Celebrity will be restarting cruising out of St. Maarten on June 5th with Millennium

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

It all depend.  If you listen to his comments, he is making that comment with the anticipation of fairly dramatic drop of in the number of cases.  That the incidence of COVID has dropped sufficiently in that time.

 

If it hasn't dropped sufficiently due to new variants or some other reasons then they would still be needed.

Agreed, which is why I included the qualifier "at this time". 

[HMR74]

Don seems to have figured things out. The CDC dragging its heels.

 

Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.

 

 

[GeroWA]

On 3/22/2021 at 10:44 AM, jagoffee said:

HCAT,  I certainly hope not. Nor should the cruise companies start making requirements for which manufacture of the the vaccine is appropriate.  Whether a vaccine is valid should be left to Health experts. 
All my opinion of course.

I certainly agree with your sentiments - Most of us here in Australia will be receiving the Astra Zenica  vaccination.

[Shadow9612]

10 hours ago, RichYak said:

So, here's my concern. Is getting Pfizer or Moderna 4 months apart considered a "two-dose series" to satisfy the "fully vaccinated" requirement? 4 months is well outside what I thought was a 42-45 day maximum duration between doses. It seems more like two first doses than a two-dose series and those folks could be considered vaccinated, but not "fully" vaccinated.

 

I'm not really expecting an answer. I'm just wondering aloud for our Canadian and UK friends.

I would also be very interested to hear people's opinions on this topic. If the 4-month gap that we are facing here in Canada is not following the vaccine producer's guidelines, would the cruise line consider that "not fully vaccinated"?   

 

[markeb]

39 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

Don seems to have figured things out. The CDC dragging its heels.

 

Lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way.

 

OK. So I got a few minutes into it. Does he ever address whether any of the cruise lines have actually provided plans as required in the Framework released in October? What other guidance are they looking for. The ball has been in their court since October. 

 

If you go to the CDC's web page, all of the North American cruise lines HAVE submitted, and the CDC has approved, plans for the commercial transportation of crew. They know how to do this. It doesn't even look like it was difficult. I've not seen anything that suggests they've even made an effort to do the same to meet the requirements for transportation of passengers. So the stunt in the St Maarten appears to be a stalling and PR tactic with a little income involved to wait out what they assume will be the expiration of the the current status at the end of November.

 

I've never worked for the CDC or HHS. I've worked with HHS, and if memory serves applied for an Epidemiological Investigation Service (EIS) position through the Army 20+ years ago. Probably the most prestigious applied epidemiology program in the world. Didn't get it. The CDC isn't dragging its feet; its enforcing its oldest and clearest authority, to protect US borders from infectious disease. That goes back to at least the Public Health Service and the turn of the 20th Century. It's a compliance organization. If you think its difficult, try dealing with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, another compliance organization. Neither are compromise organizations.

 

For better or worse, and usually both, the CDC (it's Centers, BTW, plural) is the least political agency in HHS. Its director is NOT Presidentially Nominated and Senate Confirmed. The director is technically appointed by the Secretary of HHS. It's in Atlanta, not DC. Congress has declined to elevate the director to a Senate confirmed position presumably to keep it apolitical, but most of the recent directors have spent half their life on a plane to DC just to stay plugged into HHS and the Hill. The staff are incredibly competent scientists who pride themselves, to their own detriment at times, as being apolitical (yes, they're US citizens and they vote; that's not what I'm talking about). They really should be screaming "we told them what they needed to do five months ago", but they won't. 

 

There are interagency policy bodies whose reason for existence is to coordinate policy across all the elements of power and government. National Security Council, Homeland Security Council, Council of Economic Advisors, etc. Those bodies are charged with providing the President whole of government options. I'd have to look, but HHS should be a member of several of those, but probably the Presidentially Nominated Senate Confirmed Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. That's where you balance out economics with public health, national security, etc. They could send the CDC Director, and may, but the CDC Director enforces policy within their authorities, and those authorities don't include economics, or facilitating cruising. That's not part of compliance.

