New CDC cruise restrictions

[bennett2005]

There will be very stringent measures put in place for ALL travel , especially cruise ships, to New Zealand for many months if not a year or so.  The belief in New Zealand is that all most all virus infections are travel related.  There was a news conference just yesterday where the Prime Minister made comments to that effect.  They are very keen to take extreme measures to stop the virus from getting back into the country once it is stamped out. So far the extreme measures taken have proven very beneficial in stoping the spread.  As of yesterday there has been only 1 death and that was over a week ago. 

[Wendy The Wanderer]

23 hours ago, bennett2005 said:

There will be very stringent measures put in place for ALL travel , especially cruise ships, to New Zealand for many months if not a year or so.  The belief in New Zealand is that all most all virus infections are travel related.  There was a news conference just yesterday where the Prime Minister made comments to that effect.  They are very keen to take extreme measures to stop the virus from getting back into the country once it is stamped out. So far the extreme measures taken have proven very beneficial in stoping the spread.  As of yesterday there has been only 1 death and that was over a week ago. 

 

Huh.  So there goes my thin hope of still being able to go there next February on our world cruise.  Sigh.

[Travelcat2]

I wouldn't believe everything I read.  Government officials in many countries make statements based on what is going on with the pandemic but statements often change.  If cruise ships resume sailing in the fall, New Zealand may rethink their position.

[bennett2005]

February 2021 is a long time from now so it is hard to predict anything in this world at this time.  The Prime Minister of New Zealand today did announce that as of today ALL persons entering NZ , including NZ citizens will be put into " managed isolation" for 14 days.  The NZ government has arrangements with 18 hotel properties to house such persons.  It was not stated how long this policy would be in place.  

 

It is difficult to see that this can remain in effect for too many months due to the cost to the government and the impact on tourism which is very important to the country.  I depart in mid May and will return in late November.  I would be very unhappy to return and need to spend 14 days in a "managed isolation" facility.  Hopefully by then we would be allowed to self isolate in our housing in Auckland.  

 

All of NZ is in a very strict policy of " stay at home".  This is being very strictly enforced and only essential travel, grocery shopping , medical appointments etc are allowed.  There was even road blocks established on certain highways to the south and north of Auckland today to stop any travel that was outside the rules.  

[RJ2002]

This probably deserves a thread of its own.  Yesterday (April 9) the CDC extended the cruising ban, likely into July 2020.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/04/09/coronavirus-cdc-extends-no-sail-order-cruise-ships/5128291002/

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0409-modifications-extension-no-sail-ships.html

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extended a "no sail order" Thursday that it imposed last month to help quell the spread of the coronavirus. 

 

While the March 14 order was intended as a voluntary measure to stay in place for 30 days, the new one could last longer. 

 

The CDC order states that cruise ships can't board passengers and return to their sailing schedules until one of three events takes place:

• Expiration of the Department of Health and Human Services' declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency.

•The CDC director's own decision to modify or rescind its no-sail decision.

•Passage of 100 days from the time the new order is published in the Federal Register.

Until then, the about 100 cruise ships in the Atlantic, Pacific or Gulf of Mexico must remain idle, either in port or wallowing at anchor, the CDC said. Those ships currently have nearly 80,000 crew aboard.

[Belfast Taxman]

I now consider chances of our Baltic cruise on Explorer on 28 August going ahead are now NIL ( Down from about 10% before this)

Edited April 10, 2020 by Belfast Taxman

[2012_Alaska_bound]

18 minutes ago, Belfast Taxman said:

I now consider chances of our Baltic cruise on Explorer on 28 August going ahead are now NIL ( Down from about 10% before this)

 

I'm still holding out hope for the cruise before yours, in fact final payment is due today.....

[UUNetBill]

I just wonder what force of law the CDC 'order' has.  Notwithstanding the constitutional issues, can they just issue 'orders' that have the force of law?  I'm sure no constitutional lawyer but I'm curious about the power they wield (or think they wield).

 

Anyone know for certain?

[mrlevin]

Yes, they are rules that need to be followed; if you read the order it references the applicable Public Healthcare Act.  

 

Marc

[Travelcat2]

7 minutes ago, UUNetBill said:

I just wonder what force of law the CDC 'order' has.  Notwithstanding the constitutional issues, can they just issue 'orders' that have the force of law?  I'm sure no constitutional lawyer but I'm curious about the power they wield (or think they wield).

 

Anyone know for certain?

 

I do not know for certain but some people think that the CDC has power over cruise ships that sail into or out of the U.S.   This is sad to hear since the CDC has been so poor in the recent past.  They couldn't even be honest about the need to wear masks - whether you are sick or not - during this pandemic.  Well, either they weren't honest or they were clueless (even I knew that we should be wearing masks way before the CDC changed their minds about them).  I assume that cruise lines will follow their "order" unless they want to stop cruising out of this country.

[RJ2002]

The order does only cover US waters, so I guess it is possible the lines could resume operations elsewhere????

 

"This order ceases operations of cruise ships in waters in which the United States may exert jurisdiction"

[Belfast Taxman]

But it also appears to say that ships currently in US coastal waters cannot leave, or have I misunderstood?

i believe that Splendor, Mariner and Navigator are currently in US coastal waters

Edited April 10, 2020 by Belfast Taxman

[Gray Eagle02]

13 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

They couldn't even be honest about the need to wear masks - whether you are sick or not - during this pandemic.  Well, either they weren't honest or they were clueless (even I knew that we should be wearing masks way before the CDC changed their minds about them)

You have repeatedly and consistently misrepresented the recommendations on wearing masks. The CDC and WHO have never believed that masks ( except N95 masks) prevent the wearer from acquiring a respiratory spread disease. They have always advocated that those who wear surgical masks protect those that don’t wear the mask. The current recommendation is based on the fact that 20-50% of the population may be asymptomatic carriers. Thus the recommendation. 

