CDC Ruining Cruising in the US

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Who else then?

As stated, DOT, and USCG via the DHS.  Possibly FDA and EPA for chemicals planned to be used.  OSHA for safety of US citizens needed for the disembarkation, treatment, and quarantining.  Since CDC does not have the expertise in these areas, and the cruise lines are not giving theirs, or saying what they have negotiated yet as service agreements, then CDC has to go to other agencies to make these "technical instructions", rather than taking the cruise lines' proposals to them for approval.

 

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Again, Walinsky never even mentioned the cruise lines being responsible for the delay nor did she include the cruise industry as one of the entities involved in the decision making.  IMHO, the absence of stating a position means it doesn't exist.

Or it could mean that CDC realizes that the cruise lines won't offer anything, so saying they are "part of the decision process" doesn't mean anything.

[TrulyBlonde]

CDC expected to announce that fully vaccinated people can now travel both domestically and internationally. Masks must be worn. 

[howiefrommd]

16 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Didn't the 9th circuit give standing to States of Washington and Minnesota because an immigration ban would affect the bottom line of their universities?

 

The states can sue

"We therefore conclude that the states have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the executive order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the executive order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave."

 

6 Highlights From the Ruling on Trump’s Immigration Order - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

 

The Ninth Circuit has always been a very unusual Circuit.  Interesting how they rule on behalf of two States not in their Circuit.   Additionally in the cases referenced, they were seeking Injunctive Relief (which was granted).  This case will see a long and arduous road ahead.  I am interested how you see this as precedence in regards to Florida's political theater of threatening to sue the Federal Government circumventing the APA?

[howiefrommd]

17 hours ago, XCoastie73 said:

I'm a retired senior career fed agency attorney, about half in a regulatory agency.

 

Generally, I would agree with you about States and standing when the regulatory/admin action seems aimed at the private sector.  But in the last Administration there were a ton of cases brought by States and other seemingly-outside entities, which I thought  would get tossed on the basis of standing -- yet they didn't.  I think District Courts have lowered the standing bar so much that lower State tax revenue or even a general negative effect on the State's inhabitants can give the State standing.

As we all know the Districts have been in flux.  We will have to wait to see what the new DOJ really wants to pursue and what will die on the vine.  I still believe that this was purely political theater. 

[PaulMCO]

9 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

This is the bottom line. If the cruise lines don’t mandate vaccinations they are dead in the water. There is no way the lines, individually or collectively, will ever get an Agreement with hospitals in towns like Sitka, Ketchikan, Juneau, or even Bar Harbor to offload 20-50+ Covid sick passengers at a time. They can’t handle it. If having that Agreement is the CDC bar, then the bar prevents cruises.

 

Stop worrying about sailing in US waters. The cruise lines needs to mandate all passengers and crew be vaccinated. Get the hell out of CDC controlled waters, and restart operations as other countries allow. 
 

Announce the shutdown of all non marketing US operations, get all ships out of US waters, and get on with life. I’m definitely not booking anything from or in US waters for the foreseeable future. Do the same with Canada. They are a rich country that doesn’t want or need the dollars. They won’t even allow fully vaccinated tax paying land owners in to visit their properties. Cancel all those US and Canadian ports out until maybe 2025 and see what kind of mood they’re in then.

 

Time to move on and stop worrying about the CDC. 

Amen to that.  Cruise lines are going to start slowly anyway after a shutdown.  Crystal just announced that they will cancel EU for Symphony and begin 10 day cruises in the Caribbean.  Guessing  St Maarten or Barbados.  They have a smaller fleet so easily to reprogram.  But at least they are sailing.

[BarbaraM]

Interesting, possible good news to come?

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24696-cdc-to-shortly-issue-new-guidelines-to-restart-cruising.html

[Daniel A]

11 minutes ago, howiefrommd said:

in the cases referenced, they were seeking Injunctive Relief (which was granted).  I am interested how you see this as precedence in regards to Florida's political theater of threatening to sue the Federal Government circumventing the APA?

 

8 minutes ago, howiefrommd said:

I still believe that this was purely political theater. 

I do believe your bias is showing.  😒

 

Why wouldn't Florida, Texas, California, Washington, New York, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina etc. be able to seek injunctive relief from the CDC's ban on cruising?

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I just heard on the television (so I cannot post the story) that the CDC is expected to release new guidance today for the airline industry that will now take into account the effect of vaccines.

 

If that's the case, then the CDC lockdown of cruising is looking more and more as being political as the airlines are US companies flying US flagged aircraft.

 

Optics can mean a lot.

What can mean a lot is that passengers don't spend days at a time on an airplane as they do on a cruise ship and an airplane will never be days away from an airport for an emergency landing necessitated by a medical condition, while a cruise ship can be days away from the nearest port.

