MTAK

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

Like vaccines not everyone can tolerate a mask for valid medical reasons. 

I wear hearing aids, so not seeing people's mouths makes life more difficult. Not to mention the problem with the elastic straps on traditional masks which launch over-the-ear hearing aids into the middle of parking lots.

But more notably, I cannot converse for any extended time with a mask on.  I have chronic sinus issues and for some reason conversing with a mask on causes me to begin coughing.  However that is very effective in keeping people away from me!

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

The CDC does not address vaccines in the order in a positive or negative fashion. They certainly do not prevent the cruise lines for addressing the use of vaccines in their plans to resume cruising. When the cruise lines actually submit them.

 

Vaccines do not impact the need for some level of port agreements, which the cruise lines have not done either. The agreements that deal with what happens if a case does occur on board.

Background and Need To Establish a Framework for Mitigating the Risk of COVID-19 Onboard Cruise Ships Prior to Resuming Passenger Operations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread rapidly around the world with no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized vaccine. As of October 30, 2020...

Risk is mentioned 37 times but vaccine is only mentioned twice.  The second time is found within the section dealing with public comments regarding 25% of respondents supporting waiting to resume cruising until after a vaccine is widely available.

You're correct in that they didn't address it at all because it wasn't even a consideration at that time.

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I did not say never; what I did say was that regulatory agencies were given deference by courts. And there really is a difference between environmental impact statements and safety measures especially during a global pandemic.

Sorry, I will probably be scoffed for this, but since the CDC order does not even consider the availability and use of vaccines, I don't think it's a stretch for a judge to intervene.

Does this mean the order would be rescinded and cruising would immediately resume? No, chances are the judge would order the CDC to update the document within a certain time frame.

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I will repeat once again, regulatory agencies are given great deference by courts. We are still in a pandemic, well over 1/2 million have died in the US alone. And you think the courts will go out of their way to overturn orders from the federal agency that has the responsibility of fighting against this disease.

 

And as I see @nocl has just pointed out, their orders are not arbitrary and capricious. The standards are not that a bunch of people who want to go on cruises really want to go on cruises and the Governor of Florida wants to grandstand.

Not necessarily.  Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements from Federal land agencies are often rejected by courts for being out of date or failing to consider all relevant information.

On 4/20/2021 at 4:27 PM, kangforpres said:

Do you mean a regular poker table? For tournament play? Over the years HAL replaced the one tradition poker table on each ship with an automated poker table. I don't know of anyone who likes those and never saw anyone playing a cash game at them in the casino at night. 

 

Maybe they have decided on just getting rid of poker tables all together. For the non-gamblers  "World Poker Tournament Texas holdem heads up" is a branded and trademarked table game where players play against the house, at a  traditional poker table players play against each other and the house provides a dealer and collects a fee per hand.

Can you explain more how the WPT game works? I can't seem to find any more info on it.  Is it electronic?

Wow, I just checked our April 2022 Rotterdam booking and the price went from $1,189pp to $1,649pp since the V&V sale in January.

1 minute ago, Mary229 said:

That was restricted to cruise fares and further to cruises that were more than 6 days and less than 21.  Many of us could not participate in that.  I wasn't so interested in paying off my cruise as paying $750 for a $250 OBC, sounded like a pretty sweet deal.  

I took advantage of it and the gift cards.  Hopefully everything works out as this turned out to be the cheapest cruise we've booked so far.

But yeah, both are basically a loan program for HAL.

Same as the Early Pay bonus promotion from a few months ago.  Pay-now-buy-later instead of buy-now-pay-later. 

3 hours ago, nocl said:

They will respond to the letter.  Just going to do so in a complete fashion, not to provide more grist for NCL's PR mill.

 

Tell you want how about if you go through the CSO and point out those requirements that you consider to be obsolete and lets discuss them.

 

I think you will find that they may only be obsolete in the context of the entire plan.  For example is one cruise line puts forth a good plan on full vaccination that may render portions unneeded. However. if another cruise lines plan does not require vaccination then they may in fact still be relevant.

 

From a regulatory authority point of view one has to have the requirements there because they do not know what they will get presented with the plan.  If they make an announcement that some requirements can be bypassed in certain cases then they will get faced with everyone, those using the special cases, and those that do not trying to bypass.  Better to leave them in place and then remove them based on the individual case where removal is justified.

 

When the CDC started to relax some recommendations for those vaccinated coming in contact with others that are fully vaccinated you certainly had a lot of misinterpretation of what they said (intentional or not).

 

I want the CDC involved because if I book a cruise where the cruise line makes certain promises such as full vaccination I want to make sure that between the time I book and the time of the sailing that they have not decided to change the requirement just because they felt like it. To make sure  that the decision to change protocols has been reviewed and approved by an authority not interested in the cruise lines marketing plan.

To quote the press release "CDC and DHS senior leadership will begin meetings with cruise industry leaders starting this week. The objective of the meetings are to mutually review the top priority issues of the cruise industry to work out implementation details of the CSO, including the impact of vaccines and other scientific developments since the CSO was issued in October 2020."

