Alaska is suing the CDC too

[MTAK]

2 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

It's in the CSO quote I included.  They have informed the cruise lines that they are in the process of evaluating it and are working with them on that and other CSO matters.  That is what their April 12th meeting was all about.  The CDC's statement on the meeting said they are working with the cruise lines towards a mid-July restart.  You are not going to get an absolute date.

That quote you provided is not in the CSO that I can find.

[Daniel A]

43 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

"Very often".  I would hardly say that.  And certainly not with clear intention to exceed their authority.  They know what the risks are. 

You're absolutely right about who is paying for the lawsuits.  And I get to pay for it on both sides as a resident of Florida and a US taxpayer.  And don't think that doesn't tick me off!

I can recall back in the 1970's when New York Medicaid was given the regulations from the Hyde Amendment banning Federal Medicaid being used for voluntary abortions only approving situations involving threat to the life of the mother and other very limited circumstances, Medicaid kept paying for voluntary abortions.  They way they did it was by asking doctors to not use the word "voluntary" when billing for abortions.  They knew that the great bulk of the abortion payments were for voluntary abortions and kept doing it until they were taken to court and the court ordered the county and state to stop and to require more descriptive terminology when paying for claims.  I was involved with this process, and the Feds ended up auditing all of the payments and refused to pay the Federal portion of the payments.  It all fell on the residents of the state and county.  The government administrators didn't care at all - it wasn't their money.  This is just one of many other instances of government overreach.  Government will do what it wants to do until it is told by a court to stop.

[harkinmr]

7 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I can recall back in the 1970's when New York Medicaid was given the regulations from the Hyde Amendment banning Federal Medicaid being used for voluntary abortions only approving situations involving threat to the life of the mother and other very limited circumstances, Medicaid kept paying for voluntary abortions.  They way they did it was by asking doctors to not use the word "voluntary" when billing for abortions.  They knew that the great bulk of the abortion payments were for voluntary abortions and kept doing it until they were taken to court and the court ordered the county and state to stop and to require more descriptive terminology when paying for claims.  I was involved with this process, and the Feds ended up auditing all of the payments and refused to pay the Federal portion of the payments.  It all fell on the residents of the state and county.  The government administrators didn't care at all - it wasn't their money.  This is just one of many other instances of government overreach.  Government will do what it wants to do until it is told by a court to stop.

I understand that there is occasional government overreach, but I do not believe it is epidemic in nature, nor do I believe that all government agencies act regularly outside the scope of their authority.  I guess that is where we differ in belief.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂

[harkinmr]

16 minutes ago, MTAK said:

That quote you provided is not in the CSO that I can find.

"COVID-19 vaccination efforts will be critical in the safe resumption of passenger operations. As more people are fully vaccinated, the phased approach allows CDC to incorporate these advancements into planning for resumption of cruise ship travel when it is safe to do so. CDC recommends that all eligible port personnel and travelers (passengers and crew) get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available to them."

 

The statement by the CDC from the April 12th meeting has been well-publicized.  You can find in in Cruise Week, Cruise Industry News and even here on CC in their news forum.  You should check it out.

Edited April 22, 2021 by harkinmr

[harkinmr]

5 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

I understand that there is occasional government overreach, but I do not believe it is epidemic in nature, nor do I believe that all government agencies act regularly outside the scope of their authority.  That is where we differ in belief.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂

 

[harkinmr]

23 minutes ago, MTAK said:

That quote you provided is not in the CSO that I can find.

It's on the first page.  Link is here.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/covid19-cruiseships.html

[MTAK]

16 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

It's on the first page.  Link is here.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/covid19-cruiseships.html

The quote you provided is a press release issued when the April 2 Technical Instructions were published.  The instructions themselves only mention vaccine use in one sentence as I previously quoted. Hopefully they do actually incorporate new information as they've stated they will, as I believe we're at the point they mention where "more people are fully vaccinated" and it's so critical.

 

The next sentence in that release is also important: "CDC will continue to update its guidance and recommendations to specify basic safety standards and public health interventions based on the best scientific evidence available."

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by MTAK

[rkacruiser]

As I said a couple of pages ago, the lawsuit by Alaska is in the same category of Florida's.  Much ado about little.  But, full employment for the attorneys involved.  And, another example of the waste of the citizens of Florida's

and Alaska's tax money by their State's Attorneys General.  

 

Does not quite rise to the level of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", I don't think, however.  

[iancal]

No doubt CDC are shaking in their boots.  Not!

 

Politics!

[MTAK]

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

It's not a press release.  It is an update to their conditional sail order and an explanation of such.  Google is your friend.  People need to stop relying on others on these boards to provide them with research they could conduct for themselves.  

 

Google is my friend, and that's how I finally found the statement you quoted As more people are fully vaccinated, the phased approach allows CDC to incorporate these advancements into planning for resumption of cruise ship travel when it is safe to do so.  by searching for the exact phrase.  It wasn't in the link you provided, but is in the media release on April 2 which is the very first search result for that phrase (3rd paragraph after the bullet list):

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0402-conditional-sail-orders.html

 

Incorporating vaccine guidance is exactly what I've advocated for, since it is not found anywhere within the current guidance documents which is the point I've made throughout this thread. It hasn't happened yet despite the fact CDC says it's so critical. And everyone 16+ is now eligible.

