4-2-2021 CDC has issued new guidance

[smokeybandit]

2 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

Restaurants, Nail Salons, Barber shops are non essential to those who use their service yet they also employ people and pay rent for space.

 

Yet all those are open

[Iamcruzin]

Just now, smokeybandit said:

 

Yet all those are open

Not all of them came back and restaurants, bars and catering are still at limited capacity. 

[Iamcruzin]

2 minutes ago, ONECRUISER said:

Ironic thing is Liquor Stores are Essential during 15day lock down and even few Strip Clubs won their Court Case. They can serve food, liquor and entertain long as they kept Masks on

That was to prevent all of the alcoholics from filling up the hospitals because of withdrawal.

[Tolkmit]

8 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

100% of cruising is non essential.  There were and are still people who are not part of the cruising industry who lost their business and employment all around the world. Don't be so short sighted.

 

Your argument was that cargo is allowed because it's essential. Whether or not it's essentially is irrelevant to whether it is allowed, most cargo isn't essential and is still happening, as are other non-essential industries. Saying a cruise is a leisure activity is an attempt to justify keeping the industry shut down, it is not a reason to. If it were a reason to shut an industry down, it would apply to other, statistically more dangerous industries.

 

And... so in your mind, if something bad happens to someone, that means it doesn't matter if it happens to other people? We don't have to worry about people in the cruise industry losing their jobs, because other people have lost their jobs as well? If that's how your logic works, then we don't have to worry about people on cruises catching Covid-19, because other people catch Covid-19 as well, right? You realize how ridiculous your reasoning sounds?

[grandgeezer]

1 hour ago, Tolkmit said:

 

I think it's less about desire for control, and more about avoidance of responsibility. If the CDC puts impossible to complete requirements on cruising, then they can claim to be absolved of the responsibility of shutting cruising down; and at the same time be absolved of the responsibility of opening cruising up if something goes wrong. Cruising helps red states not blues ones, so they have nothing to gain by opening cruising up.

 

They've already done cruises from elsewhere. 400,000 passengers, 50 cases of Covid-19. The data is already in, it's just being ignored.

Examine those so called cruises, reduced passengers, passengers only from the country where they got on, no ports, etc. Unless that’s the new norm, the results are almost meaningless.

[smokeybandit]

12 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

Not all of them came back and restaurants, bars and catering are still at limited capacity. 

And cruise lines would be operating at a limited capacity.

[Tolkmit]

12 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

Examine those so called cruises, reduced passengers, passengers only from the country where they got on, no ports, etc. Unless that’s the new norm, the results are almost meaningless.

 

First, some of the cruises fall into some of those categories, but not all into all of them. Second, and more importantly; the CDC is not allowing cruises under to operate regardless of whether they meet the standards that have proven to be (comparatively) safe or not. Those results are incredibly meaningful, because the CDC is posing restrictions 100 times what has already been proven safe. No one is saying those results mean we can return to cruising as we did pre-pandemic.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Tolkmit

[Tippyton]

CDC = Critically Deficient in Credibility

 

All those naysayers, are you believers yet?  It's sad my wife was looking up cruises today so I got her caught up on all the cruise line drama and she gave me that look.  I even confessed I've been in CC jail for a week because I was mean to people.  It's funny when you call somebody's BS with facts it's being mean.

 

[Iamcruzin]

4 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

And cruise lines would be operating at a limited capacity.

Which also hurts financially.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

7 hours ago, JABTPS said:

The CDC in my opinion ( I think its still a free country for now...)  as with most government agencies, want to control and dictate how business are run, not always for the benefit of the population.  This COVID-19 event has given them the opportunity to place additional restrictions and controls on the cruise line than in the past, because of the heighten concerns people have currently.   Given that, it is then up to businesses to jump through hoops to satisfy some obstacle course of bureaucratic paperwork.  If we could just use common sense, we would all live in a happier place!

 

How many times have you gotten on a long flight, had someone coughing and hacking, and then in 3 days you're sick because of the germ passed through the cabin?   I can say more often than not. 

Planes are just as much incubators as ships.

 

Do the cruises from other ports than USA and see how things shake out.  OR we just have to suit up in an environmental suit everyday so we never get sick 😉

 

 

Ahh... but according to some posters, commercial jets have fantastic air filtration systems that work magic. And.... if you doubt this they will tell you that you do ont know enough about the technology employed by coomerical airlines to make a comment. 

