APPROPRIATE ACTIONS OR EXTREME MEASURES?

[mnocket]

9 hours ago, Orator said:

I would rate the chances for passage higher if they had co sponsors from the other side of the aisle and from places other than Florida.

 

True, but I really don't see it as any real improvement over what the CDC is working on.  In fact, by establishing a NEW task force it may actually slow things down and add even more chefs in the kitchen.

 

More likely, Scott and Rubio's introduction of this bill may be intended to show their Florida constituents that they are looking out for the local economy.  How many times have you heard politicians say "I introduced a bill to do such-and-such.....  They don't say it actually passed - just that they introduced it.  Having the Set Sail Safely Act actually pass may not be all that important to them since a process is already in place.  

[D C]

6 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

True, but I really don't see it as any real improvement over what the CDC is working on.  In fact, by establishing a NEW task force it may actually slow things down and add even more chefs in the kitchen.

 

More likely, Scott and Rubio's introduction of this bill may be intended to show their Florida constituents that they are looking out for the local economy.  How many times have you heard politicians say "I introduced a bill to do such-and-such.....  They don't say it actually passed - just that they introduced it.  Having the Set Sail Safely Act actually pass may not be all that important to them since a process is already in place.  

The extent to which the CDC has the authority to establish regulations for cruise ships is debatable.   Passing an act at the federal level that lays out the rules for cruising would be more authoritative and direct, especially in light of the continued panic about covid and cruising.  When COVID cases were few, there was at least some merit behind CDC restrictions on cruising as their charge is to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable disease in the US.  

 

Now that covid is everywhere, there is no such need for that specific purpose.  It has long since been introduced and it's spreading.   Even if the Diamond Princess were to disembark its 700 covid-positive people at Port Everglades today, it would be a 0.1% increase in total Florida cases, and a 25% blip in their daily case count.  Frankly, not a big deal in the broad scheme of covid.

 

A federal act that requires cruise ships be able to dock and disembark passengers both ill and healthy would be immensely comforting for potential passengers and likely would have prevented a number of cases on board the Diamond Princess had it been in US waters.   Haven't read the bill yet, but I sure hope it includes that sort of language.

 

 

[Fouremco]

2 hours ago, D C said:

The extent to which the CDC has the authority to establish regulations for cruise ships is debatable. 

You might want to review this information regarding the CDC's regulatory authorities:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/regulations/index.html

[D C]

7 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

You might want to review this information regarding the CDC's regulatory authorities:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/regulations/index.html

I have.   We can start with this:

 

Control of Communicable Diseases

• Medical examination of immigrants and refugees
• Interstate and foreign quarantine
• Importations(foreign quarantine)

Nothing there would allow the regulation of an industry.  Then you can review https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html and look at Final Rule for Control of Communicable Diseases: Interstate and Foreign and then Federal Register Notice: Criteria for Recommending Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers.   Still nothing that allows the regulation of an industry.  But as I said, any such claimed authority is debatable. 

[mnocket]

3 hours ago, D C said:

The extent to which the CDC has the authority to establish regulations for cruise ships is debatable.   Passing an act at the federal level that lays out the rules for cruising would be more authoritative and direct, especially in light of the continued panic about covid and cruising.  When COVID cases were few, there was at least some merit behind CDC restrictions on cruising as their charge is to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable disease in the US.  

 

Now that covid is everywhere, there is no such need for that specific purpose.  It has long since been introduced and it's spreading.   Even if the Diamond Princess were to disembark its 700 covid-positive people at Port Everglades today, it would be a 0.1% increase in total Florida cases, and a 25% blip in their daily case count.  Frankly, not a big deal in the broad scheme of covid.

 

A federal act that requires cruise ships be able to dock and disembark passengers both ill and healthy would be immensely comforting for potential passengers and likely would have prevented a number of cases on board the Diamond Princess had it been in US waters.   Haven't read the bill yet, but I sure hope it includes that sort of language.

 

 

 

Unfortunately,  The Safe Sailing Act would just establish a Task Force to replicate what the CDC is already doing.  It is not legislation that lays out the rules for the cruising.  As is typically the case, such details are left to the regulatory agencies.  I'm afraid the proposed bill would not accomplish what you are hoping.

Edited September 18, 2020 by mnocket

[Fouremco]

6 minutes ago, D C said:

I have.   We can start with this:

 

Control of Communicable Diseases

• Medical examination of immigrants and refugees
• Interstate and foreign quarantine
• Importations(foreign quarantine)

Nothing there would allow the regulation of an industry.  Then you can review https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html and look at Final Rule for Control of Communicable Diseases: Interstate and Foreign and then Federal Register Notice: Criteria for Recommending Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers.   Still nothing that allows the regulation of an industry.  But as I said, any such claimed authority is debatable. 

