Phase 2 CDC....Here We Go!

[voljeep]

the CB out of PE to PC for 3 or 4 days ...

[GonzoWCS]

11 hours ago, Tolkmit said:

The guidelines basically put in place so ridiculous of requirements as to guarantee cruise lines are unable to meet them.

 

If there was any doubt the CDC was playing politics before; it's completely gone now.

I think the cruise lines will make it happen, it might not be fun but...

[BigBee51]

Wow, just wow.... Our first cruise post COVID (hopefully post COVID) isn't until late June of 22. I hope we can make that one.

[stevenr597]

This has not been a good week for the CDC.  The new Director of the CDC Dr. Rachael Walensky initially said that she is fearful because of the increase in the number of test positive individuals.  The next day she stated that she was encouraged by the rapid rate at which vaccinations are being administered in the U.S.

She also said that evidence suggests that vaccinated individuals most likely will not transmit the virus, only to walk back the statement the following day.

The CDC then said that vaccinated individuals may travel in the U.S., but they shouldn’t 

Any wonder why individuals question whether the CDC is “following the science.”

[beg3yrs]

We should be aware that the majority of the guidelines use the word "should" and do not use the word "shall". Big difference which indicates there's room to maneuver in the guidelines.

 

For instance, the 12-hour gangway problem might be solved if the cruise line goes through and sprays down the area with an approved sanitizer that is known to kill the virus.

 

Things like this would be part of the agreements signed by the cruise line and all the other required parties.

[Astro Flyer]

35 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

We should be aware that the majority of the guidelines use the word "should" and do not use the word "shall".

I haven’t read all of the information however in the excerpts posted by ‘caribill’ nearly all of the statements use the word “must” which according to the dictionary is a synonym of “shall” so don’t think there’s much room to maneuver in the guidelines.

 

The CDC’s description as technical “instructions” is defined as a direction or order and synonyms such as “mandate” indicates there is little room to maneuver in their Technical Instructions.

 

I’m glad that I don’t need to interpret & to implement the rules for cruise lines to resume cruising in the USA.

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, jondfk said:

Could all of these restrictions be practical for ever more - NO.  But can they work on a limited basis while the lines demonstrate nothing terrible is going to happen on restart - YES.

 

All of the cruise line CEO's have said their restarts will be gradual, a ship or two, adding capacity over months.  It's easy to imagine Princess starting with two ships in FLL and one is say SEA or LAX.  Running that way for a few sailings and then getting some restrictions wound back as they demonstrate good results and add ships.  

You took the words right out of my mouth.  🙂  These guidelines are scheduled to expire November 1 or earlier if the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency expires.  This Conditional Sailing Order is not a forever requirement.  If a cruise line carefully selects destinations where they can make the required agreements and only sails to them on a limited number of ships during the initial restart, showing that such agreements are no longer needed because outbreaks aren't taking place, then maybe, just maybe, the CSO will be permitted to expire on November 1.  At that point, all of these mandates go away.  (Hopefully!)

[CruiseMrB]

"5. There should be one agreement between the cruise ship operator and all relevant U.S. port and local health authorities per port. If it is expected that more than one cruise ship operator will be operating ships out of the U.S. port, then the relevant U.S. port and local health authorities should enter into separate agreements with each cruise ship operator. CDC does not seek to limit the number of separate agreements that U.S. port and local health authorities may enter into with cruise ship operators but defers to these authorities.

6. Deliberations should be conducted jointly between the cruise ship operator and all relevant U.S. port and local health authorities."

 

This means that every port can have different requirements and agreements. That could get messy. Without getting into specific politics, it it quite reasonable to assume that a Florida port (let's say Port Canaveral near me) and a port in the Northeast (let's say Cape Liberty in Bayonne NJ) might have vastly different views on what is acceptable. 

Edited April 3, 2021 by CruiseMrB

[deliver42]

The CDC is nothing more than a bad joke now.

[Daniel A]

26 minutes ago, CruiseMrB said:

"5. There should be one agreement between the cruise ship operator and all relevant U.S. port and local health authorities per port. If it is expected that more than one cruise ship operator will be operating ships out of the U.S. port, then the relevant U.S. port and local health authorities should enter into separate agreements with each cruise ship operator. CDC does not seek to limit the number of separate agreements that U.S. port and local health authorities may enter into with cruise ship operators but defers to these authorities.