So yes, they are in fact sitting down to work out the details with the cruise lines, based on new developments since last October, which is exactly what I've advocated they should be doing. The cruise line representatives will have the opportunity to discuss portions of the plans they consider unreasonable or obsolete, and hopefully arrive at some sort of mutual agreement going forward. 

16 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

...While we have seen the results of clinical trials on the effectiveness of the vaccines, has anyone seen studies of the real world, now that millions have been vaccinated, as to actual effectiveness, and actual reduction in symptoms, and actual reduction in transmission across the millions who are vaccinated?  I haven't, but I suspect the CDC has data, which is why they recently downgraded the risk of transmission by vaccinated persons, as they are still studying data, as would be the case for a "normal" drug roll out, where studies take millions of patients and months to years to get statistically usable data.

This was well publicized last week, 5,800 cases in 77 million fully vaccinated individuals:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-about-5-800-breakthrough-infections-reported-fully-vaccinated-people-n1264186

Excellent, CDC did in fact respond with a meeting and now appear willing to review the issues and work out details of the CSO, "including the impact of vaccines and other scientific developments since the CSO was issued in October 2020".  

Whatever you think of NCL's approach, at least there appears to be a path forward.

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

oh I understand the point. But you apparently do not understand that a claim to fully vaccinate by a cruise a cruise line, without specifics is just that a claim. A regulatory authority with a responsibility cannot operate on claims.

 

So does vaccinate requirement have any exceptions? What if a Captain wants his family on board. Can he have his unvaccinated children on board? What if a cruiseline VIP is unvaccinated is an exception made? Without regulatory over sight who would know. For that matter which vaccines would be allowed? Would they consider Sinovac to be a valid vaccine? After all it is the primary vaccine in many countries that crew come from and it is not very effective.

 

As well who knows how long they would keep the requirement in place. If they are released from the CSO they could drop the requirement at any time without needing approval.

 

Yes fully vaccinated greatly reduces risk, if done consistently and properly. The devil is in the details.

I fully understand that NCL needs to provide further information information, as I stated above in my discussion with ChengKP75.

But I also feel CDC is obligated to acknowledge and respond to NCL's letter (and to other interested parties) as to how the many other provisions of their now-dated CSO are still relevant and applicable in todays environment, especially since the CDC has been proactive in revising it's guidance for the rest of society. Remember, it takes two to tango.

Just now, nocl said:

If the cruiselines were to actually submit their full plan and not just a letter asking to be dropped from the CSO.

I can see that you are not understanding the point I'm trying to make, so I'll leave it at that.

5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I don't know, I'm not an epidemiologist, but they are, so they may have some data that is not available to you.  And, while the US may be leading in vaccinating the population and therefore getting passengers 100% vaccinated, has NCL stated how they intend to have a 100% vaccinated crew?  The Philippines, which supply 1/3 of all cruise ship crew, have vaccinated only a little above 1% of their population, and India has only vaccinated about 1% of its population, and is running short of vaccine, and they supply 60% of the vaccine produced globally.

I'm not an epidemiologist either, so if CDC has some secret data stashed somewhere, they should make that available and explain it to the rest of us so we can understand why 100% vaccination is not acceptable.  Especially in light of the news this week about real-world breakthrough results, and that it's okay now for vaccinated people to socialize with one another and even fly safely.

Since they are proposing it, NCL probably has information about their vaccination plan that is also not available to the rest of us.  So I agree that they too should make that available so we, as potential passengers, understand how that will work.

8 hours ago, nocl said:

As the saying goes it takes 2 to tango and the CDC appears to be the only one listening to the music. The cruise lines seem to be trying to get the band to go home.

 

Most logical end is not the number of vaccinations, but sufficient reduction in case counts and the nature of those that do occur.

 

Any do regulations will be driven by last March/April when the cruise lines could not dock, and whose recourse was to send passengers and crew to US facilities. I do expect when the pandemic ends there will be some expansion of the current VSP program.

 

How many of those that think that the CDC should just let the ships sail are opposed to the pre pandemic VSP program and feel that it is unscientific.

Seems recently the CDC was not even aware music was playing, while the cruise lines are trying to get the playlist updated.

How can 100% vaccinations not provide adequate risk reduction? Isn't that the most perfect environment that can be achieved at this time, an environment the rest of society could only hope for?

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

That is also very simple when the emergency declaration signed by the President and the Secretary of HHS ends or is revoked and there is no longer an emergency involving an infectious illness.

 

Of course the real question, and I think that this is the one that scares the cruise lines, is there going to be new permanent regulations involving cruise ships at US ports that deal with the question of infectious disease on cruise ships going beyond the existing VSP program.  After all the VSP program came about after a period of severe outbreaks of Noro and similar illness on board cruise ships. Would not be surprised to see some things added after the problems that occurred last march with ships being unable to dock and problems with medical cases from ships.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  At some point the CSO would be rescinded or at least modified from it's current form.  And that's why I'm trying to figure out what else, besides a 100% vaccination requirement, will show that the CSO, or provisions thereof, are no longer necessary? If the vaccination requirement doesn't achieve that, what else could possibly convince the decision makers that it's safe to resume cruising? I think that is what NCL is trying to determine, without beating their head against the proverbial wall by attempting to comply with an order that is no longer relevant as a result of vaccine availability.

