May 12, 2021 CDC hearing set to start at 9:00am

[harkinmr]

18 minutes ago, mauraoel said:

And again he/she said let the states make the decision so if NY doesn't want to open to cruises they don't have to. 

No, the goal of the suit is to lift the CSO in it’s entirety. Not on state by state basis. If the other ports would like to open they would like to retain CDC oversight. They should not be foreclosed from doing so based on the desires of another state. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by harkinmr

[firefly333]

24 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

But you see, this lawsuit and the decision stemming from it, will impact not just Florida, but other states with cruising ports.  Yes, Alaska and Texas have joined, but California, Washington, Boston, NY/NJ, Maryland and Louisiana have not.  This decision will impact the entire country.  States can do what they like to govern their own domain, but they have no power to impose their decision making elsewhere.

Makes no sense to me. Of course there are more ports. Not all will resume at the same time due to a variety of factors. Canada border closed, probably seattle out. 

 

USA people used to be for freedom of choice. Let the cruiselines decide which ports to restart. will still take months to resume from any port. Let the work and recrewing begin. If some ports arent ready, start where they are welcome. Seems freedom and choice is dead.

[coldflame]

49 minutes ago, scorpluvsdolphins said:

Florida is vastly different than any other state. 

How so? please. Other than being a peninsula and weather, our state is no different than any other state than the other 49. A judge will not set a precedent based on exceptionalism.

[mauraoel]

18 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

No, the goal of the suit is to lift the CSO in it’s entirety. Not on state by state basis. If the other ports would like to open they would like to retain CDC oversight. They should not be foreclosed from doing so based on the desires of another state. 

Yes the CSO would drop for everyone then each STATE could decide for themselves whether they wanted to open.  It's not a hard position to let the constitution rule and allow the states to make their own decisions.

[scorpluvsdolphins]

3 minutes ago, mauraoel said:

And again he/she said let the states make the decision so if NY doesn't want to open to cruises they don't have to. 

Exactly. 
Let the citizens of any state with a cruise port decide when to open up. 
They should also be allowed to restrict who can sail from those ports until the CDC lifts all restrictions. 
Everyone is avoiding the “elephant in the room”.  
Cruising isn’t happening because of mask, no mask, vaccinated, non-vaccinated, etc.  

The issue is the big what IF there is a breakout?

Florida cannot and should not be responsible to accommodate a breakout of non-Florida full time residents. 
All the cruise lines should have come together and taken one ship like the old Majesty and turned it into a “Sick Ship”. Funded by all the cruise lines wanting to sail from Florida. 
It would be for Florida ports only. 

All crew and non USA citizens would have their medical treatment and quarantine on the “sick ship”, unless they are critical after the test cruises were complete. 

If someone is critical and a non USA citizen, the cruise line foots all the bills to a Florida hospital. 
The cruise lines should’ve started with two ships each, at 50%, with only Full-time Florida United States citizens for test cruises for one month. Along with the “sick ship” for crew. 
For the money that the cruise lines have lost, they could have funded the best medical staff in the world for the ”sick ship”. 
Same should apply for all the Cruise ports like Galveston, NJ, etc. 

For the TEST CRUISES, for example, a full-time Florida US citizen cannot go to Galveston to get on a cruise ship during this time. 
Once the test cruises go well, open it up to all USA citizens for a month. 
If that goes well then open it up internationally. 

Again the “elephant in the room”. 
No one wants to state it because of people saying “it’s not fair”. 
 

I want cruising to start. If this is what it takes to make the CDC happy on the medical end, then let’s do it. 

I don’t even care if they put an age restriction, weight restriction, medical restriction etc., on the test cruises for the Florida residents. Even if it means I can’t go on the test cruises. 
 

Let’s get the ball rolling. 

 

[Jimbo]

8 minutes ago, scorpluvsdolphins said:

Exactly. 
Let the citizens of any state with a cruise port decide when to open up. 
They should also be allowed to restrict who can sail from those ports until the CDC lifts all restrictions. 
Everyone is avoiding the “elephant in the room”.  
Cruising isn’t happening because of mask, no mask, vaccinated, non-vaccinated, etc.  

The issue is the big what IF there is a breakout?

Florida cannot and should not be responsible to accommodate a breakout of non-Florida full time residents. 
All the cruise lines should have come together and taken one ship like the old Majesty and turned it into a “Sick Ship”. Funded by all the cruise lines wanting to sail from Florida. 
It would be for Florida ports only. 

All crew and non USA citizens would have their medical treatment and quarantine on the “sick ship”, unless they are critical after the test cruises were complete. 

If someone is critical and a non USA citizen, the cruise line foots all the bills to a Florida hospital. 
The cruise lines should’ve started with two ships each, at 50%, with only Full-time Florida United States citizens for test cruises for one month. Along with the “sick ship” for crew. 
For the money that the cruise lines have lost, they could have funded the best medical staff in the world for the ”sick ship”. 
Same should apply for all the Cruise ports like Galveston, NJ, etc. 