 

So until one of these YouTube geniuses (who are getting paid by people clicking on your embedded video, BTW) tells me that cruise lines have submitted the plans required 5 months ago and they've either been denied or not considered, the people dragging their heels are the cruise lines. And even at a compliance organization, a plan that addresses most of the elements, and a discussion of why others may be difficult or not possible, would open a dialogue.

[HMR74]

Well, what do they have to do to get the test cruises going. 

 

And the CDC Director was punting herself when she said other agencies are involved.

 

In the 67 page submittal by the group. the CDC acknowledged that the list was onerous for the cruise lines.

So where is the hang you.

None of us knows for certain, however, based on the responses by the CDC director the ball is in their court cause rather than saying its up to other agencies she could have easily said, ask why the cruise lines have been tardy in submissions.

 

I do not have your experience in government,  but What I do know about government is its slower than molasses in January and the people at the top of agencies might have professional credentials but not leadership big picture credentials.

Think of it like having bean counters in charge of everything.

 

Al I know is time is passing, with the vaccines the standards are changing,  and ships are bypassing US ports as there is no choice.

 

[markeb]

They've locked the PDF to copying and pasting. Pages 26 and 27 lay out the process to apply for a simulated cruise. The cruise lines appear to have all met the Paragraph (c) requirements, so my read  is they can apply for a simulated cruise any time they want to. As far as any of us know, they haven't. The only caveat would be if their still getting PCR positive cases on their crew only ships, which might shut down the next step. But I don't know that anyone has actually applied, and I'd think they'd be bragging if they had.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/CDC-Conditional-Sail-Order_10_30_2020-p.pdf

 

The 67 page document is an industry document, not a CDC document, and it pre-dates this Conditional Sail Order.

 

BTW, if I read this right, the ships involved in European, Asian, and Caribbean home porting have to meet the CDC guidance to claim free pratique while the Conditional Sail Order is in place. So, again, they're gambling on the order expiring without extension.

 

There are people in those coordinating bodies who are charged with big picture. I'm not in a position to know if they're meeting on this (kind of doubt it; there are some pretty big targets still moving), but that's not the CDC. There was a 100 day timeframe on high priority actions, and that includes the public transportation issues. So maybe cruising becomes part of the next tier of actions after the first 100 days.

 

FWIW, I don't think they prepped her very well for this line of questioning. There would be other agencies involved. USCG, CBP, DOT, etc., in a decision to resume cruising. Those agencies would look to her to agree they've met the health requirements. There are times to just say "Senator, our area of focus is health and the control of disease. Clearly there are other issues as your stating, but they're beyond my authorities." And move on. Don't explain a "yes" into a "no".

[grandgeezer]

39 minutes ago, markeb said:

They've locked the PDF to copying and pasting. Pages 26 and 27 lay out the process to apply for a simulated cruise. The cruise lines appear to have all met the Paragraph (c) requirements, so my read  is they can apply for a simulated cruise any time they want to. As far as any of us know, they haven't. The only caveat would be if their still getting PCR positive cases on their crew only ships, which might shut down the next step. But I don't know that anyone has actually applied, and I'd think they'd be bragging if they had.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/CDC-Conditional-Sail-Order_10_30_2020-p.pdf

 

The 67 page document is an industry document, not a CDC document, and it pre-dates this Conditional Sail Order.

 

BTW, if I read this right, the ships involved in European, Asian, and Caribbean home porting have to meet the CDC guidance to claim free pratique while the Conditional Sail Order is in place. So, again, they're gambling on the order expiring without extension.

 

There are people in those coordinating bodies who are charged with big picture. I'm not in a position to know if they're meeting on this (kind of doubt it; there are some pretty big targets still moving), but that's not the CDC. There was a 100 day timeframe on high priority actions, and that includes the public transportation issues. So maybe cruising becomes part of the next tier of actions after the first 100 days.

