replacement from our County Engineer.  That road and it's bridge is the shortest route for an EMS vehicle to get a patient from my area to the closest hospital.  There is no other shorter detour route available.  Whatever we say in response to the request, the road/bridge will be closed and I can only hope I won't need urgent EMS service during that time period.)

 

Unsure as I write this whether I will respond for public comments or not.  

I suspect that the reason for the RFI has nothing to do with asking for your and my opinion (as well as most people).  A response to an RFI needs to actually address an issue that is being asked about.  Most people will just make general comments that have nothing to do with the RFI and therefore will have no impact.

 

If one really wants to respond instead of the general cruise lines are great and they should be allowed to cruise, they should actually identify the question or questions they wish to respond to and address that question.

 

I suspect that the CDC has generated the RFI to try and get the cruise lines and the CLIA to actually start engaging on the subject.  By doing the RFI this puts a timeline in place for the cruise lines to submit input. According to the most recent CDC extension all of the discussions with the cruise lines have been about crew and that the cruise lines have not submitted any plans about actually sailing with passengers.  The end of this period also coincides with when RCL and NCLH said their expert group with have some results.

 

Doing the RFI will help prevent the cruise lines from successfully filing a law suite about any restrictions that the CDC requires on the basis of lack of input.

 

Keep in mind that an RFI is not a step in the regulation generation process, though once an agency has the information it might decide that a new regulation is needed. If they do go down the regulation process you will see a notice that a regulation is being worked on, a comment period, a draft, a comment period, the final, a comment period, implementation.

Edited July 25, 2020 by npcl

[kazu]

46 minutes ago, npcl said:

They have an established process for flights, how they are handled via the public health departments.  How contact tracing is handled.  The major issue is the attack rate demonstrated on cruise ships is considerably higher than has been air craft.

 

 

 

 

For once you and I will disagree.  The contact tracing is deplorable from the airlines.  People are not notified until far too late IF they are notified.

 

Cases here and in your country have been directly related to air travel. 

Don’t get me wrong - air travel has been a boon but it has also been a curse when it comes to the virus.  

The obvious attack rate by the virus might have been higher on the cruise ships since no one could get off  but there were a lot more flights in the air and each one was carrying the virus and people walked off spreading it.  

We’ll just agree to disagree.  I’m not sticking up for the cruise ships but I know where some of the virus came from here and it wasn’t the cruise ships.  It was in certain ports no question - but the rest was from travel and a big part of it was air.  

Meanwhile the airlines are starting to fill the middle seats and fly full.  Go figure.

[rkacruiser]

38 minutes ago, npcl said:

I suspect that the reason for the RFI has nothing to do with asking for your and my opinion (as well as most people).  A response to an RFI needs to actually address an issue that is being asked about.  Most people will just make general comments that have nothing to do with the RFI and therefore will have no impact.

 

If one really wants to respond instead of the general cruise lines are great and they should be allowed to cruise, they should actually identify the question or questions they wish to respond to and address that question.

 

I suspect that the CDC has generated the RFI to try and get the cruise lines and the CLIA to actually start engaging on the subject.  By doing the RFI this puts a timeline in place for the cruise lines to submit input. According to the most recent CDC extension all of the discussions with the cruise lines have been about crew and that the cruise lines have not submitted any plans about actually sailing with passengers.  The end of this period also coincides with when RCL and NCLH said their expert group with have some results.

 

Doing the RFI will help prevent the cruise lines from successfully filing a law suite about any restrictions that the CDC requires on the basis of lack of input.

 

Keep in mind that an RFI is not a step in the regulation generation process, though once an agency has the information it might decide that a new regulation is needed. If they do go down the regulation process you will see a notice that a regulation is being worked on, a comment period, a draft, a comment period, the final, a comment period, implementation.

 

I appreciate reading your post.  Not having a legal education and familiar with the regulatory processes with all of its nuances, why ought I bother responding?  

 

Such "actions" give the "appearance" by the Federal Government of being "inclusive" in support of our democracy.  If your assertion that the RFI is successful in preventing the cruise lines from successfully filing a law suit about any restrictions the CDC requires, that seems to be the main purpose of this "request for public comment".  If so, the public be dam^%d!  Whatever thoughts we, the public might add:  "Go away, you bother us!"

 

Probably too negative of a view of this "offer" by the CDC at this point of time.  But, that's where I currently am.  

 

Tell me I am wrong.  And why.