I had reviewed those items.

 

Whereas I view the regulations as targeting COVID-19 under  the CDC's clear authority to prevent "the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases in the United States", you view the regulations as targeting the cruise industry.  The Federal Register Notice: Criteria for Recommending Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers addressed restrictions imposed on people with communicable diseases, who meet specific criteria, from boarding commercial flights that have a starting or end point in the United States. I would not view that as targeting the airline industry.

 

As you say, the issue is debatable.

[D C]

1 hour ago, mnocket said:

 

Unfortunately,  The Safe Sailing Act would just establish a Task Force to replicate what the CDC is already doing.  It is not legislation that lays out the rules for the cruising.  As is typically the case, such details are left to the regulatory agencies.  I'm afraid the proposed bill would not accomplish what you are hoping.

 

They never do what we hope for, it seems. sigh

 

33 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

I had reviewed those items.

 

Whereas I view the regulations as targeting COVID-19 under  the CDC's clear authority to prevent "the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases in the United States", you view the regulations as targeting the cruise industry.  The Federal Register Notice: Criteria for Recommending Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers addressed restrictions imposed on people with communicable diseases, who meet specific criteria, from boarding commercial flights that have a starting or end point in the United States. I would not view that as targeting the airline industry.

 

As you say, the issue is debatable.

 

It's the "prevent" part that is key.  Cruise ships currently present no practical threat to introduction, transmission, or spread when compared with activities of daily life that are broadly permitted.   At this point in time, cruises present a bigger issue on the level of the individual and ones risk-taking comfort level of contracting the disease.   Despite the continued spread elsewhere, the CDC assumed the authority to single out the cruise industry with a no-sail order.    

[Gracie115]

6 hours ago, D C said:

Now that covid is everywhere, there is no such need for that specific purpose.  It has long since been introduced and it's spreading.   Even if the Diamond Princess were to disembark its 700 covid-positive people at Port Everglades today, it would be a 0.1% increase in total Florida cases, and a 25% blip in their daily case count.  Frankly, not a big deal in the broad scheme of covid.

 

A federal act that requires cruise ships be able to dock and disembark passengers both ill and healthy would be immensely comforting for potential passengers and likely would have prevented a number of cases on board the Diamond Princess had it been in US waters.   Haven't read the bill yet, but I sure hope it includes that sort of language.

 

1 hour ago, D C said:

It's the "prevent" part that is key.  Cruise ships currently present no practical threat to introduction, transmission, or spread when compared with activities of daily life that are broadly permitted.   At this point in time, cruises present a bigger issue on the level of the individual and ones risk-taking comfort level of contracting the disease.   Despite the continued spread elsewhere, the CDC assumed the authority to single out the cruise industry with a no-sail order.    

 

I like the way you think and had not considered the issue this way but it's very true.  The disease is everywhere now, with each country finding it's own way to deal with it, some better than others.   "Should" make it easier to have agreements with many ports for safe passage to a medical facility if needed for someone with Covid... I say "should" because who knows if it will happen?

[UnorigionalName]

2 hours ago, D C said:

 

They never do what we hope for, it seems. sigh

 

 

It's the "prevent" part that is key.  Cruise ships currently present no practical threat to introduction, transmission, or spread when compared with activities of daily life that are broadly permitted.   At this point in time, cruises present a bigger issue on the level of the individual and ones risk-taking comfort level of contracting the disease.   Despite the continued spread elsewhere, the CDC assumed the authority to single out the cruise industry with a no-sail order.    

 

So the goal is to keep R0 below 1, and it turns out in the US that's pretty hard to do.  The data (especially from asia) is becoming clearer that if everyone wears masks and limits indoor gatherings, it's possible to actually do a lot while keeping R0 below 1.

 

So currently, we have kind of settled into this system, where local governments are restricting/relaxing guidelines based on what the infection rate looks like.  So the better your community is at preventing spread, the more it is allowed to do.

 

R0 on a cruise ship is some ungodly high number.  Both on the ship and off.  Most people interact with a small group of people.  So if a few in that group get COVID, it circulated within that group quickly, but it's not as easy for it to go out. 

 

On a cruise ship, people from all over are mingled, and COVID will spread on a cruise ship.  So you mix all these separate groups of people together, and it will circulate like mad and be a huge source of outbreaks.  (See like the Maine weddings)

 

So like, society as a whole has a ration of activity it can do while keeping R0 below 1.  Alot depends on density, types of activites, and compliance with mask usage and social distancing.

 

Out of all the things you can spend this ration on, I think cruises for rich (relatively) people are just about on the bottom of societies priorities.

Edited September 18, 2020 by UnorigionalName

[npcl]

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

I had reviewed those items.