[RachelG]

Currently, if I go on a cruise, I would have to be on quarantine for 14 days after returning.  That rule was imposed by the health system which I work for when this whole thing started.  So no cruises or traveling anywhere till that is lifted.  With the new no cruise rule above, I really wish Regent would just go ahead and cancel sooner rather than later.  Of course, I understand they probably want to hold out as long as possible to help their cash flow.

[Belfast Taxman]

12 minutes ago, Belfast Taxman said:

But it also appears to say that ships currently in US coastal waters cannot leave, or have I misunderstood?

i believe that Splendor, Mariner and Navigator are currently in US coastal waters

Sorry but Mariner is currently about half way between Hawaii and the West Coast 

[mrstanley]

The Mariner had these cruises scheduled:

April 8:  Abu Dhabi to Rome

 

April 29: ROME to Miami 

 

May 17: Miami to San Francisco 

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, Gray Eagle02 said:

You have repeatedly and consistently misrepresented the recommendations on wearing masks. The CDC and WHO have never believed that masks ( except N95 masks) prevent the wearer from acquiring a respiratory spread disease. They have always advocated that those who wear surgical masks protect those that don’t wear the mask. The current recommendation is based on the fact that 20-50% of the population may be asymptomatic carriers. Thus the recommendation. 

 

Yes - I have consistently said that we should wear masks.  I have NEVER said how effective they are (or are not).  When the shortage of masks began, it seemed strange that health care workers needed them supposedly to protect patients from getting any illness from them.  This never made sense to me and appeared (and still appears) to be a reaction by the CDC, etc. to not having enough masks.  As soon a masks became available, they changed their tune.  Now, even the federal government is recommending masks (in addition to the CDC).  

 

As an aside, we always have N95 masks and medical grade wipes so we did not need to buy them for the pandemic. While I am not wearing the N95 masks, I do wear a mask to keep myself from touching my face and 3M glasses to protect my eyes.  

 

 

[SusieQft]

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

When the shortage of masks began, it seemed strange that health care workers needed them supposedly to protect patients from getting any illness from them.  This never made sense to me and appeared (and still appears) to be a reaction by the CDC, etc. to not having enough masks.

I totally agree with you that the reason the CDC told the general public not to wear masks was motivated by protecting the supply for the use of health care workers, and they should have said so instead of saying they did not work.

 

However, until the current pandemic, masks have been primarily used by health care workers to protect patients from any pathogens that may be spread from the health care worker to the patient.  They are used in surgery to keep the air in the OR as clean as possible.  They are used when entering an isolation room, which in normal circumstances is much more often isolation to protect a patient with a compromised immune system from receiving exposure to any pathogens.

 

With the current situation, masks will surely offer some protection for the wearer, but also a wearer who may have the virus (either symptomatic  or asymptomatic) will provide some protection of others by wearing a mask.  Both factors are in play.

 

I agree that the CDC was disingenuous in the rationale for their initial request for the public not to wear masks, but the idea that the mask is worn to protect others is a valid one.

[greykitty]

I wear a homemade mask to help protect others - not to protect myself. 

 

And medical professionals needed all the N-95 and other medical grade masks we had, IMO.  Not me, even with some risk factors.

[Gray Eagle02]

Very interesting discussion about what the new 100 day ban means for the cruise industry. Hard to believe all this will be accomplished by Aug.

[BBWC]

 Very interesting indeed. So it sounds almost like they need two spare ships, one hospital and one for quarantine, in case some people have to be moved. Also, looks like it would take a significant upgrade of onboard medical facilities (isolation wards, respirators).

[mrlevin]

18 minutes ago, BBWC said:

 Very interesting indeed. So it sounds almost like they need two spare ships, one hospital and one for quarantine, in case some people have to be moved. Also, looks like it would take a significant upgrade of onboard medical facilities (isolation wards, respirators).

 

This works for Caribbean, Alaska, and Mexican Riviera; I think it could also work for Med.  For those that are more for unique cruises they may be out of luck.

[pappy1022]

I learned a long time ago that when the going gets tough what matters is what is written in the contract not what may have been in the past or what a handshake may have agreed to. The contract is what counts in a disagreement. Not saying that Regent would turn on their customers and act any differently then they have done before. If times get very difficult there is always the possibility that they will fall back to the written contract. That’s why it is so important to depend on what’s in writing vs a verbal or historical action. 

[Travelcat2]

SusieQft - In my opinion, one of the main reasons for the masks are for those that are infected and are not yet showing systems. Since no one knows if they have it (until symptoms appear), it is best for everyone to wear one.  I have a box of N95 masks in front of me and it is clear on the packaging that it will not prevent "you" from becoming infected.  

 

pappy1022, Agree that the contracts are very important.  However, what a cruise line has done in the past, IMHO, is important as well.

[pappy1022]

It is important only in that it shows some compassion and doing what's right for the circumstances. Ive been there with vendors that are customer focussed and do the right thing. Ive also been there with the same vendor that when times get tough they fall back to what is in the written contract. That is all I am saying. What's in writing is what is important and what you can depend on. Historical actions do not necesarily equate to what a company will do in the future especially when things get desperate. Unfortunately I have been burned enough to only depend on the written word. Of course, then lawyers get involved and interpret the written contract differently.