ChutChut

Sideway insides are good cabins. I've stayed in three of them. That dead space in the middle b/t the insides is an interior crew hallway. On occasion, you may be able to hear (faintly) noise but rarely at night. I'm a fairly light sleeper and I did very well in these cabins. 

The dead space next to m428? could be a steward closet. Those could be noisy with carts going in and out. I would try to avoid those.

I would go with R424.

Either go back to the place where you got the jab or correct it yourself.

Are you sure your travel insurance will cover the cost of the hotel?

3 hours ago, Lscruiser said:

I booked directly with Princess in May.  There was no requirement that children under 12 be vaccinated.  The CDC guideline was that 95% of the guests needed to be vaccinated so that no more than 5% could be children under 12.   Princess did not inform me of this new rule for children until today.   Their website says: "As the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to children 5-11 years old, following the CDC's recommendation, we look forward to welcoming vaccinated guests of all ages."  As of right now, it is not available through their doctor.   I don't know what the CDC is currently recommending.  

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear you will be able to take your cruise unless the children are fully vaxxed. I would demand Princess fully refund your fare or transfer the the money to another sailing in the future when the kids are vaxxed. 

13 hours ago, MrMarc said:

I have not found that anywhere in the decision, and no one has been able to show me where it says that.  The only mention of "vaccine passport" is in a footnote about the Florida law contributing to it's claimed harm. And this is directed to others reading your post, not you.

The vaccine passport issue is not a part of the injunctive relief issue and not part of the ruling. 

13 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

Ports could require it as well, for the same reason.

Not in FL as the Legislature already has spoken and requiring vax verification is prohibited. As the ports are mostly state-owned, they will not and cannot implement any protocol in violation of state law.

16 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

Carnival should just ignore the judge and carry on as they had planned.

Carnival may do as it wishes. However, in FL, there are consequences to violating its laws.

15 hours ago, LadyMac72 said:

 

They could and Desantis would be out of steam because it's the business making the decision, not the CDC.  Sure, Florida can say businesses cannot require proof of vaccine so the upshot could be, if passengers voluntarily show their card, they bypass the testing requirements and can run amok maskless.  If the choose not to, they will be treated as unvaccinated and will require the PCR test 72 hours before embark, snap tests every time they get on/off the ship and one at debark - all charged to their sign & sail account.  Plus requiring marks, separate dining, separate shows, separate excursions.  

Possibly. However, if any cruise line denies a service (e.g. non-vaxxed not permitted into a venue exclusively in use by vaxxed) that, conceivably, could run afoul of FL law despite it occurring in the open seas. If a cruise line charges more for the fare that isn't connected to a reasonable testing fee, that could be construed to run afoul, too. RCI, seemingly, already has (or will) implement some measures that could be viewed as a violation of FL law (restricting non-vax access to certain venues, providing less service in terms of shows, etc. to non-vax customers). If RCI charges a reasonable fee for testing non-vaxxed (not some huge markup unrelated to actual cost) that doesn't seem to violate FL law. In any event, FL law is in force and each violative sailing could rack up millions in fines. 

On 6/19/2021 at 10:17 AM, scendro said:

I don’t think the ruling on the “preliminary injunction” related to the conditional sail order will change what Carnival has already announced for its July and August sailings.  I don’t see Carnival changing their requirements that everyone be vaccinated except a small percentage of exemptions.  Carnival does not want to risk a bumpy restart by having unvaxxed passengers when it starts back up.

This ruling is clear- businesses can chose to follow the CDC’s “conditional sail order” or not -but are no longer required to - for the next 30 days.  Nothing in this ruling prevents Carnival or any other cruise line from requiring that passengers be vaccinated.  Nothing prevents any cruise line from following the CDC guidance.  At this points it’s in the hands of the cruise lines.  Personally, I think (initially) the cruise lines liked the idea of “blaming” the CDC for the strict vaccination guidelines during the start up - this was away for the cruise lines to appease the anti COVID vaccine crowd by placing on the blame on the CDC- Now they can’t really do that anymore since the CSO has been stayed during this injunction.  
 

Also, this “Preliminary Injunction” does not answer the question about whether or not cruise lines can require passengers to show proof of vaccination when sailing from Florida and I think a lot of people are conflating the two -very separate - issues.  The so called “vaccine passport” issue is not in front of this Judge or any judge as far as I’m aware of.  

Correct and, as such, FL's law is valid and in force. If Carnival, etc. chooses to violate it, it/they will be incurring millions of dollars in fines per sailing out of FL.

1 hour ago, aubreyc1988 said:

exactly. It only takes one "outbreak" to ruin it for the industry, they gotta be careful at first, regardless if there is a CSO or not.

The outbreak last year was, primarily, due to the negligence of Princess and Japan. Much has been learned since then.

1 hour ago, RaftingJeremy said:

This is what I was looking for…. People said it might before but it could just be a bunch of hot air.  It sounds like all the judge wants is more specific instruction from the cdc. 

applies to Florida. And, no, the judge just doesn't want more "specific instruction" from the CDC. It's ordering the CDC to modify its CSO to comply with his order. READ THE RULING.

1 hour ago, MichiganBound said:

This debate isn't over yet.  It's just a temporary ruling for a few short weeks.  ABC just covered the story on the world news and their report stated that the unvaccinated could expect to have a different cruising experience on RCI cruises out of Florida.  The unvaccinated can expect to have to mask up whilst inside the ship.  They will having more restrictive dining options and may not be allowed access to some events and shows.  Doesn't sound like much fun to me for the unvaccinated.