 

FWIW, I don't think they prepped her very well for this line of questioning. There would be other agencies involved. USCG, CBP, DOT, etc., in a decision to resume cruising. Those agencies would look to her to agree they've met the health requirements. There are times to just say "Senator, our area of focus is health and the control of disease. Clearly there are other issues as your stating, but they're beyond my authorities." And move on. Don't explain a "yes" into a "no".

If you look at the Sail Order, there is a section called Statement of Intent. Nowhere is jobs or financials mentioned as an area of their focus. They are focused only on public health and safety.

There has to be someone, or group that controls the whole process and they are the ones that are holding things up, they have the final say, not the CDC.

[jagoffee]

4 hours ago, markeb said:

 

OK. So I got a few minutes into it. Does he ever address whether any of the cruise lines have actually provided plans as required in the Framework released in October? What other guidance are they looking for. The ball has been in their court since October. 

 

If you go to the CDC's web page, all of the North American cruise lines HAVE submitted, and the CDC has approved, plans for the commercial transportation of crew. They know how to do this. It doesn't even look like it was difficult. I've not seen anything that suggests they've even made an effort to do the same to meet the requirements for transportation of passengers. So the stunt in the St Maarten appears to be a stalling and PR tactic with a little income involved to wait out what they assume will be the expiration of the the current status at the end of November.

 

I've never worked for the CDC or HHS. I've worked with HHS, and if memory serves applied for an Epidemiological Investigation Service (EIS) position through the Army 20+ years ago. Probably the most prestigious applied epidemiology program in the world. Didn't get it. The CDC isn't dragging its feet; its enforcing its oldest and clearest authority, to protect US borders from infectious disease. That goes back to at least the Public Health Service and the turn of the 20th Century. It's a compliance organization. If you think its difficult, try dealing with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, another compliance organization. Neither are compromise organizations.

 

For better or worse, and usually both, the CDC (it's Centers, BTW, plural) is the least political agency in HHS. Its director is NOT Presidentially Nominated and Senate Confirmed. The director is technically appointed by the Secretary of HHS. It's in Atlanta, not DC. Congress has declined to elevate the director to a Senate confirmed position presumably to keep it apolitical, but most of the recent directors have spent half their life on a plane to DC just to stay plugged into HHS and the Hill. The staff are incredibly competent scientists who pride themselves, to their own detriment at times, as being apolitical (yes, they're US citizens and they vote; that's not what I'm talking about). They really should be screaming "we told them what they needed to do five months ago", but they won't. 

 

There are interagency policy bodies whose reason for existence is to coordinate policy across all the elements of power and government. National Security Council, Homeland Security Council, Council of Economic Advisors, etc. Those bodies are charged with providing the President whole of government options. I'd have to look, but HHS should be a member of several of those, but probably the Presidentially Nominated Senate Confirmed Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. That's where you balance out economics with public health, national security, etc. They could send the CDC Director, and may, but the CDC Director enforces policy within their authorities, and those authorities don't include economics, or facilitating cruising. That's not part of compliance.

 

So until one of these YouTube geniuses (who are getting paid by people clicking on your embedded video, BTW) tells me that cruise lines have submitted the plans required 5 months ago and they've either been denied or not considered, the people dragging their heels are the cruise lines. And even at a compliance organization, a plan that addresses most of the elements, and a discussion of why others may be difficult or not possible, would open a dialogue.

Did you read the CDC framework document that was submitted some time ago?  You think it is a reasonable and sound document?

[deliver42]

Given the vaccines, and the way cruising has started in every other part of the world without problems, I think the CDC, or whoever they care to blame, is way behind the   times on this. No matter how you feel about your defense of the CDC, facts are facts, and they don't support the CDC;s decisions. The congresswoman from Alaska had a meeting with the head of the CDC, and all she got was a lot of double talk So much so, that she couldn't believe it. You can view it on Don's Vacations on You Tube

[markeb]

3 hours ago, jagoffee said:

Did you read the CDC framework document that was submitted some time ago?  You think it is a reasonable and sound document?

