Phase 2 CDC....Here We Go!

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

But didn't @noclstate that the CDC has the authority to close state borders if in the opinion of the CDC, the state isn't doing enough to their satisfaction?

I don't know what he said, but it is not at the discretion of the CDC, but the Secretary of HHS (a political appointee, not a career bureaucrat).  And, that would still only apply to movement between states, not things like gatherings, sporting events, or whatever, within the state.

[nocl]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

But didn't @noclstate that the CDC has the authority to close state borders if in the opinion of the CDC, the state isn't doing enough to their satisfaction?

A bit different than the way you are phrasing it.  To their satisfaction is not part of the law.

 

If insufficient local action is being taken then the CDC can implement actions between the states.  But that would not impact what the state is doing, nor can they just close down traffic to a state without justification because a state is not doing enough to their satisfaction in other ways.

 

The one place that they could have enforced would be to limit interstate travel to essential travel only. Unlike the ports where the law gives them the ability to use the coast guard for enforcement, there is not a clear cut assignment of resources to enforce such a limit.  Especially if both states along the same boarder were to disagree with the restrictions.  If the states would not support it with local police force, they would have to send in the military to do so.  With Covid the cost would have outweighed potential benefits.

 

Other countries, such as Australia, did take action similar to that in their lock downs.

 

If you had an outbreak of something like Ebola and a state was not taking action to control it then you would probably see them use that authority.

 

In the early days of the outbreak when Trump threatened to block the boarders to New York it would have used the authority granted to the CDC, if it had actually been done. I suspect the feedback from the CDC and NIH is one of the reasons it got dropped quickly.

 

The CDC has done one action using the interstate powers and that was the order against evictions on the grounds that it would increase interstate travel of potentially infected individuals that lost their ability to quarantine during the pandemic.  I consider that to be a stretch under the law, but no one has successfully gotten a court to rule against it yet.

 

 

[ontheweb]

47 minutes ago, nocl said:

A bit different than the way you are phrasing it.  To their satisfaction is not part of the law.

 

If insufficient local action is being taken then the CDC can implement actions between the states.  But that would not impact what the state is doing, nor can they just close down traffic to a state without justification because a state is not doing enough to their satisfaction in other ways.

 

The CDC has done one action using the interstate powers and that was the order against evictions on the grounds that it would increase interstate travel of potentially infected individuals that lost their ability to quarantine during the pandemic.  I consider that to be a stretch under the law, but no one has successfully gotten a court to rule against it yet.

 

 

Though I have no citation, I do believe I have either read or seen on the news that some landlords have challenged this as they still must pay taxes, make repairs, etc. while not receiving income.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The CDC is in the same position as Carnival Corp's first environmental compliance officer when the corporation was placed on probation for environmental violations.  The compliance officer was given the responsibility to ensure compliance (the CDC studying diseases and setting best mitigation ), but was not given the authority to enforce the plan (no organizational command structure or budget), just as the CDC has no authority over the states.  While Carnival Corp's plan for environmental compliance was found lacking at the subsequent hearing (resulting in the second fine), and the position of compliance officer modified to give authority with responsibility, there is no way that the CDC could be given authority over the states, and it even has limited authority over inter-state public health issues.

That is an interesting comparison. But did the head of Carnival Corporation actively contradict the compliance officer like the former President did with the CDC, or did he just ignore him?

[nocl]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Though I have no citation, I do believe I have either read or seen on the news that some landlords have challenged this as they still must pay taxes, make repairs, etc. while not receiving income.

They have challenged it in at least one legal case.  But it is still  in force.  In fact it was just extended. Considering how much of a stretch that ruling is, I cannot imagine a court over riding the CDC when it comes to the cruise lines.

Edited April 8, 2021 by nocl

[nocl]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I don't know what he said, but it is not at the discretion of the CDC, but the Secretary of HHS (a political appointee, not a career bureaucrat).  And, that would still only apply to movement between states, not things like gatherings, sporting events, or whatever, within the state.

Technically the law says Secretary of HHS or whomever the authority is delegated to by the Sec HHS..  Which traditionally has been CDC.  The reason the Director of CDC has signed the orders, not Sec HHS.

[GonzoWCS]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I don't know what he said, but it is not at the discretion of the CDC, but the Secretary of HHS (a political appointee, not a career bureaucrat).  And, that would still only apply to movement between states, not things like gatherings, sporting events, or whatever, within the state.

Yes

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, nocl said:

They have challenged it in at least one legal case.  But it is still  in force.  In fact it was just extended. Considering how much of a stretch that ruling is, I cannot imagine a court over riding the CDC when it comes to the cruise lines.

Thank you the concept that courts give great latitude to decisions by governmental agencies seems to be something that very few on these boards either do not know or just want to wish away. 

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, nocl said:

They have challenged it in at least one legal case.  But it is still  in force.  In fact it was just extended. Considering how much of a stretch that ruling is, I cannot imagine a court over riding the CDC when it comes to the cruise lines.