 

Comparing airline travel and cruise travel in the midst of a pandemic makes no sense.

[pinotlover]

7 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

What can mean a lot is that passengers don't spend days at a time on an airplane as they do on a cruise ship and an airplane will never be days away from an airport for an emergency landing necessitated by a medical condition, while a cruise ship can be days away from the nearest port.

 

Comparing airline travel and cruise travel in the midst of a pandemic makes no sense.

The CDC only controls US waters. Explain to me when, while traversing US waters, is a cruise ship days away from a US port? Maybe SF-Hawaii? Cancel those thus eliminating the problem.

 

[howiefrommd]

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

I do believe your bias is showing.  😒

 

Why wouldn't Florida, Texas, California, Washington, New York, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina etc. be able to seek injunctive relief from the CDC's ban on cruising?

First, I have no political bias whatsoever.  When a politician (regardless of party) holds a news conference to threaten an entity, it is theater.  There are plenty of avenues open to apply pressure to potential litigants.  When in comes to dealing with Federal Agencies, having a news conference (threatening to sue) is not one that I have found with over 30 years of (in this arena) experience tend to be fruitful.  

 

Anyone (including yourself) can make application as a litigant and request Injunctive Relief.  

[Aloha 1]

22 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Did you bother to read what I wrote and read the linked article? By your response I doubt it. Do you just prefer to react angrily?

 

This was a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, not a "salacious hit piece" from MSNBC or Yahoo News.

 

I stated "although some others disagree with the study's conclusions", and the linked article states "Tatar's study has not been accepted by all health experts and has been rebuked by Lauren Rossen, a statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." so I was up front about the other side of the story.

 

Finally, while I have no reason to doubt  Dr. Loren Rossen's scientific credentials, I can't find anything that suggests that she holds a position of "Stats Director" . As best I can tell she holds the position of Senior Health Statistician and is not senior enough to be listed on the organization chart of the National Center for Health Statistics, which is the part of the CDC where she works.  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/NCHS_Org_Chart_Branch_level_Director_names_010521.png 

Yes I read the article and my opinion of it still stands. You are correct that Rossen is not the Head of statistics so I'll give you that point.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Aloha 1

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, pinotlover said:

The CDC only controls US waters. Explain to me when, while traversing US waters, is a cruise ship days away from a US port? Maybe SF-Hawaii? Cancel those thus eliminating the problem.

 

Not just the West Coast to Hawaii. What about cruises from NY or Boston or Baltimore to Aruba...which require about three days at sea and are more common than cruises to Hawaii. While you may be close to some  Caribbean islands during the cruise if there's a COVID outbreak on board the ship will likely be denied the right to enter the territorial waters of those small counties, as was the case during the start of the pandemic, meaning that the ships would have to make their way back to the US. Even a cruise from NY or Boston or Baltimore to Bermuda...a very common itinerary that requires about 1 1/2 to 2 sea days. If there's a COVID outbreak as the cruise nears Bermuda it will take 1 1/2 to 2 days to get back to the US .

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Aloha 1 said:

Yes I read the article and my opinion of it still stands. You are correct that Rossen is not the Head of statistics so I'll give you that point.

As I recommended to another poster, please read the paper's abstract as published in the American Journal of Public Health and pay particular attention to the conclusions:

 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306130 .

"Conclusions. Total deaths are significantly higher than historical trends in Florida even when accounting for COVID-19–related deaths. The impact of COVID-19 on mortality is significantly greater than the official COVID-19 data suggest."

 

Those are the words of the authors of the paper or at least of the journal's editors, not the words of any mass media outlet "hit job".

[Daniel A]

3 hours ago, Aloha 1 said:

Yes I read the article and my opinion of it still stands. You are correct that Rossen is not the Head of statistics so I'll give you that point.

It's always refreshing to go beyond the cherry picking that goes on in certain peoples posts.  When you read the text of the abstract of the subject paper, one sees the following statement from the authors:

 

"Results. Our results suggest that Florida experienced 19 241 (15.5%) excess deaths above historical trends from March to September 2020, including 14 317 COVID-19 deaths and an additional 4924 all-cause, excluding COVID-19, deaths in that period."

Analysis of Excess Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the State of Florida | AJPH | Vol. 111 Issue 4 (aphapublications.org)

 

When anybody frequently quotes others and omits the information in those quotes which are in direct contradiction of the point a writer is attempting to make, the writings of such an individual should be considered very suspect. 

 

That's why there is an old saying, "Trust but verify."

[njhorseman]

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It's always refreshing to go beyond the cherry picking that goes on in certain peoples posts.  When you read the text of the abstract of the subject paper, one sees the following statement from the authors:

 

"Results. Our results suggest that Florida experienced 19 241 (15.5%) excess deaths above historical trends from March to September 2020, including 14 317 COVID-19 deaths and an additional 4924 all-cause, excluding COVID-19, deaths in that period."

