Florida Looking to Push Back Against CDC

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Gracie115 said:

No other industry is being forced to adhere to guidelines like these.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me, given how many here on CC feel that their "rights" as US citizens extend onto the cruise ships, but it does amaze me that folks don't understand the difference between a corporation operating within a state (say Disney World), and a foreign entity wishing to enter the US (a foreign flag vessel, that has visited foreign countries), and wants to get a clean bill of health without any oversight.

[Gracie115]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

I guess it shouldn't surprise me, given how many here on CC feel that their "rights" as US citizens extend onto the cruise ships, but it does amaze me that folks don't understand the difference between a corporation operating within a state (say Disney World), and a foreign entity wishing to enter the US (a foreign flag vessel, that has visited foreign countries), and wants to get a clean bill of health without any oversight.

Ok, I'd buy that....however what about those airlines flying people all over the world RIGHT NOW who are bringing people into the USA with no oversight....

 

While these are foreign entities I don't think any of them expect NO oversight....just some modifications to the original CDC order now that vaccines are very much part of the equation.  

[Ken the cruiser]

Looks like the Public Health Emergency in the US has been extended for another 90 days which definitely doesn’t help the cruise lines in their efforts to begin sailing out of US ports anytime before then. Never realized if this order had expired that the CSO would have been eliminated until I read this article today. 
 

https://www.cruisehive.com/another-setback-for-resuming-cruises-in-the-u-s/49874

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[chengkp75]

17 minutes ago, Gracie115 said:

Ok, I'd buy that....however what about those airlines flying people all over the world RIGHT NOW who are bringing people into the USA with no oversight....

How about the requirement for a negative test, and the requirement for mask wearing.  That's not oversight?  And, while the oversight requirements are different, so are the industries.  Airlines are transportation providers, cruise lines provide what the CDC calls "close residential" living.

 

As for "not expecting ANY oversight", that is just what NCL is asking for.  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.

[MTAK]

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

[Gracie115]

22 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

How about the requirement for a negative test, and the requirement for mask wearing.  That's not oversight?  And, while the oversight requirements are different, so are the industries.  Airlines are transportation providers, cruise lines provide what the CDC calls "close residential" living.

 

As for "not expecting ANY oversight", that is just what NCL is asking for.  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.

 

Real world studies on the effectiveness, reduction in transmission, reduction in symptoms will literally take years.  It's just that kind of thinking that I believe will keep any cruises from occurring that touch USA ports for at least another year. I believe you may be right that CDC is still studying the issue...which is just more reason to believe cruising at USA ports aren't even close to happening.

 

Trust me, I want to cruise again, but not going to set my hopes or my dollars on wishes that have no real chance of happening here in the USA.  I've booked a few 2022 cruises that don't touch the USA.....hope that I can link them to ones that come home but if not, a couple of long distance flights with masks will be in my future too.

[HappyInVan]

“Following spring break, Florida’s COVID variant cases explode”

 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronavirus/os-ne-covid-florida-variant-cases-explode-after-spring-break-20210416-fxlc2pir2fbabc5c66dckh2lb4-story.html

 

Perhaps, all this 'push back' talk is just academic?

[MTAK]

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. 

[Heartgrove]

4 hours ago, Gracie115 said:

Ok, I'd buy that....however what about those airlines flying people all over the world RIGHT NOW who are bringing people into the USA with no oversight.... 

 

Wrong! There are entry requirements for ALL persons entering the USA. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html

Edited April 20, 2021 by Heartgrove

[Gracie115]

41 minutes ago, Heartgrove said:

 

Wrong! There are entry requirements for ALL persons entering the USA. 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html

 

okay with "some" oversight.....

[Horizon chaser 1957]

On 4/18/2021 at 11:43 AM, 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.

I think you’ve put your finger on everyone's ‘out’. If a cruise visits a country where vaccines are mandatory, then they are mandatory for that specific cruise. Just like Yellow Fever. And thanks to the PVSA, all the big cruise lines have to stop in at least one foreign port. The cruise lines and governments can get their fully vaccinated sailings without ever having to take the blame from those opposed.

[Heartgrove]

22 minutes ago, Gracie115 said:

 

okay with "some" oversight.....

 

Why the attitude?

[AncientWanderer]

There's the CDC and then there's the State Department.  Apparently they don't really think we should go anywhere.  

Okay...off to stock up at BevMo and buy more pool toys for the summer.

😭

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9488745/US-State-Department-issue-Level-4-Not-Travel-advisory-80-countries.html

[nocl]

5 hours ago, MTAK said:

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

The data does seem to be good but there is a limitation with the data.  To really get an idea you need to compare the cases in the vaccinated population to the cases in the unvaccinated population during the same time frame.  Otherwise the data would be very good if cases in general are high, not so good if cases in general is low.

