vaccine required?

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, beg3yrs said:

I for one think the 12 hour separation between embarking and disembarking passengers is unreasonable as it isn't based on the science we now understand and have understood for quite a while now. Surface contact is not a primary means of transmission and even if it was, a quick spray down with anti-viral cleaners would take care of that. Air transmission is the primary vector and the airlines have shown this is reasonably simple to control.

I also wonder about the reasoning behind that requirement. Nothing similar is required for airplanes and airports.

[Daniel A]

34 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I also wonder about the reasoning behind that requirement. Nothing similar is required for airplanes and airports.

The origins of the initial epidemic in New Rochelle came from air travelers from Europe, but no regulations from HHS there.

[D C]

3 hours ago, beg3yrs said:

I for one think the 12 hour separation between embarking and disembarking passengers is unreasonable as it isn't based on the science we now understand and have understood for quite a while now. Surface contact is not a primary means of transmission and even if it was, a quick spray down with anti-viral cleaners would take care of that. Air transmission is the primary vector and the airlines have shown this is reasonably simple to control.

The 12-hour rule is not consistent with ANYTHING that we know today about the virus. It makes no sense whatsoever, and even less sense if we're talking about only vaccinated people using the space.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

The origins of the initial epidemic in New Rochelle came from air travelers from Europe, but no regulations from HHS there.

That sounds like more of an argument for stopping air travel than it does for opening up cruise travel.

[Daniel A]

27 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

That sounds like more of an argument for stopping air travel than it does for opening up cruise travel.

Neither, it underscores the bias the government has against the cruise industry.  It lends credence to the concept of the framework conditions being arbitrary and capricious.  You're right, why is a cruise terminal or gangway more dangerous than an airport terminal and gangway especially considering the co mingling of disembarking passengers  with passengers waiting to embark?

 

If it's reasonable to allow it in air terminals then it is reasonable in cruise terminals.  Therefore the ban on cruise terminal operations is itself 'unreasonable.'

Edited April 9, 2021 by Daniel A

[Steelers36]

8 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Neither, it underscores the bias the government has against the cruise industry.  It lends credence to the concept of the framework conditions being arbitrary and capricious.  You're right, why is a cruise terminal or gangway more dangerous than an airport terminal and gangway especially considering the co mingling of disembarking passengers  with passengers waiting to embark?

 

If it's reasonable to allow it in air terminals then it is reasonable in cruise terminals.  Therefore the ban on cruise terminal operations is itself 'unreasonable.'

I agree with you, but someone on the other side of the fence who is uber-concerned about Covid-19 might say the cruise order makes sense and it ought to be applied to airplane gangways. 

But since they have deemed airports safe with whatever protocols they have in place, this seems to be about the most ridiculous thing CDC has suggested.

 

[Daniel A]

9 minutes ago, Steelers36 said:

I agree with you, but someone on the other side of the fence who is uber-concerned about Covid-19 might say the cruise order makes sense and it ought to be applied to airplane gangways. 

But since they have deemed airports safe with whatever protocols they have in place, this seems to be about the most ridiculous thing CDC has suggested.

No, it's not really ridiculous, it's arbitrary and capricious just like the Florida law filing stated.

[Steelers36]

9 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

No, it's not really ridiculous, it's arbitrary and capricious just like the Florida law filing stated.

Well of course one would use more proper wording in a legal filing.  😉

 

[nocl]

5 hours ago, beg3yrs said:

I for one think the 12 hour separation between embarking and disembarking passengers is unreasonable as it isn't based on the science we now understand and have understood for quite a while now. Surface contact is not a primary means of transmission and even if it was, a quick spray down with anti-viral cleaners would take care of that. Air transmission is the primary vector and the airlines have shown this is reasonably simple to control.

So anything else? After all the Carnival CEO found it to be very disappointing.

[Daniel A]

35 minutes ago, nocl said:

So anything else? After all the Carnival CEO found it to be very disappointing.