Analysis of Excess Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the State of Florida | AJPH | Vol. 111 Issue 4 (aphapublications.org)

 

When anybody frequently quotes others and omits the information in those quotes which are in direct contradiction of the point a writer is attempting to make, the writings of such an individual should be considered very suspect. 

 

That's why there is an old saying, "Trust but verify."

I guess you were trying to slip that by me by not quoting my post but instead quoting another poster. Sorry, but that attempt failed.

 

Your interpretation of the wording you've cited is incorrect. Those additional 4,924 cases are exactly what generates the "conclusions" paragraph I quoted . What the authors of the paper are concluding is they suspect there are actually significant numbers of COVID deaths that were reported as deaths due to other causes. 

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

I guess you were trying to slip that by me by not quoting my post but instead quoting another poster. Sorry, but that attempt failed.

 

Your interpretation of the wording you've cited is incorrect. Those additional 4,924 cases are exactly what generates the "conclusions" paragraph I quoted . What the authors of the paper are concluding is they suspect there are actually significant numbers of COVID deaths that were reported as deaths due to other causes. 

What they are saying in those results is that their analysis yielded a higher than the statistical norm number of deaths during that time period compared to previous years.  Of those higher numbers, 14,317 were Covid deaths.  There were 4,924 deaths which were not Covid deaths.  They are giving their statistical analysis, not the state's and they have concluded those 4,924 deaths were not due to Covid illness.

 

For example, part of the issue is that there have been deaths due to increased numbers of clinical depression, and drug overdoses because treatment was not available due to Covid shutdowns.  Some have argued that although those people did not die from Covid illness, they are still casualties of the Covid-19 Pandemic.  The authors are saying that there was nothing being hidden here, but Covid-19 may have had an 'impact' on those deaths even though Covid-19 was not the cause of death nor an underlying cause.

 

I have no reason to 'slip anything by you.'  If my offering advice to @Aloha 1 to trust but verify appeared to you as my slipping one past you, then your interpretation of that was just as flawed as your interpretation of the study.  How is it slipping something past someone when it is a post in an open source platform for the world to see?  As an aside, why did you choose to omit the Results section of the abstract in your prior post?

 

I wonder if Dr. Tatar plans to examine any other states in addition to Florida.  He can get some help from the AG of New York for that project.  To be fair, he would compare the same numbers to other states that did major lockdowns like Michigan, California, New York and New Jersey.  But I'm not holding my breath.

[pinotlover]

37 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I guess you were trying to slip that by me by not quoting my post but instead quoting another poster. Sorry, but that attempt failed.

 

Your interpretation of the wording you've cited is incorrect. Those additional 4,924 cases are exactly what generates the "conclusions" paragraph I quoted . What the authors of the paper are concluding is they suspect there are actually significant numbers of COVID deaths that were reported as deaths due to other causes. 

The medical profession has been arguing this point from the beginning.1. Did they die OF Covid-19 symptoms; or (2) Did they die WITH Covid in their system. Lots of claims by even doctors that #2 is often the case, but pursuant to the relief package there is a financial incentive to claim #1. 
 

Truth is we’ll never know. My nephew’s aunt went into hospice with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, given a week to live. Cause of death on her certificate: Covid. No mention of the cancer. Family was told she must have contacted at the hospice in the four days she lived. Lots of similar stories. We’ll never know.

[Daniel A]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As stated, DOT, and USCG via the DHS.  Possibly FDA and EPA for chemicals planned to be used.  OSHA for safety of US citizens needed for the disembarkation, treatment, and quarantining.  Since CDC does not have the expertise in these areas, and the cruise lines are not giving theirs, or saying what they have negotiated yet as service agreements, then CDC has to go to other agencies to make these "technical instructions", rather than taking the cruise lines' proposals to them for approval.

 

Or it could mean that CDC realizes that the cruise lines won't offer anything, so saying they are "part of the decision process" doesn't mean anything.

This should be of interest to you just out today, technical guidance for Phase 2:

 

CDC COVID-19 Orders for Cruise Ships | Quarantine | CDC

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Daniel A

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

This should be of interest to you just out today, technical guidance for Phase 2:

 

CDC COVID-19 Orders for Cruise Ships | Quarantine | CDC

 

And, while more detailed than the requirements set forth in the CSO, you will note that it still requires the cruise lines and their partners "to specify procedures" for meeting these requirements, and since the general requirement was known a year ago, a lot of procedures could have been created and written up in that time.

 

Here is the key statement, reflecting the cruise lines' responsibility to develop detailed plans (that should have been initiated months ago):

 

"These instructions are not intended as, and do not constitute, a comprehensive statement regarding a cruise ship operator’s duties and obligations under CDC’s Framework for Conditional Sailing Order. These instructions reflect CDC’s reasoned judgement based on the best available current science regarding the subject areas covered in the document. Cruise ship operators, U.S. port authorities, and local public health authorities should carefully consider and incorporate these instructions in developing their own health and safety protocols."

