CDC Not Faring Well In Federal Court

[caribill]

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

 

The answer is "yes".  Someone posted that they're doing a B2B on Edge the end of this month:  LINK  However, the answer is "no" for any cruises 14 days or longer in 2021.

 

My "no" answer was for Princess which will not knowingly book a B2B before November.

[Daniel A]

7 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

My "no" answer was for Princess which will not knowingly book a B2B before November.

That was my thought when I read the post about the B2B on Edge.  I wonder if Celebrity was aware the person was doing a B2B or if it slipped by them.  I also wonder if they allowed the B2B after the injunction was issued as those dates are after July 18 and the cruise sails out of Florida.  I have not been able to find any documentation that the CDC is now permitting cruises longer than 7 days.

[K.T.B.]

6 hours ago, caribill said:

 

My "no" answer was for Princess which will not knowingly book a B2B before November.

 

The question asked wasn't Princess specific nor did you indicate you only meant Princess.  However, if one cruise line is allowing B2B cruises, I'm sure others will as well.

 

Edit to add:  To further answer Daniel's question, there are no Panama cruises available prior to Nov. 1st.  However, in a normal year, I think Princess offered Panama cruises only in Feb./March and Nov./Dec.  Their first 15-day cruise is Nov. 7th this year going to Hawaii.

Edited July 10, 2021 by K.T.B.

[cruisemom42]

On 7/8/2021 at 2:22 PM, Daniel A said:

The CDC appealed the injunction issued on June 18 scheduled to take effect on July 18.  Yesterday the appeal of the injunction was denied and it appears that the CDC will no longer be able to issue requirements but can still offer guidelines in Florida.  It looks like the CDC may need to change the name of the program from Conditional Sail Order to Conditional Sail Suggestions...

 

From yesterday's ruling, you can get a sense of where the court stands in relation to the CDC's actions re: cruise industry in Florida.

 

 

So much for the appearance of impartiality of the courts. I find the judge's statement to be completely out of line from what I would expect in a tempered opinion/ruling.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I agree...    But the thing is, especially right now, partisanship and division and 'impartiality' are def. an issue, both ways.

[caribill]

1 hour ago, K.T.B. said:

 

However, if one cruise line is allowing B2B cruises, I'm sure others will as well.

 

 

Celebrity policy:

 

We can accommodate vaccinated guests on as many consecutive/back-to-back cruises as they wish. Guests who purchase back-to-back cruises must be fully vaccinated and are required to take a Covid-19 test producing negative results between each sailing.   

[Daniel A]

7 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

Deleted

Edited July 10, 2021 by Daniel A

[caribill]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 Is Celebrity offering any cruises more than 7 days before November 1?

 

I see an 8 night Pacific Coastal October 11 and again on October 19.**

 

From Fort Lauderdale a 12 day cruise August 15,  September 5, and September 26 and a 9 day cruise August 27, September 17 and October 8, October 20 and October 29. ***

 

In Asia, where CDC rules do not apply, they are offering 12 and 14 night sailings from Yokohama. Also two 11-day cruises from Southampton.

 

** seen on Celebrity web site and a TA web site

*** seen on a TA web site

[Daniel A]

27 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I see an 8 night Pacific Coastal October 11 and again on October 19.**

 

From Fort Lauderdale a 12 day cruise August 15,  September 5, and September 26 and a 9 day cruise August 27, September 17 and October 8, October 20 and October 29. ***

 

In Asia, where CDC rules do not apply, they are offering 12 and 14 night sailings from Yokohama. Also two 11-day cruises from Southampton.

 

** seen on Celebrity web site and a TA web site

*** seen on a TA web site

Thanks - I found some of their cruises in excess of 7 days so I went back and deleted the post.

[caribill]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Thanks - I found some of their cruises in excess of 7 days so I went back and deleted the post.

 

I do not know how they can off those cruises from California and Florida as long as the CDC order is in effect.

[Daniel A]

30 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

I do not know how they can off those cruises from California and Florida as long as the CDC order is in effect.

I don't either unless they rescinded the 7 day rule for fully vaccinated sailings.