 

Whereas I view the regulations as targeting COVID-19 under  the CDC's clear authority to prevent "the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases in the United States", you view the regulations as targeting the cruise industry.  The Federal Register Notice: Criteria for Recommending Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers addressed restrictions imposed on people with communicable diseases, who meet specific criteria, from boarding commercial flights that have a starting or end point in the United States. I would not view that as targeting the airline industry.

 

As you say, the issue is debatable.

on the road so not easy for me to dig up and cut and paste.

 

suggest you do a search for no sail order CDC federal register.

 

in that document, it not only lists the specific sections that gives the CDC the authority to issue it, as well as the one that enables them to have the coast guard to enforce it 

 

the no sail order in clearly within the CDC enforcement authority.

 

though they are stretching a bit with the recent order to prevent evictions under the grounds that an evicted I'll person might travel to another state. evoking the enforcement authority to prevent interstate spread, when local authorities do not take sufficient action. Surprised no one has sued them over that one yet.

 

do you really think that the cruiselines would hesitate to sue if the CDC was on questionable grounds with the no sail order?

[npcl]

this link is the the federal register document that give the legal references for the enforcement authority as well as the back ground on the logic why those regs apply

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/21/2020-15810/no-sail-order-and-suspension-of-further-embarkation-second-modification-and-extension-of-no-sail 

 

basically under quarantine laws the CDC can go from international travel for individuals, ships and aircraft, to entire countries. They could shutdown all cross border traffics.

 

large cruise ships are considered to be international.

 

There was one CDC presentation were R0 greater than 13 was observed on cruise ships.

 

the CDC also has a lot of company. most countries, that normally home port cruise ships as still not allowing them.

 

the only one that are allowing are in countries that have relatively low new case numbers (italy and germany) and the cruise lines that are sailing are from those countries. we saw what happened in Norway.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by npcl

[MamaFej]

15 hours ago, mnocket said:

More likely, Scott and Rubio's introduction of this bill may be intended to show their Florida constituents that they are looking out for the local economy.  How many times have you heard politicians say "I introduced a bill to do such-and-such.....  They don't say it actually passed - just that they introduced it.  Having the Set Sail Safely Act actually pass may not be all that important to them since a process is already in place.  

I think you're right. If they actually cared about it being passed, they would have gotten senators from (at least) CA and WA as co-sponsors, showing that they could reach across the aisle fro the greater good. It's a familiar tactic practiced by members of all parties. 

[npcl]

here is another issue. let's say it passed, and this new board worked faster that government usually does. how successful do you think the cruise lines will be in getting people to actually sail. The air lines are around 30% of last year totals. Vegas visitors are pretty low according to casino reports. I am currently at the south rim of the Grand Canyon. you can walk up and get rooms same day at the El Tovar. Other lodges a little over half full. even with skies in oregon and california clogged with smoke relatively few visitors.

 

Then when you consider US case numbers how long before they have a hurtigruten type even. Even with testing, while it improves the odds in a low infection population it is not good enough to prevent an infected person from getting on board in a high infection rate population.

 

the issue, as Australia found out with the Ruby, is not how many infected get off of a ship, but how many they spread it to as they travel home and once they get there. Especially if they consider the ship to be a safe environment.

Edited September 18, 2020 by npcl

[D C]

3 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

So the goal is to keep R0 below 1, and it turns out in the US that's pretty hard to do.  The data (especially from asia) is becoming clearer that if everyone wears masks and limits indoor gatherings, it's possible to actually do a lot while keeping R0 below 1.

 

So currently, we have kind of settled into this system, where local governments are restricting/relaxing guidelines based on what the infection rate looks like.  So the better your community is at preventing spread, the more it is allowed to do.

 

R0 on a cruise ship is some ungodly high number.  Both on the ship and off.  Most people interact with a small group of people.  So if a few in that group get COVID, it circulated within that group quickly, but it's not as easy for it to go out. 

 

On a cruise ship, people from all over are mingled, and COVID will spread on a cruise ship.  So you mix all these separate groups of people together, and it will circulate like mad and be a huge source of outbreaks.  (See like the Maine weddings)

 

So like, society as a whole has a ration of activity it can do while keeping R0 below 1.  Alot depends on density, types of activites, and compliance with mask usage and social distancing.

 

Out of all the things you can spend this ration on, I think cruises for rich (relatively) people are just about on the bottom of societies priorities.

No offense, but as soon as I see R0 brought up in a covid discussion, I lose faith in the ultimate source of the information.   R0 is nearly impossible to calculate during the spread of a disease as it is merely one of a number of modeling parameters based on a variety of assumptions.  

 

Granted, the notion of a rate-of-spread is interesting, but it's impractical and effectively useless to calculate real-time.  