 

Another note, towards the CDC director's comments about the multi-agency decisions:

 

"The parties to the agreement are the cruise ship operator, U.S. port authority where the cruise ship operator intends to conduct one or more simulated voyages and commence restricted passenger operations, and all health departments exercising jurisdiction over the port".

 

So, the agencies would be the USCG, the local port authorities, state and local health departments in each port.  Also, those port and health departments need to determine the total passenger load they will allow (whether between ships of one line, or several lines).

 

It will be interesting to see how quickly the cruise lines can obtain these agreements, since that is a pre-requisite for the next phase, simulated cruises.

[pinotlover]

Move operations outside the US and stop haggling. 

[ORV]

Why don't you guys give it a break. 

[clo]

9 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I just heard on the television (so I cannot post the story) that the CDC is expected to release new guidance today for the airline industry that will now take into account the effect of vaccines.

 

If that's the case, then the CDC lockdown of cruising is looking more and more as being political as the airlines are US companies flying US flagged aircraft.

 

Optics can mean a lot.

I've never seen an airplane that carries thousands of pax.

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

And, while more detailed than the requirements set forth in the CSO, you will note that it still requires the cruise lines and their partners "to specify procedures" for meeting these requirements, and since the general requirement was known a year ago, a lot of procedures could have been created and written up in that time.

 

Here is the key statement, reflecting the cruise lines' responsibility to develop detailed plans (that should have been initiated months ago):

 

"These instructions are not intended as, and do not constitute, a comprehensive statement regarding a cruise ship operator’s duties and obligations under CDC’s Framework for Conditional Sailing Order. These instructions reflect CDC’s reasoned judgement based on the best available current science regarding the subject areas covered in the document. Cruise ship operators, U.S. port authorities, and local public health authorities should carefully consider and incorporate these instructions in developing their own health and safety protocols."

 

Another note, towards the CDC director's comments about the multi-agency decisions:

 

"The parties to the agreement are the cruise ship operator, U.S. port authority where the cruise ship operator intends to conduct one or more simulated voyages and commence restricted passenger operations, and all health departments exercising jurisdiction over the port".

 

So, the agencies would be the USCG, the local port authorities, state and local health departments in each port.  Also, those port and health departments need to determine the total passenger load they will allow (whether between ships of one line, or several lines).

 

It will be interesting to see how quickly the cruise lines can obtain these agreements, since that is a pre-requisite for the next phase, simulated cruises.

This was a very good post and was also informative.  I trust my post to you was understood to be positive as it indicated some movement toward test cruises.  I was glad to see that CDC was incorporating vaccinated crew and port workers into the requirements.  Have a Happy Easter! 

[Incognito1]

On 3/31/2021 at 7:38 PM, clo said:

You didn't mention computers cause they sure know tons about you. Do you never order and pay for something online? And looking at trips????? Etc.

That's what VPNs are for.  And prepaid debit cards for ordering online.  And throwaway, secure emails for information queries, Alpha Keepers for my credit cards.  Yeah, I'm that one who drives with the visor down whenever I'm in a camera-heavy area.

 

Everyone has their own comfort level with the information they (voluntarily or involuntarily) disclose.  I respect that some may not care if their whole lives are in the cloud.  I'm not one of them.

 

Daniel, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with a Faraday pouch!

 

 

[Incognito1]

12 hours ago, the more ports the better said:

you would love Florida as people tend to be quite nice here.  I try to have a positive attitude and be kind to everyone and it has served me well in life.  I do not criticize or judge as I have no idea what people’s individual situations are.  My dad, wisely, always said, do not judge other people until you have walked 100 miles in their shoes.  I raised my children and they are raising their children in the same vein, and we are a pretty happy and copacetic bunch.
 

I’ve tried to bring some COVID information to this board periodically as I have access to more information than most people as I’ve been involved in vaccine trials.   I so wish that the constant anger, snarky comments, attacks, and especially the judging would cease.   Regardless of political ideology, we all live in this country together.  We can agree to disagree, move on and focus on common ground which is that we all love sailing and exploring the world, the purpose of these boards.  Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.

Serious ask here.  Why do you think that Florida has such a different culture than, say, New York, Minnesota, California, etc?  I took a trip there recently for a few weeks and it was odd.  People don't really care about race, economics, politics, and other things that divide (many of) us, or at least they are not nasty about it.  Everyone, absolutely everyone, was polite, accommodating, and friendly.  Most of my time was in Northern Florida - I'm wondering if the rest is the same.

 

Wondering what makes it different.  Texas was similar, although people on different sides of politics there don't really mix.