[dogdoc2002]

On 7/9/2021 at 12:30 PM, PMGS247 said:

 

Generally I agree but I know my major concern from a cruising perspective is the prospect of a significant outbreak on board.  While the CDC might be pushed out from dictating cruising protocols, they will still have the jurisdiction to disallow a ship to disembark if there is a significant outbreak on board.

 

It'll be on the cruises to manage this and make sure they avoid it, but the more unvaccinated on board, the more masks are needed, and the greater the risk for outbreaks.  Even as someone vaccinated, I don't like either of those things.  The more vaccinated on board, the better. It's not just about personal safety.

That's my concern as well. I don't want to be floating around being refused docking and disembarkation as there is an outbreak

 

[Steelers36]

24 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I don't either unless they rescinded the 7 day rule for fully vaccinated sailings.

Too busy to go digging, but I thought that was part of it - if fully-vaccinated cruise, then didn't have to be 7-night max???  Anyway, most of the 2021 seem to be that way, at least for a cautious stop.  Expect 2022 to be much different.

[nocl]

5 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

Too busy to go digging, but I thought that was part of it - if fully-vaccinated cruise, then didn't have to be 7-night max???  Anyway, most of the 2021 seem to be that way, at least for a cautious stop.  Expect 2022 to be much different.

That was my understanding.  That the 7 day restriction was waived for those cruises that were sailing under the at least 95% vaccinated protocol.

[kilkoyne]

54 minutes ago, nocl said:

That was my understanding.  That the 7 day restriction was waived for those cruises that were sailing under the at least 95% vaccinated protocol.

 

The CDC updated the CSO in the spring and at that time added testing requirements for b2b sailing for both Vaxx and Non Vaxx passengers. 

 

There is nothing in the CSO that now states 7 days is max cruise and the CSO now includes testing requirements for b2b cruisers.

 

I don't believe b2b is limited to 95% vaccinated ships. At least that's not how the CSO is currently reading.

 

Testing of Embarking and Disembarking Passengers for Restricted Voyages

Screening Testing of All Embarking and Disembarking Passengers for Restricted Voyages

	Not Fully Vaccinated Passengers	Fully Vaccinated Passengers
Embarkation Day Testing	Viral (NAAT or antigen)	Not Applicable*
Disembarkation Testing ^	Viral (NAAT or antigen)	Not Applicable
Back-to-Back Sailing¥ Testing	Viral (NAAT or antigen)	Not Applicable

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by kilkoyne

[MamaFej]

On 7/9/2021 at 4:39 AM, cruzsnooze said:

It wasn't an over reaction from the several health organizations originally. When more was learned protocols changed because science allows for learning and changing. When more was learned and new guidelines issued people stated the CDC didn't know what it was doing but the opposite was true. 

Yes. 
When a navigation app changes the recommended route based on changing road conditions, people don’t scream, “The app keeps changing! What a bunch of crap, at first it said to take Baker Street, now it says to take Stanton Street! The programmers obviously have no idea what they’re talking about, or maybe they just want to exert their power because they can! Oh, man! Now it wants me to go down to Foothill Boulevard! They’re just our to control our lives like a bunch of power hungry jerks!” 
 

Uh, no. At first, Baker Street seemed like a good idea, based on historical data. Then there was a collision on Baker, and Stanton was better. A bit later, traffic on Stanton got congested, and Foothill was a better option. It’s not that the app or programmers lied, it’s that data changed, new information was available, and advice was adjusted accordingly. 
 

Intelligent, rational people change their minds based on changing data. People whose minds cannot be changed are people who do not deserve to be trusted. 

[Daniel A]

6 hours ago, MamaFej said:

Yes. 
When a navigation app changes the recommended route based on changing road conditions, people don’t scream, “The app keeps changing! What a bunch of crap, at first it said to take Baker Street, now it says to take Stanton Street! The programmers obviously have no idea what they’re talking about, or maybe they just want to exert their power because they can! Oh, man! Now it wants me to go down to Foothill Boulevard! They’re just our to control our lives like a bunch of power hungry jerks!” 
 