 

Having said this... I agree with you. Flying commefically can get you sick... quick too. 

[Iamcruzin]

19 minutes ago, Tolkmit said:

 

Your argument was that cargo is allowed because it's essential. Whether or not it's essentially is irrelevant to whether it is allowed, most cargo isn't essential and is still happening, as are other non-essential industries. Saying a cruise is a leisure activity is an attempt to justify keeping the industry shut down, it is not a reason to. If it were a reason to shut an industry down, it would apply to other, statistically more dangerous industries.

 

And... so in your mind, if something bad happens to someone, that means it doesn't matter if it happens to other people? We don't have to worry about people in the cruise industry losing their jobs, because other people have lost their jobs as well? If that's how your logic works, then we don't have to worry about people on cruises catching Covid-19, because other people catch Covid-19 as well, right? You realize how ridiculous your reasoning sounds?

If you shut down cargo shipping you are also in effect putting more people out of work not only those who work in the shipping industry but those who need the goods to sell to keep their businesses running.  

[livingonthebeach]

25 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

That was to prevent all of the alcoholics from filling up the hospitals because of withdrawal.

 

The real reason liquor, tobacco and firearms were considered essential and plentiful during the lockdown is the tax revenues the states impose and receive on these operations. 

[Goodtime Cruizin]

5 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

If you shut down cargo shipping you are also in effect putting more people out of work not only those who work in the shipping industry but those who need the goods to sell to keep their businesses running.  

 

I think you're starting to see the light. If you could only 'hear' what you post. Basically you're posting that the shipping industry can't shut down because people need durable goods and these are only available at business' that are deemed 'essential'. So what we have here is a big circle jerk of what & who the CDC deems as essential. We can buy liquor, get table dances, buy lumber, and a TV, & attend a sporting event but we can't go on a cruise which has new industry standards with incredible data that has shown tremendous success. Got it. 

[Tolkmit]

7 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

If you shut down cargo shipping you are also in effect putting more people out of work not only those who work in the shipping industry but those who need the goods to sell to keep their businesses running.  

 

You are the one who suggested it's ok for the CDC to keep stuff that is non-essential but comparatively safe shut down, regardless of the economic consequences.

[mayleeman]

Many people here seem to not understand that "essential industry" is not primarily measured by how many people are employed. Cargo is essential because the goods are vital to life and the overall health of the economy. Various items of cargo do not meet those standards, but I doubt anyone whining about the CDC wants to pay 100,000 more government employees to travel worldwide inspecting cargo ships to exclude Nerf balls. Every job is essential to the person who has it. 

 

Most tellingly in this thread, there are so many people attacking the CDC for what it has done and who are demanding that it do more to provide specifics to the cruise lines. You have been informed in itemized detail where the industry has done literally nothing to try in good faith to come up with plans to meet CDC requirements. And you ignore it because of imagined dictatorial ambitions by the health officials at the CDC. 

 

I would love to see someone press for a larger budget for the CDC so it can spend years examining every company's ships and contractual capabilities, and write out precisely what is required for every individual ship, route, port, crew member, and eventuality that might be encountered if cruising begins. 

 

Conservatives have fought for years to force federal agencies to set overall criteria for virtually every industry, and to let industries largely self-regulate. Here, the CDC has basically told cruise lines to show how they can meet the criteria set out as long as a year ago. Come up with a good-faith plan, and then both sides can argue about the details, with everyone trying to meet the industry's needs in a safe fashion. The industry hasn't done it and now the leisure cruisers are crying because the nasty government won't do it for the poor clueless CEO's.

 

Biggest irony of all: Many people are so anxious to trust the cruiselines on this, despite literally no evidence of any efforts by the industry to comply with the reqs. Yet so many have incessantly accused the same cruise lines of repeated bad faith and fraudulent conduct in delaying refunds and, for a year, not cancelling obviously impossible itineraries until after final payment (which forces many to get FCC's rather than refunds). I guess if a customer's few thousand dollars are at stake, shrill accusations are called for, but an agency charged with a public health mandate trying to curtail a national deadly threat must be the ones being selfish.

