CDC issues test cruise instructions

[Earthworm Jim]

12 hours ago, JudithLynne said:

I hope that Princess, before final payment, will let it's passengers know in detail exactly what to expect in terms of restrictions.

 

While that information would be great to know, it's not available for Princess to tell us. They don't know until the CDC decides, and once the CDC decides we will all know.

 

Say you have a cruise scheduled for early November 2021. You would, quite reasonably, like to know whether the CSO restrictions will expire November 1st and we'll go back to normal, or the restrictions will be extended before you decide on making your final payment. How is Princess supposed to be able to tell you what to CDC is going to do 90 days before the cruise when final payment is due?

[voljeep]

28 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

Say you have a cruise scheduled for early November 2021. You would, quite reasonably, like to know whether the CSO restrictions will expire November 1st and we'll go back to normal,

let's say that cruise is late November 2021 ( Thanksgiving, or so 😉 )

 

It's time for the CDC to wrap it up and move on from Covid-19 ... cruisers that want to cruise have a choice , now it should be an educated choice, as to whether to get on a cruise if they have been vaccinated , knowing full well that they are "protected" while others have possibly made a choice to cruise without being vaccinated - they roll the dice and take their chances

 

is this about me, me, me ??? - maybe

 

cruise ships need to have somewhat isolation units for people who test positive for the 'rona - not to protect me - I'm protected - but to protect the other non-vaccinated 'passengers' who also made a educated choice to cruise without being vaccinated

 

I'm 100% for the entire "crew" being 100% vaccinated for 'their safety and benefit' - not mine

 

cruises should NOT be diverted back to the homeport and cruises shortened with all we know now about the 'rona ... sorry

[voljeep]

10 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

agree everyone should be vaccinated as not doing so would be an infringement on the happiness of others.

if someone tests positive for covid-19 during the cruise, just isolate them from others - they KNEW before getting on the ship that this was a possibility , and keep the cruise going

 

I'm vaccinated, I'm all good - may even need a 'booster' before our next cruise 

 

If you "want" to get vaccinated, you can - depending on how bad you "want" it

 

side note - our local ( Publix ) starts no appointments needed for 16+ starting tomorrow 5/10

[nocl]

10 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

While that information would be great to know, it's not available for Princess to tell us. They don't know until the CDC decides, and once the CDC decides we will all know.

 

Say you have a cruise scheduled for early November 2021. You would, quite reasonably, like to know whether the CSO restrictions will expire November 1st and we'll go back to normal, or the restrictions will be extended before you decide on making your final payment. How is Princess supposed to be able to tell you what to CDC is going to do 90 days before the cruise when final payment is due?

The CDC does not decide.  The CDC provides guidance then either approve or disproves the plan submitted by the cruise line.  The cruise should certainly have an idea of what they are going to put into their plan. At least if they were actively working on one that is.

[joepeka]

20 minutes ago, nocl said:

The CDC does not decide.  The CDC provides guidance then either approve or disproves the plan submitted by the cruise line.  The cruise should certainly have an idea of what they are going to put into their plan. At least if they were actively working on one that is.

Your first two sentences would seem contradictory. CDC does decide whether or not the cruise line's plan will be approved but until then, the cruise line cannot definitively know what that decision will be. They can guess based on how well they think their plan conforms to the Technical Instructions but that's all.

Edited May 9, 2021 by joepeka

[rabin1]

I wrote this once before and will again. Here is the solution to the DeSantis problem.

1. Have cruisers make a copy front and back of the CDC shot card with a copy of either their passport, DL or a photo id of some sort. Blacking out anything not pertinent to the issue at hand. The name,  and photo is the important thing to match up with the CDC card

2. Mail it to a certain address the cruise line sets up or PO Box or whatever

3. Cruise line now has their proof of vaccination

4. They could send a sticker for the documents, put a note in the file or whatever

5. Or mail a color bracelet like in the hospital with name and cabin number on to passenger

Whoola DeSantis by passed. End of his saying he wants no one asking for vaccine passport. Done, Over, Fini unless some dumb dumb doesn't do what they ask then no sailing for you chum

Kathy

[Redwing55]

18 hours ago, nocl said:

because it protects ferries, tour boats, and a whole range of other ships that carry 12 passengers and more in the US from being replaced by foreign built ships using foreign crews.

Uh think just a bit out of the box.  Just carve out the cruise ships.  They have already figured out the work around that this was trying to stop.  So whether it be jobs, taxes, whatever, the cruise lines were sailing by just hitting a non-US port... which we all pay for.    If you're worried about all those other types of ships, so be it.  But as it pertains to cruise ships... it ain't doing the job so get rid of it.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, joepeka said:

Your first two sentences would seem contradictory. CDC does decide whether or not the cruise line's plan will be approved but until then, the cruise line cannot definitively know what that decision will be. They can guess based on how well they think their plan conforms to the Technical Instructions but that's all.

The point is that the cruise lines are not waiting for the CDC to dictate. The cruise lines have enough information to assemble their plans. To know if the are going to go the vaccination route or not.  That is determined by the cruise line not the CDC. They should certainly know which route they are going to go. If no vaccination requirements the guidance is pretty clear. if they go the vaccination route then they can say that they will require vaccination but are waiting to find out what of the rules in the guidance can be relaxed with vaccination.