 

It's a pretty tough document, no argument. It does address the bulk of the issues dealing with quarantine of test positives and medical management of actual cases. This is the point, with vaccinations underway, where I'd expect industry to ask for technical clarification in light of vaccinations. But have the rest of it drafted. They had to answer the bulk of those questions to be "Green" for crew transport. And there are technical clarifications posted for crew transportation, probably as the result of industry questions. There are no technical clarifications posted for passenger transportation, probably because the industry hasn't asked.

[markeb]

1 hour ago, deliver42 said:

Given the vaccines, and the way cruising has started in every other part of the world without problems, I think the CDC, or whoever they care to blame, is way behind the   times on this. No matter how you feel about your defense of the CDC, facts are facts, and they don't support the CDC;s decisions. The congresswoman from Alaska had a meeting with the head of the CDC, and all she got was a lot of double talk So much so, that she couldn't believe it. You can view it on Don's Vacations on You Tube

 

I'm not clicking on a You Tube channel and generating income for him. The Senator has posted what she at least thinks is the most relevant part of that exchange.

 

Senator Murkowski (R) (AK) is the third ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The hearing last Thursday is available here. https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/examining-our-covid-19-response-an-update-from-federal-officials  It lasted over three hours. The Senator (or her staff) selected 4:27 on cruising, and another 2 minutes or so on vaccines, to post for her interchange with Dr. Walensky.

 

 

 

One reason I think Dr. Walensky was stumbling is I'm pretty sure she was citing a pre-decisional document (which is a pretty big no-no). I can't find any 4 phase to cruise document anywhere. There is a January Executive Order here https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/21/executive-order-promoting-covid-19-safety-in-domestic-and-international-travel/

 

Section 5 addresses international travel.

 

One of the actions in that section is:

 

(d)  Sea Travel.  The Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and in consultation with the Secretary of HHS and the Director of CDC, shall, within 14 days of the date of this order, submit to the President a plan to implement appropriate public health measures at sea ports.  The plan should implement CDC guidelines, consistent with applicable law, and take into account operational considerations. 

 

also of some interest, but not directly related:

 

(e)  International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis.  Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic versions of ICVPs.  

 

and the Order directs coordination (including some agencies she stumbled on)

 

(f)  Coordination.  The COVID-19 Response Coordinator, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall coordinate the implementation of this section.  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall update the COVID-19 Response Coordinator on their progress in implementing this section within 7 days of the date of this order and regularly thereafter.  The heads of all agencies are encouraged to bring to the attention of the COVID-19 Response Coordinator any questions regarding the scope or implementation of this section.

 

What you're seeing (and actually not seeing for the most part in public right now) is normal sausage making. And Senator Murkowski knows full well (she's a co-sponsor on a bill dealing with the PVSA) that even if the CDC lifted all of its restrictions tomorrow, there are no cruise ships going to Alaska this year because of those concerns and the inability stop in Canada. But that is definitely out of the CDC Director's authorities.

[HMR74]

I said this earlier, this seems to be a "power" struggle between the CDC and the Cruise lines. The panel document said as much when "it" stated that there were issues that would need to be changed for the CL's to have a viable business. Where does one start negotiations?

 

However, imo its an indication of the overall "my way or the highway" attitude--by both sides.

 

Expand this in concept to the lockdowns overall.  If one detaches oneself from emotions, the lockdowns were "sort of" heavy handed, then politicians had to support their orders,  by digging their individual and collective heels into the ground, adversely affecting a ton of small private businesses and big ones too.

 

Then again, safety protocols needs to be used.

 

Which is why team efforts should have been used (admittedly not easy but why), as if two sides of the issue agreed, their would have been easier and quicker buy in.

 

Its probably tied up in politics, social and cultural issues.

 

But the bottom line is are the cruise lines, airlines, hotels and restaurants set up and running and the answer is not all. and some never again. Look at the empty malls, strip centers and office buildings and how the big cities have changed, perhaps forever. .