 

Don't know what else to tell you. 

[harkinmr]

4 minutes ago, MTAK said:

Google is my friend, and that's how I finally found the statement you quoted As more people are fully vaccinated, the phased approach allows CDC to incorporate these advancements into planning for resumption of cruise ship travel when it is safe to do so.  by searching for the exact phrase.  It wasn't in the link you provided, but is in the media release on April 2 which is the very first search result for that phrase (3rd paragraph after the bullet list):

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0402-conditional-sail-orders.html

 

Incorporating vaccine guidance is exactly what I've advocated for, since it is not found anywhere within the current guidance documents which is the point I've made throughout this thread. It hasn't happened yet despite the fact CDC says it's so critical. And everyone 16+ is now eligible.

 

Don't know what else to tell you. 

I never claimed that vaccines had been incorporated into the technical guidance, but that the CDC had issued a statement saying that they would be.  Yes, everyone 16+ just became eligible nationwide on April 19th.  When the technical guidance was updated on April 2nd that was not the case.  It is now April 22nd.  The CDC have been talking about possible modifications to the order to incorporate the vaccines since they met with the cruise lines on April 12th.  Patience is a virtue, and apparently an awful lot of posters on these boards do not have any.  

[MTAK]

6 hours ago, harkinmr said:

That is not true.  The CDC included a vaccine impact in their technical instructions when they were issued. 

Hmmm....you didn't?

[MTAK]

28 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Yes, everyone 16+ just became eligible nationwide on April 19th.  When the technical guidance was updated on April 2nd that was not the case. 

I would also add the White House announced the vaccine availability plan in March, originally set to be May 1. This announcement was before the technical guidance was released.

[harkinmr]

31 minutes ago, MTAK said:

Hmmm....you didn't?

Oh, you know what?  You got me!  The statement of recognition of the impact of vaccines on cruising wasn't "in" the technical instructions specifically, but was "in" the statement that was issued in connection with it.  So the fact that they commented on it separately, on the same day, is definitely proof positive that they did not have any intention of incorporating a vaccine component in the CSO in the future.  They do.  And they will.  As I have said repeatedly on this thread.  But, again, apparently, not fast enough for you.   

[harkinmr]

3 minutes ago, MTAK said:

I would also add the White House announced the vaccine availability plan in March, originally set to be May 1. This announcement was before the technical guidance was released.

So?  What's your point?  Just because all Americans would be eligible for a vaccine by May 1 does not mean that all eligible Americans would be vaccinated by that date.  And they still won't.  We are at about 30% fully vaccinated as of today.  Your contention, apparently, is that simply because people would be eligible, that the CDC should automatically revise the CSO and off we go.  The CDC has already come out and said that it will not be mandating vaccines for crew or passengers for sailings from the US.  It will be up to the cruise lines to do that.  And so far only one line (NCL) has committed to doing that.  Add to that the terribly unhelpful actions of the Governor of Florida stating that his ban on businesses mandating vaccines will extend to the cruise lines leaving from Florida.  It would appear that unless the lines get fully on board and the Governor of Florida backs off, then the vaccine component may be moot.

[MTAK]

My point is the CDC had prior knowledge of the vaccine availability plan, all the way back to March 11 as a matter of fact, and probably internally before that, but yet no further guidance? Yes, my contention all along is the CSO needs to be revised.  You finally got something correct that I said.

 

Slightly more than 50% of adults were claimed to have at least one dose as of Apr. 19, but it matters how many on the ship are fully vaccinated, 100% is NCL's proposal. That's the cruise lines point of contention, and I believe the point of this whole thread. There are other US ports to sail out of if Florida's governor doesn't get his act straight.

[harkinmr]

14 minutes ago, MTAK said:

My point is the CDC had prior knowledge of the vaccine availability plan, all the way back to March 11 as a matter of fact, and probably internally before that, but yet no further guidance? Yes, my contention all along is the CSO needs to be revised.  You finally got something correct that I said.

 

Slightly more than 50% of adults were claimed to have at least one dose as of Apr. 19, but it matters how many on the ship are fully vaccinated, 100% is NCL's proposal. That's the cruise lines point of contention, and I believe the point of this whole thread. There are other US ports to sail out of if Florida's governor doesn't get his act straight.

So what if the CDC had prior knowledge of vaccine availability all the way back in March?  They've obviously had broad knowledge of availability and delivery all along.  Slightly more than 50% having at least one dose means nothing.  What means something is the percentage that have been fully vaccinated: 30%.  Are you implying that that is sufficient for the restart of cruising and that the CDC should be acting immediately to restart? 

 

As I said, the CDC has stated they will not be mandating vaccines to cruise.  They can't at this time.  The cruise lines could.  And NCL is the only one committed.  Carnival has actually come out and said that its lines will not.  Royal Caribbean is still hedging on it.  So, according to you, that is sufficient for a restart?