 

Yet they say nothing, that it depends upon the CDC.

 

Yes, the CDC has to approve, but they cannot approve or deny a plan that has not been submitted. 

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Redwing55 said:

Uh think just a bit out of the box.  Just carve out the cruise ships.  They have already figured out the work around that this was trying to stop.  So whether it be jobs, taxes, whatever, the cruise lines were sailing by just hitting a non-US port... which we all pay for.    If you're worried about all those other types of ships, so be it.  But as it pertains to cruise ships... it ain't doing the job so get rid of it.

they cannot. ship size is defined in international treaties. the only way to carve cruise ships out is to withdraw from those maritime treaties.

[caribill]

16 hours ago, voljeep said:

 

now it should be an educated choice, as to whether to get on a cruise if they have been vaccinated , knowing full well that they are "protected"

 

13 hours ago, voljeep said:

 

I'm vaccinated, I'm all good - may even need a 'booster' before our next cruise 

 

 

Well, at best you are 94% good with the best vaccines out there.

[chengkp75]

12 hours ago, joepeka said:

Your first two sentences would seem contradictory. CDC does decide whether or not the cruise line's plan will be approved but until then, the cruise line cannot definitively know what that decision will be. They can guess based on how well they think their plan conforms to the Technical Instructions but that's all.

Not really.  Given that the cruise lines have divested themselves of the responsibility to develop a plan based on the requirements set out a year ago, the technical instructions were issued to show the direction the CDC thinks things should go.  Therefore, for any plan to receive approval, now that you've descended to the level of technical instructions, it must mirror those instructions.  That gives the lines a better than "guess" at what needs to be done.  And, if fair to the customer, they need to state that those requirements or restrictions listed in the CDC instructions will be in place until further notice, but may change at any time.

 

Also, while the lines have said what they intend to do (require vaccination, for those lines going that way), they have not said how they intend to implement or enforce this, so without an actionable plan to reach 95% vaccination, the CDC has to assume that even lines that claim to have vaccinated cruises, will not actually be there, so the restrictions stand, until the lines can show how they implement the vaccination status.  The how is always the difficult part, and what the CDC has been looking for from the cruise lines for a year.

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, Redwing55 said:

Just carve out the cruise ships.

And, again, that teeny, tiny, problem of work visas that has absolutely nothing to do with the PVSA.  Would you prefer the additional cost of having to go to Ensenada or paying 3-5 times the total cruise fare to bypass it?

10 hours ago, nocl said:

they cannot. ship size is defined in international treaties. the only way to carve cruise ships out is to withdraw from those maritime treaties.

Yes, unless you advocate renouncing SOLAS, you cannot "carve out" one type of "passenger vessel" from another.  Or, you could try to get a majority of the 164 nations who are signatory to SOLAS to agree that the US needs to have a special definition of "passenger" vessel so that their vacations are improved.

Edited May 10, 2021 by chengkp75

[Redwing55]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, again, that teeny, tiny, problem of work visas that has absolutely nothing to do with the PVSA.  Would you prefer the additional cost of having to go to Ensenada or paying 3-5 times the total cruise fare to bypass it?

Yes, unless you advocate renouncing SOLAS, you cannot "carve out" one type of "passenger vessel" from another.  Or, you could try to get a majority of the 164 nations who are signatory to SOLAS to agree that the US needs to have a special definition of "passenger" vessel so that their vacations are improved.

Whatever.  I guarantee you that an economical workaround exists.  But it'll have to come from the US - not the cruiselines.  Cruise ships don't need it since they just throw in a superfluous port to get around this.  You keep saying if you do this, that happens, if you do that this happens, that happens, whatever.  It is a fact that the ships are able to find a loophole with this.  I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the rule.  You seem to know the ins and outs..  So since you keep responding, I'll ask... what is the fix?  Saying there is none, or the wage structure has to change is just BS.  The current workaround is to stop in another country.  You got one better?  If not, I'm not interested in what can't be done..... tell us what can be done.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Redwing55

[nocl]

4 minutes ago, Redwing55 said:

Whatever.  I guarantee you that an economical workaround exists.  But it'll have to come from the US - no the cruiselines.  Cruise ships don't need it since they just throw in a superfluous port to get around this.  You keep saying if you do this, that happens, if you do that this happens, that happens, whatever.  It is a fact that the ships are able to find a loophole with this.  I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the rule.  You seem to know the ins and outs..  So since you keep responding, I'll ask... what is the fix?  Saying there is none, or the wage structure has to change is just BS.  The current workaround is to stop in another country.  You got one better?  If not, I'm not interested in what can't be done..... tell us what can be done.

the cruise lines actually getting US work Visas for their crew, pay us taxes on those cruises like they do for the Alaskian land tours, meet US labor laws and have the crew pay US income taxes for wages earned on those cruises. Because without a foreign port they do not qualify as foreign cruises and US labor and tax laws apply.