Yes, one could easily say that the reasoning of the CDC on the issue of no evictions for non-paying of rent is tenuous at best while their reasoning on keeping Covid out of the country based on previous experiences with cruise ships is much more within their mission.

[NavArch64]

As I had posted on another (RCCL) thread a few days ago, for those interested, attached are a few excerpts from Title 42 U.S.C. that delineate the DHHS/USPHS/CDC authorities .... 

42 USC.docx

[Daniel A]

20 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

As I had posted on another (RCCL) thread a few days ago, for those interested, attached are a few excerpts from Title 42 U.S.C. that delineate the DHHS/USPHS/CDC authorities .... 

42 USC.docx 14.34 kB · 2 downloads

Interesting post.  I read with interest that 42 USC doesn't restrict the Secretary of HHS to only passing regulations relating to cruise ships.  The initial outbreak in the US in New Rochelle, NY was caused by infected air travelers from Europe.  The air industry was not shut down by Secretary of HHS.  The Secretary of HHS did not shut the borders between the US and Mexico and Canada.  (Travel by car from Canada was shut down, but travel by air was still permitted.)

Edited April 9, 2021 by Daniel A

[NavArch64]

For those interested in more details, The Secretary, DHHS is a Presidential Appointment with Senate Confirmation (PAS) (Executive Level I), The Assistant Secretary of Health, DHHS is also a PAS (Executive Level IV), the Surgeon General, USPHS, is also a PAS (Executive Level IV), and the Director, CDC is a Non-Career Appointment (NA) to the Senior Executive Service (SES). All are, of course, White House selections who serve at the pleasure of the President. All are involved in the CDC CSO in one way or the other.

[NavArch64]

There is probably one more "player" in all of this ..... Chief of Staff, DHHS who is a Non-Career Appointment (NA) to the Senior Executive Service (SES). Sean McCluskie is a long-time confidant of Xavier Becerra and is no doubt coordinating the CDC CSO issues for the Secretary. This is probably what Rochelle Walensky referred to as an interagency process in her recent remarks. They are currently, I would guess, trying to figure out how to answer Frank Del Rio's letter and the public statements of Arnold Donald and Richard Fain.

Edited April 9, 2021 by NavArch64

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, NavArch64 said:

There is probably one more "player" in all of this ..... Chief of Staff, DHHS who is a Non-Career Appointment (NA) to the Senior Executive Service (SES). Sean McCluskie is a long-time confidant of Xavier Becerra and is no doubt coordinating the CDC CSO issues for the Secretary. This is probably what Rochelle Walensky referred to as an interagency process in her recent remarks.

So, in other words, it's all in the hands of political appointees?  Wouldn't that make this whole matter a political one?

[NavArch64]

Yes, of course, almost every decision in Washington is a political one. However, it also depends on the input and recommendations of the non-political career members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), those with technical expertise in the field, and to what degree the political appointees listen to them. I served as a career member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) in Washington for many years, and it is an interesting process to say the least.

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

Interesting post.  I read with interest that 42 USC doesn't restrict the Secretary of HHS to only passing regulations relating to cruise ships.  The initial outbreak in the US in New Rochelle, NY was caused by infected air travelers from Europe.  The air industry was not shut down by Secretary of HHS.  The Secretary of HHS did not shut the borders between the US and Mexico and Canada.  (Travel by car from Canada was shut down, but travel by air was still permitted.)

 

Travel between Canada and the US is restricted to essential travel, by land, air, or water. Sure many flout the law / regulations. They should take great comfort in knowing that they have done their small part to extend this horrible situation. 😬

 

Cruising is a leisure activity. Flying is used for essential travel. Trucks crossing borders often transport essential goods. Cars crossing borders can be carrying essential personnel. 

 

About $1.2 trillion cross the US Canada and US Mexico borders each year. It's no wonder these borders are still open to essential travel.

[Steelers36]

14 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Travel between Canada and the US is restricted to essential travel, by land, air, or water. Sure many flout the law / regulations. They should take great comfort in knowing that they have done their small part to extend this horrible situation. 😬

 

Cruising is a leisure activity. Flying is used for essential travel. Trucks crossing borders often transport essential goods. Cars crossing borders can be carrying essential personnel. 

 

About $1.2 trillion cross the US Canada and US Mexico borders each year. It's no wonder these borders are still open to essential travel.

 

The land border between Canada and USA might well not have been closed at all if it weren't for Canada push.  AFAIK, it was primarily Canada initiative. 

 

There are no restrictions on air travel to USA.  Yes, both countries have travel advisories in regards to other international destinations, but we are free to fly there.  However, for USA to Canada, there are restrictions for foreign nationals and need to meet certain reasons or categories in order to be granted entry.  Generally, that also means a 14-day quarantine on arrival in Canada, while arrival in most of USA does not require a quarantine.