 

There are a lot of stakeholders in this and as evidenced by the disagreements here, where very little can be resolved within 200 typed words, I bet the same occurs at the CDC and Cruise lines-and throughout govt (see how Congress is voting almost always along party lines-ask why there are not more crossovers both ways)

 

There is certainly no way any of us will be able to fix things but this is a nice outlet for our frustrations.

 

 

 

 

[Ride-The-Waves]

Wow.  So much speculation.  So much hogwash.  

 

RCG (through Royal and Celebrity) is trying to make an end run around the CDC and health safety.  Totally dumb.  Its not that we don't want to cruise - have three booked for 2022 - it that RCG is playing with our lives to make $$$ off our health.  Remember, the cruise lines promised to provide CDC with protocols for on board operations, from masks to riding in elevators, and so far has not don't as requested.  

 

Lets see:

 

$2000 (base) for a 7-day cruise to three Caribbean islands.  Not included are R/T air (average $450 from SE US), hotel stays pre and post cruise/flights, ground transportation, etc.

 

And, of course, RCG conveniently "forgets" to mention the return to US requirements which are currently a negative COVID-19 test 3 days prior to return and the possibility of at least a 7-day quarantine on return since RCG cannot certify that the islands they have scheduled are COVID-free.  Does RCG pay for this?  Where do you get the negative test?

 

The $2000 cruise easily balloons to well over $3000 pp.  Expensive for a basic balcony cabin.

 

RCG is playing politics with our health.  This is not a good thing.

 

We are both fully vaccinated (Pfizer 1 and 2) as of 27 January and not interested in jumping through RCG's hoops.  By Fall things will have stabilized with the expansion of vaccinations and better understanding of international travel rules/procedures.

[TeeRick]

2 hours ago, deliver42 said:

Given the vaccines, and the way cruising has started in every other part of the world without problems, I think the CDC, or whoever they care to blame, is way behind the   times on this. No matter how you feel about your defense of the CDC, facts are facts, and they don't support the CDC;s decisions. The congresswoman from Alaska had a meeting with the head of the CDC, and all she got was a lot of double talk So much so, that she couldn't believe it. You can view it on Don's Vacations on You Tube

What specific facts are you referring to that do not support CDC decisions?  

[Oceangoer2]

On 3/21/2021 at 3:56 PM, marieps said:

Ah.  Not a shortage per se, just allotting resources differently.  Considering the 1st dose covers you 87% or so...it's a valid deployment strategy.

I think part of the strategy is to inoculate as many as possible to help get the economy moving, the border open for trade and travel, and for peace of mind for those who receive the vaccine.  As we move through the process, the age parameter dates to receive 1st are moving up....I somewhat THINK that the 2nd dose will come sooner than 4 months.   🤞

Edited March 23, 2021 by Oceangoer2

[markeb]

24 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

I said this earlier, this seems to be a "power" struggle between the CDC and the Cruise lines. The panel document said as much when "it" stated that there were issues that would need to be changed for the CL's to have a viable business. Where does one start negotiations?

 

 

Not cherry picking your opener. We're both writing long, and I'm trying to go shorter.

 

Very little in what you've written that I'd disagree with, other than I'm not sure it's a power struggle with CDC as much as what just feels like amateur hour from the cruise lines. I "assume" CLIA has a multi-million dollar contract with some lobbying firm on K-Street. I know longer assume they're listening to them. Or that they picked a good one. And the travel/cruise press has largely been horrible and demonstrated what sometimes seems like a total lack of understanding of law, regulations, and government operations and instead post income generating click bait. But that wouldn't normally be their beat.

 

Somewhere after the first 100 days, which is the focus of all COVID19/SARS-CoV-2 activity now, you'll see this addressed at the policy (White House) level, probably along with a lot of travel issues. I think that's when you bring the entire travel industry in with the senior policy folks, and try to figure out how to balance things out. I really think it would help the industry's cause at that point to have successful simulated cruises under their belt. With vaccine rollouts, international and domestic air and public transit guidelines, reopening schools, etc., there just aren't enough clock cycles right now.