6. Deliberations should be conducted jointly between the cruise ship operator and all relevant U.S. port and local health authorities."

 

This means that every port can have different requirements and agreements. That could get messy. Without getting into specific politics, it it quite reasonable to assume that a Florida port (let's say Port Canaveral near me) and a port in the Northeast (let's say Cape Liberty in Bayonne NJ) might have vastly different views on what is acceptable. 

Good catch.  Did you happen to see if CDC is requiring agreements with foreign ports as well?  (Ie. Aruba, St Maarten, Ensenada etc...)?

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Good catch.  Did you happen to see if CDC is requiring agreements with foreign ports as well?  (Ie. Aruba, St Maarten, Ensenada etc...)?

They cannot.

[Orangefan]

These 2 guys  Ben andDavid offer a good explanation.

Sali

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

53 minutes ago, CruiseMrB said:

This means that every port can have different requirements and agreements. That could get messy. Without getting into specific politics, it it quite reasonable to assume that a Florida port (let's say Port Canaveral near me) and a port in the Northeast (let's say Cape Liberty in Bayonne NJ) might have vastly different views on what is acceptable. 

This is why I've said for months that the cruise lines needed to be negotiating "letters of intent" with these agencies, as each most likely will be different.

[Jadn13]

Breakdown W/CDC Graphic

 

[Jadn13]

[matadams4u]

1 hour ago, CruiseMrB said:

"5. There should be one agreement between the cruise ship operator and all relevant U.S. port and local health authorities per port. If it is expected that more than one cruise ship operator will be operating ships out of the U.S. port, then the relevant U.S. port and local health authorities should enter into separate agreements with each cruise ship operator. CDC does not seek to limit the number of separate agreements that U.S. port and local health authorities may enter into with cruise ship operators but defers to these authorities.

6. Deliberations should be conducted jointly between the cruise ship operator and all relevant U.S. port and local health authorities."

 

This means that every port can have different requirements and agreements. That could get messy. Without getting into specific politics, it it quite reasonable to assume that a Florida port (let's say Port Canaveral near me) and a port in the Northeast (let's say Cape Liberty in Bayonne NJ) might have vastly different views on what is acceptable. 

This seems to sum up the complexity of thing in the US versus countries that can do things through a central authority.  In some areas you see inter-agency and inter-state working groups that work out standardized agreements - for example the Colorado River Compact (which is an agreement amongst 10 or 11 states and Mexico).  The CDC has limited authority and each of the states have their own view of what is safe and reasonable.  If all of the port states work together on a framework that considered their international partners things would move pretty quickly if everyone played well together.  From a game theory perspective playing well with others gets things moving pretty quickly but is easier said than done.  If there isn’t a working group amongst states and agencies then it will take some time to get things moving in the US.

[Steelers36]

1 hour ago, Orangefan said:

These 2 guys  Ben and David offer a good explanation.

Sali

 

 

 

These guys really nail it to the CDC guidelines.  Well done to point out the absurdities of what is suggested.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Steelers36

[Steelers36]

1 hour ago, Jadn13 said:

Breakdown W/CDC Graphic

 

This guy is definitely a glass half-full type.  He is optimistic that the cruise lines will quickly negotiate the port aspects, but he did seem to overlook pretty much all of the draconian and tougher measures proposed.

 

[dog]

1 hour ago, Jadn13 said:

Well, good luck with that. My take ships will be going out of PE shortly. For those risk takers. 

[MarkBearSF]

4 hours ago, stevenr597 said:

This has not been a good week for the CDC.  The new Director of the CDC Dr. Rachael Walensky initially said that she is fearful because of the increase in the number of test positive individuals.  The next day she stated that she was encouraged by the rapid rate at which vaccinations are being administered in the U.S.

She also said that evidence suggests that vaccinated individuals most likely will not transmit the virus, only to walk back the statement the following day.

The CDC then said that vaccinated individuals may travel in the U.S., but they shouldn’t 

Any wonder why individuals question whether the CDC is “following the science.”