For the TEST CRUISES, for example, a full-time Florida US citizen cannot go to Galveston to get on a cruise ship during this time. 
Once the test cruises go well, open it up to all USA citizens for a month. 
If that goes well then open it up internationally. 

Again the “elephant in the room”. 
No one wants to state it because of people saying “it’s not fair”. 
 

I want cruising to start. If this is what it takes to make the CDC happy on the medical end, then let’s do it. 

I don’t even care if they put an age restriction, weight restriction, medical restriction etc., on the test cruises for the Florida residents. Even if it means I can’t go on the test cruises. 
 

Let’s get the ball rolling. 

 

 "I want to do what I want to do, damn the rest of you.......One word: WOW!

Edited May 13, 2021 by Jimbo

[smokeybandit]

24 minutes ago, scorpluvsdolphins said:

The issue is the big what IF there is a breakout?

 

 

What if the ship capsizes? That's about the same odds of a covid breakout on a cruise ship 

[livingonthebeach]

2 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

What if the ship capsizes? That's about the same odds of a covid breakout on a cruise ship 

 

My next group cruise T-shirt

[jrapps]

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

What if the ship capsizes? That's about the same odds of a covid breakout on a cruise ship 

We get the symbolism, but I would venture to guess that those are NOT in fact the same odds. To my knowledge, the Costa Concordia is the only cruise ship to have capsized. There have already been Covid outbreaks on more than 1 ship.

 

[Tippyton]

15 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

What if the ship capsizes? That's about the same odds of a covid breakout on a cruise ship 

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts then every day'd be Christmas.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Tippyton

[not-enough-cruising]

9 minutes ago, jrapps said:

We get the symbolism, but I would venture to guess that those are NOT in fact the same odds. To my knowledge, the Costa Concordia is the only cruise ship to have capsized. There have already been Covid outbreaks on more than 1 ship.

 

"outbreaks"? I don't think so

[jrapps]

1 minute ago, not-enough-cruising said:

"outbreaks"? I don't think so

Well, yeah now we just get into Semantics. How do you define an "outbreak"

 

Diamond Princess, 712 cases, 14 dead

Ruby Princess,  850 cases, 28 dead

Grand Princess, 122 cases, 7 dead

MV Atrania, 89 cases, 4 dead...

Costa Luminosa, 36 cases, 3 dead

Voyager of the Seas, 39 cases, 2 dead

Ovation of the seas, 79 cases, 1 dead...

 

I would wager that most reasonable people would agree that there has been more than one "outbreak" on a cruise ship.

 

[not-enough-cruising]

2 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Well, yeah now we just get into Semantics. How do you define an "outbreak"

 

Diamond Princess, 712 cases, 14 dead

Ruby Princess,  850 cases, 28 dead

Grand Princess, 122 cases, 7 dead

MV Atrania, 89 cases, 4 dead...

Costa Luminosa, 36 cases, 3 dead

Voyager of the Seas, 39 cases, 2 dead

Ovation of the seas, 79 cases, 1 dead...

 

I would wager that most reasonable people would agree that there has been more than one "outbreak" on a cruise ship.

 

Now you sound just as ridiculous as the CDC, quoting statistics from the opening weeks of a pandemic in which no one was even aware what the enemy was.

 

Get back to us when you are interested in a serious discussion

[livingonthebeach]

15 minutes ago, jrapps said:

We get the symbolism, but I would venture to guess that those are NOT in fact the same odds. To my knowledge, the Costa Concordia is the only cruise ship to have capsized. There have already been Covid outbreaks on more than 1 ship.

 

 

For comparison:

 

83 due to covid on ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_cruise_ships

 

32 died on the Concordia but there have been many more maritime disasters either on ships or ferries - around 20,000 deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_20th_century

[jrapps]

Just now, not-enough-cruising said:

Now you sound just as ridiculous as the CDC, quoting statistics from the opening weeks of a pandemic in which no one was even aware what the enemy was.

 

Get back to us when you are interested in a serious discussion

I am. And yes it was from the beginning of the pandemic. They are still facts. It still shows that the "odds" are higher of outbreaks on ships than capsizing. I am NOT saying that the odds of an outbreak happening now are the same as back then...if you are also willing to admit that the odds of a ship capsizing are not the same as when the Concordia capsized.

 

I am not the one who compares a viral outbreak to a ship capsizing. Let me know when YOU want to have a serious discussion.

[jrapps]

2 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

For comparison:

 

83 due to covid on ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_cruise_ships

 

32 died on the Concordia but there have been many more maritime disasters either on ships or ferries - around 20,000 deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_20th_century

Talk about moving the goal posts. First we were comparing Covid to capsizing...now you want to compare it to every maritime disaster of all time? OK, so then are we going to compare ever viral outbreak that has ever happened to every maritime disaster of all time? This conversation is pointless.