 

There is likely not going to be a resumption of cruising until mid-July at the earliest and the CDC and the cruise lines appear to be working towards that goal.  But it requires both sides to work towards it.  That means the cruise lines buying into the CSO framework and completing their obligations under it, including whatever vaccine component they come up with.  Eliminating the CSO in its entirety is not going to happen, although that is clearly what the lines want.  Everyone do their part.  Let's get people vaccinated and get cases down to a reasonable level and we'll be on our way.

Edited April 23, 2021 by harkinmr

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, Daniel A said:

 

I'm well aware of what boilerplate language is and the function it serves.  I expected it to be in there, that is why I went looking for it.  The point of me showing that language was to demonstrate that even the mighty CDC recognizes the possibility of a higher authority invalidating one or more of its provisions.  It compartmentalizes and separates various provisions so that in case one or more provisions fail the entire document (Law, Contract, Regulation, Order Settlement, Plea Bargain etc...) does not fail.  As far as demonstrating weakness, my whole point is it shows that the CDC and HHS recognize they are not the ultimate decision maker.  (Unlike some on CC...)

 

It is not there to mitigate the damage of a misspelling or 'little provisions'  alone.  It's in there because they recognize that a Court could invalidate some (or all) of the provisions of the order.  Big as well as small.

You knew it would be there because it is always there because that is how lawyers think. And yet you cite that as proof that they know that they can be overruled. I think that is called sophistry.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

As I said a couple of pages ago, the lawsuit by Alaska is in the same category of Florida's.  Much ado about little.  But, full employment for the attorneys involved.  And, another example of the waste of the citizens of Florida's

and Alaska's tax money by their State's Attorneys General.  

 

Does not quite rise to the level of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", I don't think, however.  

The lawsuit by Alaska is even worse than the one by Florida. Even if they somehow won against the CDC, it would have no effect as the PVSA would still bar Alaskan cruises as long as Canada barred ships. And the courts have no say over Canada. Also they cannot force Congress to pass legislation. I guess they could theoretically rule the PVSA unconstitutional except they have no grounds to do that.

[Daniel A]

41 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

You knew it would be there because it is always there because that is how lawyers think. And yet you cite that as proof that they know that they can be overruled. I think that is called sophistry.

Are you kidding me?  Lawyers insert that language in case they are overruled, otherwise they wouldn't need to insert the language at all.  It's kind of like buying a new car and making sure it has a good warranty.  You aren't planning that something will go wrong, but it's a recognition that something could go wrong and having a plan in place to mitigate that risk.

 

 

38 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

The lawsuit by Alaska is even worse than the one by Florida. 

How can Alaska's action be worse than Florida's?  It is not a new lawsuit, Alaska merely signed on to the existing lawsuit from Florida...  😵 

[ontheweb]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

How can Alaska's action be worse than Florida's?  It is not a new lawsuit, Alaska merely signed on to the existing lawsuit from Florida...  😵 

Alaska has nothing to gain as the PVSA would still prevent Alaskan cruises.

[ontheweb]

9 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Are you kidding me?  Lawyers insert that language in case they are overruled, otherwise they wouldn't need to insert the language at all.  It's kind of like buying a new car and making sure it has a good warranty.  You aren't planning that something will go wrong, but it's a recognition that something could go wrong and having a plan in place to mitigate that risk.

If the lawyers do not put in that sort of language, they are subject to being sued for malpractice. It is always there; that is why it is know as boilerplate. I do not no why you make such a big deal of the fact that it is there.

[Daniel A]

13 hours ago, harkinmr said:

I understand that there is occasional government overreach, but I do not believe it is epidemic in nature, nor do I believe that all government agencies act regularly outside the scope of their authority.  I guess that is where we differ in belief.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂

I am not painting all government actions and agencies with a broad brush.  I am simply pointing out that government can and does sometimes act with overreach and a court decision is needed to reign in that action.  Often the overreach is caused by zealousness and is well intentioned but an overreach nonetheless.  "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

This has been a fine discussion but it's probably time to wrap this one up.  BTW I personally appreciate your confidence in government workers having been one for my entire adult life.  I certainly did have the bests interests of the people I served.  Thank you.

[rhblake]

According to Tony from La Lido Loca (YouTube cruise show) the "SENATE BLOCKS THE CRUISE ACT"

[MTAK]

9 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Slightly more than 50% having at least one dose means nothing.  What means something is the percentage that have been fully vaccinated: 30%.  Are you implying that that is sufficient for the restart of cruising and that the CDC should be acting immediately to restart?

As I stated previously, what matters is 100% on the ship are vaccinated, as NCL proposes. Apparently they feel its sufficient , or this whole discussion wouldn't be taking place. CDC should have began re-evaluating their risk assessment and planning for this circumstance as soon as vaccines were approved, so they would be prepared to make this determination. If other cruise lines don't want to mandate vaccinations, then they would need to deal with stricter non-vaccination guidance that is already in place. You can't seem to grasp the simple concept that it doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

This is getting redundant and there's nothing more I can explain to you. I agree with Daniel A, time to stick a fork in this one.