I wonder if Carnival wanted to see some type of exemptions for fully vaccinated cruises.  Then Carnival wouldn't be alienating its younger demographic because they could point the finger at the big, bad feds.  JMHO.

[harkinmr]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

The origins of the initial epidemic in New Rochelle came from air travelers from Europe, but no regulations from HHS there.

That is not true.  Flights from Europe were restricted for some time.  And, at least since January of this year, anyone coming into the US on an international flight must have a negative PCR test.

[Daniel A]

38 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

That is not true.  Flights from Europe were restricted for some time.  And, at least since January of this year, anyone coming into the US on an international flight must have a negative PCR test.

According to the CDC:

 

"To limit SARS-CoV-2 introduction, the United States restricted travel from China on February 2 and from Europe on March 13, 2020. By March 15, community transmission was widespread in New York City (NYC). . . .The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducted sentinel surveillance of influenza-like symptoms (ILS) and genetic sequencing to characterize community transmission and determine the geographic origin of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among 544 specimens tested from persons with ILS and negative influenza test results, 36 (6.6%) were positive. Genetically sequenced positive specimens most closely resembled sequences circulating in Europe."

 

Detection and Genetic Characterization of Community-Based SARS-CoV-2 Infections — New York City, March 2020 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

 

If merely a negative PCR test is all that's required for people coming from another continent with hot spots and shutdowns, why isn't negative PCR tests good enough for cruise passengers?

 

See also 2020 news article: "Epidemiologists contend the U.S. outbreak was driven overwhelmingly by viral strains from Europe rather than China. More than 1.8 million travelers entered the United States from Europe in February alone as that continent became the center of the pandemic. Infections reached critical mass in New York and other cities well before the White House took action, according to studies mapping the virus’s spread."

 

Trump's Europe travel ban caused chaos, surge of infected passengers - The Washington Post

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I wonder if Carnival wanted to see some type of exemptions for fully vaccinated cruises.  Then Carnival wouldn't be alienating its younger demographic because they could point the finger at the big, bad feds.  JMHO.

At least the CEO said afterwards that they were in discussions with the CDC concerning the guidance.

[harkinmr]

51 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

According to the CDC:

 

"To limit SARS-CoV-2 introduction, the United States restricted travel from China on February 2 and from Europe on March 13, 2020. By March 15, community transmission was widespread in New York City (NYC). . . .The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducted sentinel surveillance of influenza-like symptoms (ILS) and genetic sequencing to characterize community transmission and determine the geographic origin of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among 544 specimens tested from persons with ILS and negative influenza test results, 36 (6.6%) were positive. Genetically sequenced positive specimens most closely resembled sequences circulating in Europe."

 

Detection and Genetic Characterization of Community-Based SARS-CoV-2 Infections — New York City, March 2020 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

 

If merely a negative PCR test is all that's required for people coming from another continent with hot spots and shutdowns, why isn't negative PCR tests good enough for cruise passengers?

 

See also 2020 news article: "Epidemiologists contend the U.S. outbreak was driven overwhelmingly by viral strains from Europe rather than China. More than 1.8 million travelers entered the United States from Europe in February alone as that continent became the center of the pandemic. Infections reached critical mass in New York and other cities well before the White House took action, according to studies mapping the virus’s spread."

 

Trump's Europe travel ban caused chaos, surge of infected passengers - The Washington Post

 

I responded directly to your comment that HHS had taken no action with respect to European travel.  Which was absolutely untrue and now proven by the quote(s) you provided.  But nice try at switching  gears.  Why don't you take it up with the prior administration if you are unhappy with the way the European travel ban went.  Certainly, it did not go well given the chaos as I remember.  Right now, thanks to the current administration, anyone returning to the US must at least be tested.  Honestly, I believe that there should have been a ban on international travel for all US citizens to this date.  PCR tests were the alternative.  Has nothing to do with the cruise lines, and, according to the CDC phased CSO, PCR testing will be required.  But not vaccines.  That is on the cruise lines.  So your point is what?