Actually, all of their statements are reasonable.
- Yes, there's a surge happening and she expressed a personal fear about it.
- Yes, it's encouraging that amidst this, vaccinations are picking up
- Yes, she stated that it's MOST LIKELY that vaccinated people don't transmit, as evidenced by the report that was published the day before.
- Yes, the CDC reinforced their cautious approach that there is NO PROOF that vaccinated people can not (under any circumstances) get infected. While the study cited in her account provides good evidence, it was not definitive, and therefore there was no official CDC reversal of their previous advice.

All of the points follow "the science"

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by MarkBearSF

[Daniel A]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

They cannot.

I value your opinions and expertise on these matters even when I question them.  When I question you, it isn't always about disagreement, but I consider your responses to help me temper my opinions.  So, enough of my a** kissing, let's get to my next question for you.  🙂

 

Please correct me if you think what I am about to write what is wrong.

 

Does this new technical guidance from the CDC mean that Princess could reach a written agreement with Port Everglades and Fort Lauderdale that would meet the requirements set forth in phase two for only say, Caribbean Princess and Regal Princess.  And if those two ships were to conduct 'closed loop cruises' that would satisfy the port agreements policy?

 

I am always looking for unintended consequences as I've always believed that most often, government accomplishes the exact opposite of what they set out to do in the first place.  That said, if the above statement is true, wouldn't that create a scramble for US ports to compete with each other for cruise sailings out of their ports, possibly encouraging some jurisdictions to require lower standards than others in order to attract lucrative business?

 

(I'm thinking of Amazon making a contest out of which jurisdiction will do the most to attract an new HQ in 20`19.)

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I value your opinions and expertise on these matters even when I question them.  When I question you, it isn't always about disagreement, but I consider your responses to help me temper my opinions.  So, enough of my a** kissing, let's get to my next question for you.  🙂

 

Please correct me if you think what I am about to write what is wrong.

 

Does this new technical guidance from the CDC mean that Princess could reach a written agreement with Port Everglades and Fort Lauderdale that would meet the requirements set forth in phase two for only say, Caribbean Princess and Regal Princess.  And if those two ships were to conduct 'closed loop cruises' that would satisfy the port agreements policy?

 

I am always looking for unintended consequences as I've always believed that most often, government accomplishes the exact opposite of what they set out to do in the first place.  That said, if the above statement is true, wouldn't that create a scramble for US ports to compete with each other for cruise sailings out of their ports, possibly encouraging some jurisdictions to require lower standards than others in order to attract lucrative business?

 

(I'm thinking of Amazon making a contest out of which jurisdiction will do the most to attract an new HQ in 20`19.)

I was not directing the "KMA" to you, I was showing how inane people in the US are, as that was one name I actually saw on a contact tracing sheet.

 

While I haven't read the new instructions enough to get fully into the weeds, yes, they could make an agreement for just two ships, but that agreement would need to be between Princess, the Broward County Board of Commissioners, the Florida Department of Health, and contracts with a local medical transportation service, a local health care facility, and a local accommodation provider (hotel or similar for quarantine).  That would, in my opinion, meet the requirement.

 

There could be a scramble to issue lower standard agreements, but the agreements and contracts must be included in the application for the conditional sailing of simulated sailings, so the CDC will still retain some control over the levels of service required.

[wolft927]

18 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

Woah - this one seems to prevent same-day turnarounds.  Let's say all pax are gone from a terminal by 9:00am (which is earlier than now).  Next voyage pax cannot enter terminal until at least 9:00pm???

Ship not leaving until after midnight?  This is over-the-top IMO, but not likely the only thing. 

 

How about having a plan to deal with every cruise line in PE or Miami port having simultaneous Covid outbreaks?  They may as well have included a simultaneous lightning strike on all ships in port, or a meteor strike in the port basin.

 

Ships would disembark in one terminal then move to next terminal for embarkation. Problem solved lol

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, wolft927 said:

Ships would disembark in one terminal then move to next terminal for embarkation. Problem solved lol

Or you take half the terminal for embarkation and half for disembarkation.  Temporary walls in between.

[Ombud]

I'm just glad there's movement both on positivity rate & CDC saying something!!!!

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Ombud