[memoak]

25 minutes ago, nocl said:

the cruise lines actually getting US work Visas for their crew, pay us taxes on those cruises like they do for the Alaskian land tours, meet US labor laws and have the crew pay US income taxes for wages earned on those cruises. Because without a foreign port they do not qualify as foreign cruises and US labor and tax laws apply.

And with the US wages and taxes your cost for the cruise would easily double or more likely triple

[CI66774]

15 hours ago, caribill said:

 

 

Well, at best you are 94% good with the best vaccines out there.

I’ll take that percentage.

[CI66774]

21 hours ago, rabin1 said:

I wrote this once before and will again. Here is the solution to the DeSantis problem.

1. Have cruisers make a copy front and back of the CDC shot card with a copy of either their passport, DL or a photo id of some sort. Blacking out anything not pertinent to the issue at hand. The name,  and photo is the important thing to match up with the CDC card

2. Mail it to a certain address the cruise line sets up or PO Box or whatever

3. Cruise line now has their proof of vaccination

4. They could send a sticker for the documents, put a note in the file or whatever

5. Or mail a color bracelet like in the hospital with name and cabin number on to passenger

Whoola DeSantis by passed. End of his saying he wants no one asking for vaccine passport. Done, Over, Fini unless some dumb dumb doesn't do what they ask then no sailing for you chum

Kathy

That doesn’t get around anything.

[nocl]

12 minutes ago, memoak said:

And with the US wages and taxes your cost for the cruise would easily double or more likely triple

sure but his question was how to get around the current problem

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Redwing55 said:

Whatever.  I guarantee you that an economical workaround exists.  But it'll have to come from the US - not the cruiselines.  Cruise ships don't need it since they just throw in a superfluous port to get around this.  You keep saying if you do this, that happens, if you do that this happens, that happens, whatever.  It is a fact that the ships are able to find a loophole with this.  I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the rule.  You seem to know the ins and outs..  So since you keep responding, I'll ask... what is the fix?  Saying there is none, or the wage structure has to change is just BS.  The current workaround is to stop in another country.  You got one better?  If not, I'm not interested in what can't be done..... tell us what can be done.

You seem to think that "adding a foreign port" is a "work around".  Therefore, I'm not sure I can explain to you what international commerce is, and what domestic commerce is.  Let me ask you a question, if there were a simple, cost effective way to have strictly domestic cruises, don't you think that the cruise lines would have come up with it by now, and/or lobbied for it?  There is no "fix", because there is nothing broken.  The PVSA protects domestic trade, while the cruise lines engage in international trade.  You seem to think that the US needs to throw out its laws regarding foreign workers, and labor laws for seamen in order for you to have the vacation of your choice.  We as a nation need to exclude a set of workers from our fair labor laws, just so you can take your vacation at a price you like?  SMH

 

I would very much like to see all cruise ships home ported in the US be US flag, but I also know that this is a fiscal impossibility unless you triple or more the cost of the cruise.

[memoak]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

sure but his question was how to get around the current problem

There is no way without changing laws and international agreement. Or you could abolish the minimum wage. Like that is going to happen. What he wants does not exist

[joepeka]

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Not really.  Given that the cruise lines have divested themselves of the responsibility to develop a plan based on the requirements set out a year ago, the technical instructions were issued to show the direction the CDC thinks things should go.  Therefore, for any plan to receive approval, now that you've descended to the level of technical instructions, it must mirror those instructions.  That gives the lines a better than "guess" at what needs to be done.  And, if fair to the customer, they need to state that those requirements or restrictions listed in the CDC instructions will be in place until further notice, but may change at any time.

 

Also, while the lines have said what they intend to do (require vaccination, for those lines going that way), they have not said how they intend to implement or enforce this, so without an actionable plan to reach 95% vaccination, the CDC has to assume that even lines that claim to have vaccinated cruises, will not actually be there, so the restrictions stand, until the lines can show how they implement the vaccination status.  The how is always the difficult part, and what the CDC has been looking for from the cruise lines for a year.

You much more eloquently expressed what I think I meant in saying the CDC does get to "decide." 

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, nocl said:

sure but his question was how to get around the current problem

How about getting around the "problem" by accepting the reality of there is no easy get around. The cruise lines could have lobbied for the law to be repealed, but they have not because they do not see the advantage to having the law repealed.

[K.T.B.]

On 5/10/2021 at 12:30 AM, caribill said:

 

 

Well, at best you are 94% good with the best vaccines out there.

 

And this is a bad thing?  I'd take a 6% chance over a 100% chance of being infected.  And even then, if you're vaccinated, the effects of the virus will most likely be far less than if you were unvaccinated.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

 

And this is a bad thing?  I'd take a 6% chance over a 100% chance of being infected.  And even then, if you're vaccinated, the effects of the virus will most likely be far less than if you were unvaccinated.

Remember when the vaccines were first being worked on and there were posts that they would probably be less than 50% effective? And now they are well over 90%, and people still complain. 

[K.T.B.]

19 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Remember when the vaccines were first being worked on and there were posts that they would probably be less than 50% effective? And now they are well over 90%, and people still complain. 

 

We've become such an "all or nothing" world....