[HMR74]

18 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Not cherry picking your opener. We're both writing long, and I'm trying to go shorter.

 

Very little in what you've written that I'd disagree with, other than I'm not sure it's a power struggle with CDC as much as what just feels like amateur hour from the cruise lines. I "assume" CLIA has a multi-million dollar contract with some lobbying firm on K-Street. I know longer assume they're listening to them. Or that they picked a good one. And the travel/cruise press has largely been horrible and demonstrated what sometimes seems like a total lack of understanding of law, regulations, and government operations and instead post income generating click bait. But that wouldn't normally be their beat.

 

Somewhere after the first 100 days, which is the focus of all COVID19/SARS-CoV-2 activity now, you'll see this addressed at the policy (White House) level, probably along with a lot of travel issues. I think that's when you bring the entire travel industry in with the senior policy folks, and try to figure out how to balance things out. I really think it would help the industry's cause at that point to have successful simulated cruises under their belt. With vaccine rollouts, international and domestic air and public transit guidelines, reopening schools, etc., there just aren't enough clock cycles right now.

yeah, I am burned out on this.

in a company, a CEO would get the two parties together and tell them to get it done by a certain date. Or else.

 

[Oceangoer2]

HMR74

2 hours ago, HMR74 said:

yeah, I am burned out on this.

in a company, a CEO would get the two parties together and tell them to get it done by a certain date. Or else.

 

When one (or a board) has control of a private company or industry employees...easily said...for good or bad.  In this case, government's employees are us.  Each rep considers their voter base and their particular concerns.  So very difficult to broad-base a process...or as you say...'just get it done'.  The 'or else' in this case happens at election time.   

 

BTW....😁that  markeb and HMR74 are trying to compose shorter posts.....I read the opening and closing and get the drift...😉

Edited March 23, 2021 by Oceangoer2

[nocl]

13 hours ago, HMR74 said:

Well, what do they have to do to get the test cruises going. 

 

And the CDC Director was punting herself when she said other agencies are involved.

 

In the 67 page submittal by the group. the CDC acknowledged that the list was onerous for the cruise lines.

So where is the hang you.

None of us knows for certain, however, based on the responses by the CDC director the ball is in their court cause rather than saying its up to other agencies she could have easily said, ask why the cruise lines have been tardy in submissions.

 

I do not have your experience in government,  but What I do know about government is its slower than molasses in January and the people at the top of agencies might have professional credentials but not leadership big picture credentials.

Think of it like having bean counters in charge of everything.

 

Al I know is time is passing, with the vaccines the standards are changing,  and ships are bypassing US ports as there is no choice.

 

Things are changing but the incidence rate of COVID is still high.  Until the vaccinations have a real impact on that the major issue has not changed.  

 

We are at an interesting point.  We now have vaccinations, but are still fairly early in the role out.  We expect this to have an impact upon the disease incidence, but it has not happened yet.  We know there are variants, but not totally sure of how much of an impact they will have.

 

So which would you prefer the CDC to roll out standards to day based upon the current situation? or roll out standards for the anticipated situation with the understanding that they do not go into effect until those conditions are reached?

 

I expect that things are changing fast enough that the cruise lines/CDC will not really come to any operating agreement until 1. Either the disease incident rate drops sufficiently that the current order can be removed or 2. The current order expires.

 

If the second it might be replaced with another order with simpler clear cut requirements, if the incidence rate in the US has not dropped sufficiently by then to allow unlimited cruising.

[nocl]

I believe that there is another part of this from the cruise lines point of view.  I believe that the cruise lines want to come out of the pandemic without expanded CDC reporting requirements (illness on board) and CDC monitoring of operation practices compared to prior to the pandemic.

 

I believe that this is and has been part of the cruise lines issues when dealing with the CDC. The last things the cruise lines want is a precedent of having to provide detailed reports to the CDC and the CDC wanting detailed reports of cruise line practices and procedures.