Edited May 13, 2021 by jrapps

[livingonthebeach]

Just now, jrapps said:

Talk about moving the goal posts. First we were comparing Covid to capsizing...now you want to compare it to every maritime disaster of all time? OK, so them are we going to compare ever viral outbreak that has ever happened to every maritime disaster of all time? This conversation is pointless.

 

I did not initiate the comparison if you go back and read the previous posts.  You're the one who stated the Costa Concordia was the only ship that has ever capsized, per your post #134 and more had died of Covid on ships.  Those are charts of factual numbers to illustrate your comparison.  

[jrapps]

 

1 minute ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

I did not initiate the comparison if you go back and read the previous posts.  You're the one who stated the Costa Concordia was the only ship that has ever capsized, per your post #134 and more had died of Covid on ships.  Those are charts of factual numbers to illustrate your comparison.  

 

I am also not the one who initiated the comparison

 

42 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

What if the ship capsizes? That's about the same odds of a covid breakout on a cruise ship 

 

I merely responded that those in fact are NOT the same odds. I get annoyed when opinions are presented as facts (and yes I am guilty of it too).

 

Again, why are we arguing about this....it doesn't serve to move this thread forward. I am ready to move on if you are.

[livingonthebeach]

1 minute ago, jrapps said:

I am also not the one who initiated the comparison

 

I merely responded that those in fact are NOT the same odds. I get annoyed when opinions are presented as facts (and yes I am guilty of it too).

 

Again, why are we arguing about this....it doesn't serve to move this thread forward. I am ready to move on if you are.

 

You're right those are not the same odds.  From the numbers, there are better odds of dying due to a ship capsizing / fire / hitting an iceberg, colliding with another ship, etc. etc.  than dying from contracting covid on a ship with fully vaccinated passengers and crew.  

[NightOne]

Can we keep this thread limited to this hearing and the outcome and not Covid in general? 😉

 

 

[jrapps]

Just now, livingonthebeach said:

 

You're right those are not the same odds.  From the numbers, there are better odds of dying due to a ship capsizing / fire / hitting an iceberg, colliding with another ship, etc. etc.  than dying from contracting covid on a ship with fully vaccinated passengers and crew.  

OK, so it seems we aren't done with it.

 

If I agree with your assessment that you have greater odds of dying from ANY disaster that may have ever hit a ship over all of time than dying from Covid on a ship, can you admit that the odds are greater of an outbreak (didn't say death, just an outbreak) occurring on a ship than the odds that a ship can capsize?

 

Now can we done?

[livingonthebeach]

Just now, jrapps said:

OK, so it seems we aren't done with it.

 

If I agree with your assessment that you have greater odds of dying from ANY disaster that may have ever hit a ship over all of time than dying from Covid on a ship, can you admit that the odds are greater of an outbreak (didn't say death, just an outbreak) occurring on a ship than the odds that a ship can capsize?

 

Now can we done?

 

Again, that wasn't my comparison and I didn't state the numbers were throughout the history of mankind. Sheesh.

The person who posted the capsizing analogy was probably throwing it out loosely and didn't intend for anyone to take it too seriously and get all bent out of shape about it.  I  am more than done with pointless arguments. 

[broberts]

4 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

ASTA has some very valid points and should voice these concerns and advocate for their members on what appears to be a grave injustice to their industry, just like other trade group or union in the US would do for their members, if they were in the same situation and deprived of their livelihoods.   

 

I have no problem with ASTA representing the interests of its members. But there is no injustice. It's a virus, it doesn't play favorites. Blaming the CDC for the impact of the virus is ridiculous.

 

3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Really? That was beneath you. If you can gainsay any of the statistics ASTA cited, be my guest. Are you suggesting that because the travel agents have something to gain by lifting the no sail order, that automatically prejudices everything they say and now they're lying? Otherwise, what's the point of your sarcasm? Come on, I pegged you as better than that.

 

Until data that actually tracked post cruise diagnosis and spread, the oft touted only 50 cases is meaningless. As I have said before, the majority of cases diagnosed onboard are people that were infect before boarding. And the majority of those infected aboard, will not be diagnosed until after debarkation.

 

Since the CDC seems fair game for attacks on its ethics and intelligence, why should other organizations be exempt?

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by broberts

[DCGuy64]

3 minutes ago, broberts said:

Since the CDC seems fair game for attacks on its ethics and intelligence, why should other organizations be exempt?

Yeah but you're forgetting that people like you lose it whenever anyone has the temerity to question the CDC, let alone criticize it. So if we can't criticize the CDC, why do you get to criticize ASTA?

And FYI, you didn't answer my question. Tells me all I need to know.

Edited May 13, 2021 by DCGuy64

[livingonthebeach]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

I have no problem with ASTA representing the interests of its members. But there is no injustice. It's a virus, it doesn't play favorites. Blaming the CDC for the impact of the virus is ridiculous.

 

Obviously, it's not the CDC's fault for the virus.  It's the way it was handled.  There was one set of extremely onerous rules which didn't keep pace with the scientific advancements and another set of rules for everyone else.