 

I take umbrage with both politicians and people who presume that taking such a flight is somehow automatically extending the pandemic.  Negative tests are required pre-travel.  As stated, for entry to Canada, a quarantine is required for non-essential travelers and coming out of that, the person is not a Covid spreader.  There could be more risk of a traveler going to a domestic destination than one across the border - it depends on the Covid situation in the area.  There are no domestic travel requirements at destination, but there are recommendations.

[kamelia]

On 4/6/2021 at 1:59 PM, beg3yrs said:

10 points to the first one to correctly identify where this art comes from!

@beg3yrs - I came up to a stoplight earlier this morning behind a car with Arizona plates.  Not yours, but it caused me think that I had never gotten an answer to the question you posed a couple of days ago...  which large document was the rendering of Poseidon from?

[caribill]

4 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

 

The land border between Canada and USA might well not have been closed at all if it weren't for Canada push.  AFAIK, it was primarily Canada initiative. 

 

There are no restrictions on air travel to USA.  Yes, both countries have travel advisories in regards to other international destinations, but we are free to fly there.  However, for USA to Canada, there are restrictions for foreign nationals and need to meet certain reasons or categories in order to be granted entry.  Generally, that also means a 14-day quarantine on arrival in Canada, while arrival in most of USA does not require a quarantine.

 

 

 

We have a friend from Australia who was working in Canada when the borders were closed to most people. His wife was with him.

 

He arranged for his son to fly from Australia to Canada with a transfer at LAX last fall. But when he reached LAX, he was denied permission to board the plane for Canada due to the closed border. Months later he is still stuck in the USA, luckily with a relative in Texas. He cannot join his parents in Canada, and Australia will not let him return to his home there.

[Steelers36]

17 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

We have a friend from Australia who was working in Canada when the borders were closed to most people. His wife was with him.

 

He arranged for his son to fly from Australia to Canada with a transfer at LAX last fall. But when he reached LAX, he was denied permission to board the plane for Canada due to the closed border. Months later he is still stuck in the USA, luckily with a relative in Texas. He cannot join his parents in Canada, and Australia will not let him return to his home there.

One of many stories that seem non-sensical in that a little common sense could be applied to situations like this.  This is sad because things did change such that family reunification is an allowed reason to enter the country, but the parents are non-Canadians, so that is a bit of a sticky wicket for sure.  I also wonder if the son was/is a minor. 

 

If he was denied at LAX, then it was an airline (AC?) personnel decision as there are no Canadian Border reps, nor Health Canada reps, in USA.  Ultimately, the decisions are made at port of entry.  Maybe he would have been lucky on a US airline.  IDK.

 

At least Canadians could always return home and enter the country at any time.  It is not something the politicians touched - or dared to I am sure as it is a fundamental right.

 

Without looking it up, I thought Australians could return home by now.  Yes, so I did double-check and Aussies can fly home from USA, albeit there are arrival quota limits and such, but it is possible now.

 

Did your friends really explore and research this? 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/coronavirus-covid19/visitors/immediate-family.html

From the above:

"

If you’re travelling from the US to reunite with an immediate family member who is in Canada temporarily, you must provide evidence that your travel is non-discretionary, such as to live with your spouse, common-law partner or family member.

You do not need written authorization from IRCC if travelling to Canada from the US.

"

 

It seems to me the wording of the above indicates that an Australian could be admitted since they use the word "temporarily" in Canada - which would seem to address a non-citizen.

 

[beg3yrs]

3 hours ago, kamelia said:

@beg3yrs - I came up to a stoplight earlier this morning behind a car with Arizona plates.  Not yours, but it caused me think that I had never gotten an answer to the question you posed a couple of days ago...  which large document was the rendering of Poseidon from?

It comes from the lower part of a 1948 US Naval Academy diploma. The whole thing is approximately 20" by 26" and is on parchment. The rest of it is amazingly done with old gothic lettering and even more naval art. Newer diplomas from the school are pretty much like diplomas from any other school in the US. I had thought for sure there would be some CC members who would recognize it for what it is.

Edited April 9, 2021 by beg3yrs

[kamelia]

21 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

It comes from the lower part of a 1948 US Naval Academy diploma. The whole thing is approximately 20" by 26" and is on parchment. The rest of it is amazingly done with old gothic lettering and even more naval art. Newer diplomas from the school are pretty much like diplomas from any other school in the US. I had thought for sure there would be some CC members who would recognize it for what it is.

Thanks for the enlightenment!  I hope that there are others who will recognize it!  

[caribill]

On 4/9/2021 at 2:23 PM, Steelers36 said:

One of many stories that seem non-sensical in that a little common sense could be applied to situations like this.  This is sad because things did change such that family reunification is an allowed reason to enter the country, but the parents are non-Canadians, so that is a bit of a sticky wicket for sure.  I also wonder if the son was/is a minor.

 

Did your friends really explore and research this? 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/coronavirus-covid19/visitors/immediate-family.html

 

 

 

 

Not a dependent minor, so would not meet the criteria the link says must be met.