Florida Looking to Push Back Against CDC

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Crazy For Cats said:

If other countries require a covid vaccination to enter and they are on an itinerary doesn’t any decision by the CDC become mute?  Then proof of vaccination becomes required much like any other immunization requirements to board ship.

Yes, that does make sense.

[nocl]

5 hours ago, MTAK said:

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.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.

[MTAK]

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.

[nocl]

13 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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.

Easy enough for the cruise lines to find out.  Actually try submitting a proposal.  One that is not accompanied with a request to drop the CSO after reading.

Edited April 19, 2021 by nocl

[MTAK]

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? 

[nocl]

6 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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? 

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.

 

The CSO can be modified at any time, depending upon what the CDC feels is necessary.  That is why I included the submit a proposal and see the reaction.  If they feel the proposal is valid then you would probably see a modification of the CSO.  No engagement by the cruise lines - less likely it will be modified because most requirements are pretty general.

 

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.

Edited April 19, 2021 by nocl

[MTAK]

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.  

 

 

[nocl]

53 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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.  

 

 

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.

Edited April 19, 2021 by nocl

[grest]

no vaccine mandate, no HAL for us

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, MTAK said:

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.

What nocl is suggesting is correct.  NCL, in addition to saying that they will require a fully vaccinated ship, need to submit a plan that spells out, in detail, how they are going to accomplish this, and enforce this, along with addressing any concerns that the CDC has already published regarding transmission by vaccinated persons (addressing this is necessary, in detail, even if the possibility is low), what happens if a variant is found onboard that is vaccine resistant, how will the ship handle treatment, isolation, contact tracing, quarantine, etc, again in detail.  The covid mitigation plan needs to be as detailed as the VSP, since both address mitigation methods for infectious diseases.  I also agree, and have stated before, that much of the covid CSO provisions will likely be integrated into the VSP, even on a contingency basis.  The stage for this was set when the CSO was introduced that stated there had been an RFI (request for information) has been obtained (September), and also that the CDC feels that the "good cause" clause removes the need for delay.

 

So, no, NCL is not beating their head against a wall, they haven't even approached the wall.  What they have submitted are recommendations and outlines, not detailed remediation and action plans.  No cruise line has come forward with these yet, and there was never any excuse for them not to have at least formulated draft versions a year ago, when the requirements of the NSO were published as being "required for the continual obtaining of free pratique".

Edited April 19, 2021 by chengkp75

[MTAK]

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?

[chengkp75]

36 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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?

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.

[MTAK]

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.

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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.

Especially given all the hoopla and finger pointing NCL is doing, they should show that they have done something positive, rather than just making promises.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, MTAK said:

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?

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

[MTAK]

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.

[nocl]

6 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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

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.

[MTAK]

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.

[harkinmr]

32 minutes ago, MTAK said:

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.

The CDC has responded.  See the quote below (apologies for the print size).  They are not likely to make a public response to NCL along the lines of "thanks, but no thanks", but Del Rio was at the White House CDC meeting with execs on April 12th, so he already knows the deal.  The CSO is not going away.  It's disingenuous for him to come out a few days thereafter to demand a response to his letter knowing what he does.  But it's all posturing...I guess they feel they have to do it.  

 

The CDC issued the following statement to Cruise Week this morning: "Experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and White House staff met with cruise industry leaders and executives to discuss the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order (CSO) on Monday, April 12, 2021. Cruise industry leaders were able to provide input into the phases of the CSO, expressed frustration with the requirements, discussed the incorporation of vaccination requirements into restarting passenger voyages, and expressed the need to establish a working group with industry and CDC to work forward to resume cruising as soon as possible. Cruising will always pose some risk of COVID-19 transmission, and COVID-19 vaccines will play a critical role in the safe resumption of passenger operations. Cruise travelers represent a global population, and as more people are fully vaccinated worldwide, the phased approach of the CSO also allows CDC to incorporate these advancements into planning for the safe resumption of cruise ship travel. CDC is committed to working with the cruise industry and seaport partners to resume cruising following a phased approach required by the CSO. 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. This goal aligns with the desire for the resumption of passenger operations in the United States by mid-summer, expressed by many major cruise ship operators and travelers."

[MTAK]

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.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, MTAK said:

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.

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.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, MTAK said:

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.

I have not seen the CDC reply.  But a response and a meeting would certainly be in line with what I would expect the response to be.  Just because there is a meeting does not mean that NCL will evade many of the requirements and certainly not the oversight requirements.

 

Yes there is a path, but that path will provide far more detailed plan and putting their port agreements in place.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, MTAK said:

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.

Actually in reading the response it appears to be more of a general response based upon the White House meeting, not a response focused on the NCL proposal.  More of we had a meeting (which you were at being unsaid) and are committed to working with industry leaders starting this week.  

[ontheweb]

37 minutes ago, nocl said:

I have not seen the CDC reply.  But a response and a meeting would certainly be in line with what I would expect the response to be.  Just because there is a meeting does not mean that NCL will evade many of the requirements and certainly not the oversight requirements.

 

Yes there is a path, but that path will provide far more detailed plan and putting their port agreements in place.

Reading between the lines, I see a real conflict with what those on these boards want the CDC to do and what the cruise lines want them to do.

 

I keep reading here (not from you) that the CDC has refused to give detailed instructions. I get the impression that the cruise lines don't want real detailed instructions. (Does any regulated industry really want to be dictated to that way?) The cruise lines want to say here's what we want to do in general, and please just drop the whole need for a detailed report. They not only do not want to have detailed requirements thrust upon them, but also do not want to make detailed proposals that they would be forced to adhere to.

[Gracie115]

13 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

 (Does any regulated industry really want to be dictated to that way?) The cruise lines want to say here's what we want to do in general, and please just drop the whole need for a detailed report. They not only do not want to have detailed requirements thrust upon them, but also do not want to make detailed proposals that they would be forced to adhere to.

I think that you may be at least partially right.  No other industry is being forced to adhere to guidelines like these.  I think the cruiselines believe that if they have a vaccinated crew and vaccinated passengers that should eliminate, some, many of the requirements from the CDC.  The CDC doesn't seem to want to really change the orders they listed back in October...before there was a vaccine.  Hopefully getting nudged by letters and meetings will result in something positive for this industry.