[Daniel A]

16 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

I responded directly to your comment that HHS had taken no action with respect to European travel.  Which was absolutely untrue and now proven by the quote(s) you provided.  But nice try at switching  gears.  Why don't you take it up with the prior administration if you are unhappy with the way the European travel ban went.  Certainly, it did not go well given the chaos as I remember.  Right now, thanks to the current administration, anyone returning to the US must at least be tested.  Honestly, I believe that there should have been a ban on international travel for all US citizens to this date.  PCR tests were the alternative.  Has nothing to do with the cruise lines, and, according to the CDC phased CSO, PCR testing will be required.  But not vaccines.  That is on the cruise lines.  So your point is what?

Well, it seems to me that it was air travel and not the cruise industry that started the pandemic in the US, but they are getting preferential treatment from the government over the cruise line industry.  You're correct, I should not have had such a broad statement that they didn't do anything, they started testing the people coming from Europe and then there was a total ban for a while which has since been lifted while the total ban on the cruise industry stays locked in place since March 14.

 

Don't you see any different treatment given that air travel spread the Covid-19 much more than cruise travel did?

[nocl]

7 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I also wonder about the reasoning behind that requirement. Nothing similar is required for airplanes and airports.

If you look at the context where the requirement is written the intent is quite clear the focus is to make sure that disembarking and embarking travelers do not come into contact and do not intermix.

 

While the time frame may be long.  How many times have you seen passengers for the next cruise showing up at the terminal early on departure day because that is when their flight came in.  I know I have gotten off of cruises at 8 or 9am (7 to 8 hours before cruise departure) and seen people already waiting for the terminal to open for check in. The 12 hour requirement makes it pretty certain, but still not an absolute certainty) that you will not have boarding passengers around the terminal until after all of the departing passengers have left. 

 

That seems to be the intent of the requirement to provide a cushion such that arriving and departing passengers do not come into contact.  Depending upon the port it can probably be handled in different ways.  In some ports, not that easily done.

 

The agreement must specify procedures:

• to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,
• to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and
• to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period.

[nocl]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

Well, it seems to me that it was air travel and not the cruise industry that started the pandemic in the US, but they are getting preferential treatment from the government over the cruise line industry.  You're correct, I should not have had such a broad statement that they didn't do anything, they started testing the people coming from Europe and then there was a total ban for a while which has since been lifted while the total ban on the cruise industry stays locked in place since March 14.

 

Don't you see any different treatment given that air travel spread the Covid-19 much more than cruise travel did?

There were discussions, reported by news articles around that time.  In the early days there was not good tests.  Thus the bans.  However, the bans seemed to be more aimed at punishing countries by the last administration then truly an infection prevention measure.  When tests became available the past administration message was that there was too much testing so unlikely the CDC could put a test requirement in place.  Note that after the election the international flight test requirement was put into place.  You also saw the mask requirement made into a mandated activity, instead of being an airline directed requirement.

 

I expect that if the administration had been different there would have been additional actions taken at various times concerning both international and interstate domestic travel.

[harkinmr]

10 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Well, it seems to me that it was air travel and not the cruise industry that started the pandemic in the US, but they are getting preferential treatment from the government over the cruise line industry.  You're correct, I should not have had such a broad statement that they didn't do anything, they started testing the people coming from Europe and then there was a total ban for a while which has since been lifted while the total ban on the cruise industry stays locked in place since March 14.

 

Don't you see any different treatment given that air travel spread the Covid-19 much more than cruise travel did?

I acknowledge that air travel has been handled differently, but that is for a number of different reasons.  The primary one is the "essential" nature of air travel for commerce.  In my opinion, no one should have been allowed free travel by air for non-essential purposes.  My husband is a pilot and traveled by commercial air regularly.  It was/is always a risk for him to travel, but obviously essential for him and his company.  Somebody going to Disney World, not so much.  But unfortunately, there are other government forces at play with air travel, not just the CDC.  The FAA plays a much larger role than the CDC.  

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

I agree with you, but someone on the other side of the fence who is uber-concerned about Covid-19 might say the cruise order makes sense and it ought to be applied to airplane gangways. 