[Arizona Wildcat]

39 minutes ago, D C said:

No offense, but as soon as I see R0 brought up in a covid discussion, I lose faith in the ultimate source of the information.   R0 is nearly impossible to calculate during the spread of a disease as it is merely one of a number of modeling parameters based on a variety of assumptions.  

 

Granted, the notion of a rate-of-spread is interesting, but it's impractical and effectively useless to calculate real-time.  

Agree.  The data to build the RO statistic involves lots of estimates and assumptions.  Our state has changed the parameters used to calculate several times.

[UnorigionalName]

54 minutes ago, D C said:

No offense, but as soon as I see R0 brought up in a covid discussion, I lose faith in the ultimate source of the information.   R0 is nearly impossible to calculate during the spread of a disease as it is merely one of a number of modeling parameters based on a variety of assumptions.  

 

Granted, the notion of a rate-of-spread is interesting, but it's impractical and effectively useless to calculate real-time.  

 

Fine, for you "science-man bad" people

 

replace R0 with the concept "are the cases going up or going down"

 

cases go up = frowny face

 

cases go down = happy face

 

too many people on big boat make frowny face

[npcl]

1 hour ago, D C said:

No offense, but as soon as I see R0 brought up in a covid discussion, I lose faith in the ultimate source of the information.   R0 is nearly impossible to calculate during the spread of a disease as it is merely one of a number of modeling parameters based on a variety of assumptions.  

 

Granted, the notion of a rate-of-spread is interesting, but it's impractical and effectively useless to calculate real-time.  

that is why it was looked at on cruise ships after the events. when the number of infected was known , as well as the time frames. in that analysis they found very high R0 number on board ships.  

[PTC DAWG]

4 hours ago, MamaFej said:

I think you're right. If they actually cared about it being passed, they would have gotten senators from (at least) CA and WA as co-sponsors, showing that they could reach across the aisle fro the greater good. It's a familiar tactic practiced by members of all parties. 

Cal and WA are bonkers...sad to say..

[mnocket]

6 hours ago, D C said:

No offense, but as soon as I see R0 brought up in a covid discussion, I lose faith in the ultimate source of the information.   R0 is nearly impossible to calculate during the spread of a disease as it is merely one of a number of modeling parameters based on a variety of assumptions.  

 

Granted, the notion of a rate-of-spread is interesting, but it's impractical and effectively useless to calculate real-time.  

You probably know more about R0 than I do.  The concept of R0 appeals to me, but as with so many analyses today the underlying assumptions are all important.

 

One thing I'm pretty sure about (and disappointed about) is that none of the metrics concerning COVID are consistent or accurate.  Five years from now there will be a much better and objective analysis of this pandemic.  My expectation is that much of what we think we know today will be proven inaccurate.

 

[ipeeinthepool]

8 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

Fine, for you "science-man bad" people

 

replace R0 with the concept "are the cases going up or going down"

 

cases go up = frowny face

 

cases go down = happy face

 

too many people on big boat make frowny face

 

😀

[riredsox]

11 hours ago, PTC DAWG said:

Cal and WA are bonkers...sad to say..

But you are not?

[pumpkin 11]

On 9/17/2020 at 8:44 AM, sanger727 said:

 

I believe you meant to say 3%, not .03%. Based on country it's been ranging from 1.6%-10.6%; but no one is reporting sub 1% rates. Also, 3% of the US population is still almost 10 million people. So that is not an insignificant number...

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

It’s not 3%!! .03%!! Get it right!

[mayleeman]

8 hours ago, pumpkin 11 said:

It’s not 3%!! .03%!! Get it right!

 

So, 199,000 known deaths in the US must mean that there have been 663 million cases here? 

 

Interesting math....

[Arizona Wildcat]

Everything until the CDC and CLIA publish the policies and rules is speculation.

The news today is almost pure politics in the US.  Sad but true.  Look around and you find a study - usually not with appropriate standards - that gives contradictory info to another study. 

As to the "numbers game" - really only matters to many if it directly effects them.  Lots of selfish people out there.

Two final comments.  Newsy reported several people that had been reinvested.  If that is correct, then does a vaccine give protection even with two doses?  

The other is a CLIA and CDC workable agreement is not a solution if borders are not opened.  Cruising is an international activity.  Pretty hard to operate to Alaska with Canada closed.  As an American I found even with a business reason to travel there with quaranteen, travel and lodging rules until borders truly open - I quit.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

On 9/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, Pickels said:

I agree 100%, that's why I'm not going back to the office but, instead working from home.  People who ride public transportation, know the rules but, try to circumvent the rules.  Some don't care.  Same would apply to cruising; so, enforce the rules.

 

So you can't go to the office but you're ok going on a ship. Got it.