I agree with your assessment that this is a potential scare to the cruise lines -  a whole host of new regulations introduced during an emergency that will ultimately become permanent by compliance. That's why I believe it's justified to question the validity of the CSO at this point, based on the fact that so much has changed with the vaccine development. For example, a tiered approach may now be more appropriate, where the CSO is relaxed for cruise lines who mandate vaccines versus keeping much more detailed and restrictive plan requirements for those that don't.  

Just now, nocl said:

Easy enough for the cruise lines to find out.  Actually try submitting a proposal.

Once again, not what I asked.  Under what circumstances will the CDC modify or lift the CSO?  At what point can the CDC no longer justify the CSO in it's current form? 

1 hour ago, nocl said:

1.That they put their port agreements in place 2. that they submit the actual plan for their test sailings to demonstrate their protocols.

 

A little different than saying we will require vaccinations and an outline of how we plan to do so, let us out of the CSO.

 

Leaving unsaid

so you, the cdc, have no oversight over our cruises out of the US than you did before the pandemic since all of the additional health reporting requirements are part of the CSO.

That's not what I meant.  I asked what is necessary for CDC to re-evaluate their policy. In other words, what circumstances would allow the CSO to be modified or relaxed.  Not what the cruise lines need to do to satisfy the existing CSO, we already know what that is.

25 minutes ago, zelker said:

I just read these articles this morning so for what it's worth, vaccine hesitancy is out there:

 

States see rise in unused vaccines as demand flattens, shifting focus to hesitancy (nbcnews.com)

 

Wyoming has highest level of vaccine hesitancy in the country | Local | jhnewsandguide.com

 

And since Wyoming is our neighbor 90 minutes to the north from where we live, I hope all the anti-vaxxers stay on their side of the state line for now (yeah, I know ... wishful thinking).

 

Since Colorado has about 4 times as many people that are hesitant to get vaccinated than Wyoming, I bet people in Wyoming feel the same way.

1 hour ago, harkinmr said:

And they are, and will, when circumstances warrant.  It's also important to note that only ONE major cruise line has committed to mandatory vaccines for cruising (NCL).  One major cruise group (CCL) has said they will not mandate vaccines at all.  The CDC is not going to mandate it, because they cannot legally do so under the EUA.  The cruise lines have come out and said nothing except that the CSO is too hard to comply with.  Get rid of it.  That is not going to happen.  The Governor of Florida cries (all of a sudden) about economic impact from no cruising from Florida ports, but then turns around and threatens that he will not allow cruise lines to mandate vaccines.  That is a perfect example of hypocrisy.  

NCL is proposing 100% vaccinated sailings.  What other circumstances does the CDC need in order to re-evaluate policy to allow NCL to sail?

I stand by my original comment. I do not believe it is hypocritical, political, or unreasonable for NCL, Florida, or anyone else for that matter to question why the CDC continues to rely on policy established 6 months ago before any vaccine was even approved, much less distributed. I don't think anyone anticipated the prospect of having 100% vaccinated sailings at that time.

It sounds as if all this flap is at least resulting in some discussions between the parties involved.  Let's hope the outcome is some form of reasonable path forward.

1 minute ago, harkinmr said:

Yes.  But we are not at the point where we can claim victory on vaccine distribution.  And vaccines aren't the only element in this discussion.  The hypocrisy is that the economic impact has not changed in the last 13 months.  The blame game has.  

The fact the economic impact hasn't changed in the last 13 months is exactly the point, or the problem in some people's opinion, despite the success of vaccines. The folks in charge now are the one's responsible for making these decisions based on current circumstances.  There is no hypocrisy in questioning that.

15 hours ago, harkinmr said:

The economic impacts of the cruise pause have been felt since last March.  I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that people all of a sudden "care" and are so vocal about it.  Particularly the author of this piece.  That is all I have to say on the subject.

Maybe because we have vaccines now?  I don't know why that would be considered hypocritical.  Things are different now.

1 hour ago, DaveOKC said:

Have we clarified if it can be used for casino charges?

The bonus gift card funds can be used in the casino as verified by my PCC. You can pre-purchase OBC with them for this purpose.

Also, to answer another previous question, if HAL cancels the cruise, any purchases made with gift cards will be refunded to the gift cards.

On the Signature ships (Eurodam, N. Amsterdam) some of the aft verandah cabins are shower only, and they are not handicap-accessible rooms.

29 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

We haven't discussed the popcorn issue in a while.  I thought I might breach that subject on this thread.  

Tread lightly Mary, tread lightly.  Some people are still a bit edgy, give it time.... 😶