But since they have deemed airports safe with whatever protocols they have in place, this seems to be about the most ridiculous thing CDC has suggested.

 

I agree with both your points. That Covid was brought in on airplanes is a better argument for banning  (at least) international air travel than allowing cruises. And the 12 hour turnaround to me at least seems the least scientifically backed requirement that they have promulgated.

[NSWP]

On 3/15/2021 at 10:31 AM, Potstech said:

How can anybody accurately determine if ALL crew members have been vaccinated?  There is no way any passenger can guarantee that.  All they can go by is what the cruise line says. 

Exactly, the cruise lines might lead us to believe all crew have been vaccinated, but we will never know for sure.

Edited April 10, 2021 by NSWP

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

If you look at the context where the requirement is written the intent is quite clear the focus is to make sure that disembarking and embarking travelers do not come into contact and do not intermix.

 

While the time frame may be long.  How many times have you seen passengers for the next cruise showing up at the terminal early on departure day because that is when their flight came in.  I know I have gotten off of cruises at 8 or 9am (7 to 8 hours before cruise departure) and seen people already waiting for the terminal to open for check in. The 12 hour requirement makes it pretty certain, but still not an absolute certainty) that you will not have boarding passengers around the terminal until after all of the departing passengers have left. 

 

That seems to be the intent of the requirement to provide a cushion such that arriving and departing passengers do not come into contact.  Depending upon the port it can probably be handled in different ways.  In some ports, not that easily done.

 

The agreement must specify procedures:

• to avoid congregating of embarking and disembarking travelers,
• to ensure disembarking and embarking passengers do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period, and
• to ensure disembarking and embarking travelers from different ships do not occupy the same enclosed or semi-enclosed areas (e.g., gangways, terminal waiting spaces, check-in areas) within the same 12-hour period.

The reason people get there early, at least for European cruises, is that their flights from the USA arrive early in the morning. (It's also a problem when coming for land travel or a day early for a cruise for the US traveler as their hotel room is generally not ready until well into the afternoon.)

[nocl]

1 minute ago, ontheweb said:

The reason people get there early, at least for European cruises, is that their flights from the USA arrive early in the morning. (It's also a problem when coming for land travel or a day early for a cruise for the US traveler as their hotel room is generally not ready until well into the afternoon.)

I have also seen it in US ports, South American Ports and Asian Ports.

 

However, the discussion was not so much passenger behavior but the reason for the 12 hour cushion.

[ontheweb]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

I have also seen it in US ports, South American Ports and Asian Ports.

 

However, the discussion was not so much passenger behavior but the reason for the 12 hour cushion.

 They are not doing a 12 hour turnaround at airports. There must be mingling at terminals of arriving and departing passengers. My point was that even with the much shorter pre-Covid turnaround times there was a real reason people were early. With that proposed new turnaround time, it will be even more inconvenient for incoming passengers. 

[Redwing55]

10 hours ago, beg3yrs said:

I for one think the 12 hour separation between embarking and disembarking passengers is unreasonable as it isn't based on the science we now understand and have understood for quite a while now. Surface contact is not a primary means of transmission and even if it was, a quick spray down with anti-viral cleaners would take care of that. Air transmission is the primary vector and the airlines have shown this is reasonably simple to control.

No kidding.  And I don't know of a hotel or resort practicing this.  We own a place that we rent and at first the managers put 24 hours in between change of occupancy.  Now it's been more than 6 months and they've dropped that turnover time altogether.  Why the need on a cruise ship?

[Redwing55]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

No, it's not really ridiculous, it's arbitrary and capricious just like the Florida law filing stated.

Agreed.  A rational judge would rule on that issue pretty quickly.  Quite frankly, I don't know why there haven't been more suits on these things.. not just cruises.  So many of the restrictions have indeed been arbitrary.  I understand the lack of a basis when multiple "groups" are subject to the same directives, but when one group only has to do "A" and another has to do "B" there has to be a basis for it.