 

I have no cruises booked for the rest of 2021 so none of this will impact me at all.  I do know that if I had a 100% vaccinated cruise booked and that was later changed to something other than a 100% vaccinated cruise, I would be cancelling ASAP.

 

Anyway, let's see where this all end up.

Did you read the ruling? Doesn't seem so as your "interpretation" isn't correct. RCIs "class" system might violate the intent of the FL law and expose RCI to huge fines.

2 hours ago, seemoreroyals said:

How is this going to effect requiring 100% vaccination on cruise ships?  We don't have a cruise scheduled until December and it is out of NOLA so this does not directly impact us but indirectly it might.  We are fully vaccinated so I am confident that we are protected from covid related death or hospitalization.  If this legal wrangling drops the requirement for full vaccination I can easily see the petri dish image of the cruise industry rearing its ugly head.  If NCL was not requiring full vaccination we would not have booked our cruise.  With an unknown quantity of unvaccinated on board there are just too many things that can go wrong.  

This ruling affects Florida.

1 hour ago, seemoreroyals said:

 

Florida wins what?   Cruise industry was in process of opening anyway.  What matters is that it opens safely and in a manner that allows it to stay open.  

You didn't read the Order, did you?

52 minutes ago, RaftingJeremy said:

He has been and is continuing to pretend it doesn’t exist.  FL is not doing great at all. 

On the contrary, FL is doing great.

3 hours ago, Falckon said:

I wonder if this ruling will have any effect on the requirement for 95% vaccinated passengers. 

Yep.

1 minute ago, kelleherdl said:

I wonder if some folks are inappropriately conflating the Florida v HHS/CDC lawsuit with the Florida statue banning Florida companies from requiring vaccinations.  This ruling has no bearing on that issue.

 

Dennis

Absolutely correct. However, the cruise lines now can't argue it's requiring vaccinations because of the CDC.I predict FL also will prevail in that matter. I also predict any cruise line that violate current FL law will be fined to the greatest extent per the statute ($5,000 per customer violation) and those fines will be upheld when FL comes to collect.

11 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

Reading this brings a couple thoughts to my mind -

 

It seems that no matter  the decision regarding FL, there are many countries who will not allow passengers to disembark without proof of vaccination, so this could create a lot of issues regardless of opinions on the CDC position. 
IMHO, the  practice of everyone handling the same utensils at the buffet has for a long time needed to be eliminated - and not just because of Covid. We have always avoided buffets that practice this.  I also cannot understand why a Federal judge would also rule against extra cleaning measures, again regardless of Covid. 
And then on a personal thought, I do not believe that DH nor I will be at all comfortable sailing without vaccination requirements. This makes the cancellation policies when booking even more important to understand. 

 

I agree with your first two thoughts - especially the buffet protocols. Should always be workers serving. The judge ruled the way he did because the CDC does not have the power/authority to issue those rules. I predict Florida also will win any suit brought re: it's inherent state power re: medical privacy. When that happens, cruise lines either will have to abide by the law or take their boats elsewhere. Given Florida has three of the busiest cruise ports in the world, I think the cruise lines will comply in the end.

1 hour ago, Heartgrove said:

Just read the conclusion and it really doesn't settle anything as the CDC can still write modifications and submit by July 2, then Florida responds by July 9. All of this because of the guy in Tallahassee.

Oh yes it settles a lot. The CDC has two weeks to submit modifications consistent with the judge's order by early July. Florida may respond, if it wishes, by July 9th. Either way, the CDC's current CSO is gonna be out the window.

1 hour ago, leerathje said:

The unfortunate thing is that I am now cancelling my cruise from Fort Lauderdale, as I'm not sailing on ship that is not fully (or 95%) vaccinated. 

 

L.

 

Your choice. 

37 minutes ago, scendro said:

I really don’t think this changes anything for Carnival’s July and August cruises, they will go forward with what they’ve announced - everyone must be vaxxed except a small amount that apply for and get approved exemptions- of which will be required to be masked while on the ship.  I don’t see Carnival doing a 180 

Oh sure Carnival will. Moreover, Carnival is gonna get spanked by the FL no-vaccine law.

Just now, MrMarc said:

I predict that, even though a bunch of people are happy right now, that giving this power to the Courts is going to end up being a bad thing for everyone.  Even now, the Judge is basically telling the CDC how to make rules, and he is going to decide if they are correct or not.

Judicial branch can do this....

Now - let's discuss FL no vaccine verification law and how the cruise industry will get spanked if they violate it....

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

Right? Looks like crow is on the menu tonight for all of the DeSantis haters. (And you know who you are!)

Those of us with some actual knowledge of the law attempted to tell people, but no one would listen..

20 minutes ago, coldflame said:

Way too early to tell the repercussions to the cruise in the short term. The orders were very lenient i.e. the judge did not vacate or set aside the CSO. The CDC has the chance to propose a new CSO that's within the rules set by the court, which if the Judge rules it sufficient, they will remain mandatory. For example the CDC could say "sail with 100% vaccination and you can cough on each other mouths no other rules" and the judge could agree with that. If a case is a war, is undeniable FL won an important battle today, but the way the judge is deciding the case is clear there are a lot of doors open here in which the CDC can work this out.

Incorrect. The judge very clearly indicated the current CSO is invalid and gave the CDC one month to amend it consistent with the court order.