 

 

 

[pspercy]

Many people are so anxious to trust the cruiselines on this, despite literally no evidence of any efforts by the industry to comply with the reqs.

 

Some of the cruise companies have spent a great deal of money on improving air circulation systems and the like, just for one example.

[Etta1213]

43 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

Many people here seem to not understand that "essential industry" is not primarily measured by how many people are employed. Cargo is essential because the goods are vital to life and the overall health of the economy. Various items of cargo do not meet those standards, but I doubt anyone whining about the CDC wants to pay 100,000 more government employees to travel worldwide inspecting cargo ships to exclude Nerf balls. Every job is essential to the person who has it. 

 

Most tellingly in this thread, there are so many people attacking the CDC for what it has done and who are demanding that it do more to provide specifics to the cruise lines. You have been informed in itemized detail where the industry has done literally nothing to try in good faith to come up with plans to meet CDC requirements. And you ignore it because of imagined dictatorial ambitions by the health officials at the CDC. 

 

I would love to see someone press for a larger budget for the CDC so it can spend years examining every company's ships and contractual capabilities, and write out precisely what is required for every individual ship, route, port, crew member, and eventuality that might be encountered if cruising begins. 

 

Conservatives have fought for years to force federal agencies to set overall criteria for virtually every industry, and to let industries largely self-regulate. Here, the CDC has basically told cruise lines to show how they can meet the criteria set out as long as a year ago. Come up with a good-faith plan, and then both sides can argue about the details, with everyone trying to meet the industry's needs in a safe fashion. The industry hasn't done it and now the leisure cruisers are crying because the nasty government won't do it for the poor clueless CEO's.

 

Biggest irony of all: Many people are so anxious to trust the cruiselines on this, despite literally no evidence of any efforts by the industry to comply with the reqs. Yet so many have incessantly accused the same cruise lines of repeated bad faith and fraudulent conduct in delaying refunds and, for a year, not cancelling obviously impossible itineraries until after final payment (which forces many to get FCC's rather than refunds). I guess if a customer's few thousand dollars are at stake, shrill accusations are called for, but an agency charged with a public health mandate trying to curtail a national deadly threat must be the ones being selfish.

 

 

 

Do you think the CDC will speak out on the border problem?  Something like10% of those crossing, who are tested, are Covid positive. One healthcare worker mentioned risk of TB. Central America has quite a few other diseases that our average family MD might not even know to test for. (I unfortunately learned about some of them the hard way.)

[Biker19]

2 hours ago, mayleeman said:

The industry hasn't done it

Not sure we know that for certain. RCCL/NCL certainly came up with their healthy sail plan guide.

[Tolkmit]

5 hours ago, mayleeman said:

Many people here seem to not understand that "essential industry" is not primarily measured by how many people are employed. Cargo is essential because the goods are vital to life and the overall health of the economy. Various items of cargo do not meet those standards, but I doubt anyone whining about the CDC wants to pay 100,000 more government employees to travel worldwide inspecting cargo ships to exclude Nerf balls. Every job is essential to the person who has it. 

 

Most tellingly in this thread, there are so many people attacking the CDC for what it has done and who are demanding that it do more to provide specifics to the cruise lines. You have been informed in itemized detail where the industry has done literally nothing to try in good faith to come up with plans to meet CDC requirements. And you ignore it because of imagined dictatorial ambitions by the health officials at the CDC. 

 

I would love to see someone press for a larger budget for the CDC so it can spend years examining every company's ships and contractual capabilities, and write out precisely what is required for every individual ship, route, port, crew member, and eventuality that might be encountered if cruising begins. 

 

Conservatives have fought for years to force federal agencies to set overall criteria for virtually every industry, and to let industries largely self-regulate. Here, the CDC has basically told cruise lines to show how they can meet the criteria set out as long as a year ago. Come up with a good-faith plan, and then both sides can argue about the details, with everyone trying to meet the industry's needs in a safe fashion. The industry hasn't done it and now the leisure cruisers are crying because the nasty government won't do it for the poor clueless CEO's.