[grandgeezer]

8 minutes ago, nocl said:

I believe that there is another part of this from the cruise lines point of view.  I believe that the cruise lines want to come out of the pandemic without expanded CDC reporting requirements (illness on board) and CDC monitoring of operation practices compared to prior to the pandemic.

 

I believe that this is and has been part of the cruise lines issues when dealing with the CDC. The last things the cruise lines want is a precedent of having to provide detailed reports to the CDC and the CDC wanting detailed reports of cruise line practices and procedures.

If you have mothing to hide and following agreed upon procedures, what's the big deal? 

[HMR74]

13 minutes ago, nocl said:

Things are changing but the incidence rate of COVID is still high.  Until the vaccinations have a real impact on that the major issue has not changed.  

 

We are at an interesting point.  We now have vaccinations, but are still fairly early in the role out.  We expect this to have an impact upon the disease incidence, but it has not happened yet.  We know there are variants, but not totally sure of how much of an impact they will have.

 

So which would you prefer the CDC to roll out standards to day based upon the current situation? or roll out standards for the anticipated situation with the understanding that they do not go into effect until those conditions are reached?

 

I expect that things are changing fast enough that the cruise lines/CDC will not really come to any operating agreement until 1. Either the disease incident rate drops sufficiently that the current order can be removed or 2. The current order expires.

 

If the second it might be replaced with another order with simpler clear cut requirements, if the incidence rate in the US has not dropped sufficiently by then to allow unlimited cruising.

Wayne Gretsky has said "skate to where the puck will be" -and thats true for more than ice hockey. It is true in life in many ways.

 

They all (CDC, Cruise lines and Supply chains)  should be thinking in terms of 3-4 months from now.

 

And if a cruise line screws up, that one cruise line will go to the penalty box, and that could be a career suspension.  That should be motivation enough to protect against seen issues.

 

Not sure how to deal with the unknown unknowns.

 

W.H. just reported that 27 million vaccine doses will be shipped this week.

 

 

[HMR74]

8 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

If you have mothing to hide and following agreed upon procedures, what's the big deal? 

I think the big deal is there should be reporting , but meat and potato type of reporting.  The pareto 90/10 rule--10% of the effort will get you 90% of the benefit. From there on you get diminished returns.

 

AKA the low hanging fruit theory. Shame on any or all of them if they missed the low hanging fruit.

Risk management is all about that, eg, the cost of prevention is usually less than the cost of fixing things.

[Arizona Wildcat]

T

10 minutes ago, HMR74 said:

Wayne Gretsky has said "skate to where the puck will be" -and thats true for more than ice hockey. It is true in life in many ways.

 

They all (CDC, Cruise lines and Supply chains)  should be thinking in terms of 3-4 months from now.

 

And if a cruise line screws up, that one cruise line will go to the penalty box, and that could be a career suspension.  That should be motivation enough to protect against seen issues.

 

Not sure how to deal with the unknown unknowns.

 

W.H. just reported that 27 million vaccine doses will be shipped this week.

 

 

Two separate comments.

 

For Canadiens having one dose of Pfizer or Moderna does not make you fully vaccinated.  The 4 months between doses does not appear to reduce efficacy is the good news.

The difficulty is much of the discussion is trying to blame the CDC for the lack of movement forward.  Do others remember that there were multiple agencies at the big meeting last year.  Not just the CDC.  Thus other agencies responsible for decision making including the current administration.

The cruiselines are indeed wanting to avoid a repeat of the March 2021 fiasco.  That would put cruising in the distant future.  Thus the fully vaccinated requirement.  I am mystified at allowing under 18s on board without vaccination.  Cruiselines could fill a ship with almost any conceivable requirement - even something silly like 50 to 55 years old only.

Evidently CLIA and AZ have hired the same PR firms.  Both incompetent.  CLIA should have aggressively put forth a detailed passenger plan - just like for crew - months ago.  Are they just making a smoke screen and not really wanting to return to cruising when COVID is likely to become an issue?  No idea.