Uh, no. At first, Baker Street seemed like a good idea, based on historical data. Then there was a collision on Baker, and Stanton was better. A bit later, traffic on Stanton got congested, and Foothill was a better option. It’s not that the app or programmers lied, it’s that data changed, new information was available, and advice was adjusted accordingly. 
 

Intelligent, rational people change their minds based on changing data. People whose minds cannot be changed are people who do not deserve to be trusted. 

You're comparing apples and oranges here.  You are absolutely correct when you state the app changes the recommended route.  The app doesn't require you to take a particular route.  If you decide to continue on Baker, the app doesn't shut down your car until you comply with new requirements of 4 1/2 phases that you never agreed to.  Sometimes the apps will tell you to take a left onto railroad tracks.  You are required to make your own decisions when using the app because they are only giving advice - it is up to you to take the advice or not.

[MamaFej]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

You're comparing apples and oranges here.  You are absolutely correct when you state the app changes the recommended route.  The app doesn't require you to take a particular route.  If you decide to continue on Baker, the app doesn't shut down your car until you comply with new requirements of 4 1/2 phases that you never agreed to.  Sometimes the apps will tell you to take a left onto railroad tracks.  You are required to make your own decisions when using the app because they are only giving advice - it is up to you to take the advice or not.

Your requirement/recommendation comparison is a fair point. Given that this is your thread about the CDC case, it makes sense that you focused on that. 

My point was that no one accuses the app of lying or being clueless or power hungry. I was speaking in a more general way about how certain folks have viewed changing scientific advice. I should have made that more clear. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by MamaFej
Clarification

[Daniel A]

29 minutes ago, MamaFej said:

Your requirement/recommendation comparison is a fair point. Given that this is your thread about the CDC case, it makes sense that you focused on that. 

My point was that no one accuses the app of lying or being clueless or power hungry. I was speaking in a more general way about how certain folks have viewed changing scientific advice. I should have made that more clear. 

You make a valid, interesting point here.  It is applicable to this thread as the Florida/CDC case includes Florida maintaining that the CDC failed to react to changing scientific evidence and current conditions and was still locking down the industry.  Much of the CDC loosening came after the Florida case was filed.  I don't know if this is a case of cause and effect or merely coincidental timing.  Thanks for your reply, it certainly is food for thought.  Stay well!  🙂

[cruisequeen4ever]

23 hours ago, caribill said:

 

Celebrity policy:

 

We can accommodate vaccinated guests on as many consecutive/back-to-back cruises as they wish. Guests who purchase back-to-back cruises must be fully vaccinated and are required to take a Covid-19 test producing negative results between each sailing.   

And now it’s been reported on the Celebrity board that even that has changed. Celebrity will allow a B2B but no more consecutive cruises than that. This poor party was about ready to start their third cruise when Celebrity let them know they’d have to disembark. 

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

And now it’s been reported on the Celebrity board that even that has changed. Celebrity will allow a B2B but no more consecutive cruises than that. This poor party was about ready to start their third cruise when Celebrity let them know they’d have to disembark. 

 

This has since been straightened out and the party is being allowed to remain onboard for the third leg of their trip.

[stevenr597]

On 7/10/2021 at 5:00 PM, cruisemom42 said:

 

So much for the appearance of impartiality of the courts. I find the judge's statement to be completely out of line from what I would expect in a tempered opinion/ruling.

 

The problem is that the CDC cannot make laws, it can only submit guidelines.  It is up to the government to make laws.  

 

[Wishing on a star]

Wow....   just WOW....

[cruisemom42]

11 hours ago, stevenr597 said:

The problem is that the CDC cannot make laws, it can only submit guidelines.  It is up to the government to make laws.  

 

 

No, the problem FOR ME (since you quoted me) is the language and tone of the ruling/opinion. When I read something like that I expect to see references to legal precedent and current law, not a barely contained rant. It's neither here nor there whether I agree with the content. I do not agree with the "attitude".

[K.T.B.]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

No, the problem FOR ME (since you quoted me) is the language and tone of the ruling/opinion. When I read something like that I expect to see references to legal precedent and current law, not a barely contained rant. It's neither here nor there whether I agree with the content. I do not agree with the "attitude".

 

Exactly this.