 

Biggest irony of all: Many people are so anxious to trust the cruiselines on this, despite literally no evidence of any efforts by the industry to comply with the reqs. Yet so many have incessantly accused the same cruise lines of repeated bad faith and fraudulent conduct in delaying refunds and, for a year, not cancelling obviously impossible itineraries until after final payment (which forces many to get FCC's rather than refunds). I guess if a customer's few thousand dollars are at stake, shrill accusations are called for, but an agency charged with a public health mandate trying to curtail a national deadly threat must be the ones being selfish.

 

 

 

 

Remind me how Disney World is essential again? You talk about cargo while completely ignoring the point that was being made: the CDC isn't using how essential something is to determine if it should be allowed. Cruise lines have operated under certain criteria in other countries and have data, from a larger sample size than was used to approve the vaccines by a factor of 10, which shows that cruising under those criteria is safer than being on land. The CDC refuses to allow cruise lines to operate under those proven safe requirements, meaning the CDC isn't using how safe something is to determine if it should be allowed.

 

The CDC has literally told cruise lines they are not allowed to operate unless they have legal agreements in place to cover every eventuality in a worst case scenario. People are upset, because the requirements are both ridiculous and impossible, and are not applied to any other industry. And your response is "Well, it's the cruise lines fault for not meeting these requirements!" Then rant about the cruise lines not negotiating in good faith because one anonymous poster on the internet said so (despite the previous director of the CDC saying the opposite, and the current one not commenting on it either way), as well as the fact other people in other threads are upset about how long refunds are taking, as if that makes the CDC putting impossible to meet requirements for cruising in place somehow logical.

 

This shouldn't need to be said, but apparently it does: The cruise lines not attempting to meet impossible standards clearly designed to prevent them from sailing, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether those standards are reasonable and fair.

[Tolkmit]

4 hours ago, Biker19 said:

Not sure we know that for certain. RCCL/NCL certainly came up with their healthy sail plan guide.

 

Yeah, actual chain of events is the CDC said "No more sailing, it's too dangerous. Let's work together to find a way to make it safe." Cruise lines said "Sure, we'll come up with a plan to do so." They did, and submitted it to the CDC last September. The CDC responded with "Nope, that's not good enough, but we should keep working together. We have a framework for how you can get back to sailing. Just come up with and submit a plan that will meet our technical requirements, which we will release soon." Six months went by. Then the CDC finally released it's technical requirements last week, which are impossible to meet, and said "Submit plans for how you will do this impossible thing."

 

Some people, like a couple of posters in this thread, take the parts of the framework out of context, which talked about the expectations for cruise lines to submit plans. Ignoring how it was always planned & expected that the CDC would decide upon and release the technical requirements those plans had to meet first.

[Sunshine3601]

What makes no sense to me...

If all passengers and crew are vaccinated why does the cdc still want each cruiseline to have an agreement for a facility to handle people if there is an outbreak?   Vaccinated people are not supposed to be able to spread virus and if we get it we would have minor symptoms, if any.

[smokeybandit]

9 minutes ago, Sunshine3601 said:

What makes no sense to me...

If all passengers and crew are vaccinated why does the cdc still want each cruiseline to have an agreement for a facility to handle people if there is an outbreak?   Vaccinated people are not supposed to be able to spread virus and if we get it we would have minor symptoms, if any.

 

That's the big rub. The "guidance" is a year outdated.

[livingonthebeach]

4 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

That's the big rub. The "guidance" is a year outdated.

 

Exactly, and I'll add that it takes an inordinate amount of time to cut through the red tape forest they created to see the light of a logical solution using updated information. 

[smokeybandit]

13 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

Exactly, and I'll add that it takes an inordinate amount of time to cut through the red tape forest they created to see the light of a logical solution using updated information. 

Right. The agreements that they're forcing the lines and shore stations to come up with are pretty hairy from a liability standpoint.

[PelicanBill]

Whether Disney is open or not is a state matter.  Just look at the difference - Florida - okay to open - California - not so fast.  However with safety measures and a well-run operations Disney proved they could reopen safely - and they followed all CDC guidance (not regulations) as well.  No incidents for months, and same for Universal Studios Florida.

 

Cruise lines demonstrated for months they were unable or unwilling to comply with guidance and had continuing sickness aboard far too many ships. Just go back and read the CDC reports to see this. That's what caused them to institute the red-yellow-green protocol for ships entering US waters.

 

The healthy sail report was vague and lacked any implementation guidelines nor did it contain any commitments to implement all the measure contained within.