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, nocl said:

The data does seem to be good but there is a limitation with the data.  To really get an idea you need to compare the cases in the vaccinated population to the cases in the unvaccinated population during the same time frame.  Otherwise the data would be very good if cases in general are high, not so good if cases in general is low.

I understand what you are saying, but how do you accomplish that? It's not like clinical trials where you double blind and one group gets a placebo allowing you to compare.

 

As well as time, wouldn't the same place be important? A comparison between say Haiti and the USA for instance would not make sense as a way to see if an unvaccinated population does worse than a much more vaccinated population.

[nocl]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I understand what you are saying, but how do you accomplish that? It's not like clinical trials where you double blind and one group gets a placebo allowing you to compare.

 

As well as time, wouldn't the same place be important? A comparison between say Haiti and the USA for instance would not make sense as a way to see if an unvaccinated population does worse than a much more vaccinated population.

There are times when pharmaceutical companies do this when a placebo controlled trial is not possible.  Basically you monitor the background disease incidence in the general population. 

 

In this case we do get the number of new Covid cases by state or country by day/week.  So we do know the disease incidence rate in a period of time.  We also know the size of the population of the country/state.  The number of vaccinated by state is also reported.  

 

While they are reporting total number of cases in vaccinated population to date, it is not easy to find the number of new cases over a specific timeframe.  That is the one piece that if it was published if that was published we could then calculate the reduction in illness in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population.

 

Doing some estimates on time frame and ramp up, I came up that the background incidence rate in the US is around 1743 per million in the unvaccinated population compared to the 75 per million in the vaccinated population.  This works out to a reduction of  approximately 96%.  

 

The timeframes were estimates, so the number is just an estimate, but in the ball park to what we would expected based on clinical trial results and the Israeli data with Pfizer and Moderna.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by nocl

[Hlitner]

NOCL,  Your data is in the ballpark of my own calculations (this has become a personal obsession).  I also like a generalized figure (tossed around by several sources) that the incidence of COVID in fully vaccinated folks is about 1 case in 10,000.  Because of some of the data problems with timing (that you have referenced) I suspect that figure is probably closer to 1 in 15,000 but even sticking with the 1:10,000 it sure makes a strong case for vaccination.  It also means that the push to get fully vaccinated folks to wear masks is ridiculous other then as a "statement."  Just the other day Dr. Fauci, when asked about mask wearing for vaccinated folks, said his concern was the asymptomatic spread by that vaccinated population.  But considering the 1:10.000 stat and the fact that some of those cases are symptomatic (generally mild cases) Dr. Fauci's latest mask wearing dictate fails any logic test.  One TV show had some fun using the term :  Dr. Fauci's Permanent Pandemic,"   Not sure that is fair, but if you carry his logic forward it means that mask wearing would need to permanent for everyone since COVID will surely not be completely eliminated.

 

So, I imagine we can expect the CDC to eventually push the idea that cruisers should wear masks in public spaces, forever!    And that assumes that the CDC will ever permit cruising since it can never achieve the zero risk that seems to be their goal.

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

23 minutes ago, nocl said:

There are times when pharmaceutical companies do this when a placebo controlled trial is not possible.  Basically you monitor the background disease incidence in the general population. 

 

In this case we do get the number of new Covid cases by state or country by day/week.  So we do know the disease incidence rate in a period of time.  We also know the size of the population of the country/state.  The number of vaccinated by state is also reported.  

 

While they are reporting total number of cases in vaccinated population to date, it is not easy to find the number of new cases over a specific timeframe.  That is the one piece that if it was published if that was published we could then calculate the reduction in illness in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population.

 

Doing some estimates on time frame and ramp up, I came up that the background incidence rate in the US is around 1743 per million in the unvaccinated population compared to the 75 per million in the vaccinated population.  This works out to a reduction of  approximately 96%.  

 

The timeframes were estimates, so the number is just an estimate, but in the ball park to what we would expected based on clinical trial results and the Israeli data with Pfizer and Moderna.

 

 

So all the but 5800 (or whatever number, but that's the one I have see quoted) still got Covid after being fully vaccinated is one of those using statistics to lie examples.

 

I still remember a year of so ago when the one of the arguments seen was even if they get a vaccine, we'll be lucky if it is 50% effective was common. Now we get vaccine with efficacy of well over 90%, and people still complain because they are not perfect.

[nocl]

4 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

So all the but 5800 (or whatever number, but that's the one I have see quoted) still got Covid after being fully vaccinated is one of those using statistics to lie examples.

 

I still remember a year of so ago when the one of the arguments seen was even if they get a vaccine, we'll be lucky if it is 50% effective was common. Now we get vaccine with efficacy of well over 90%, and people still complain because they are not perfect.

Other than those that just want to find any reasons possible, there are also those that do not understand that even the best vaccines have limits. That in times of low incidence of illness, when there is low risk of encountering an ill individual no other protections beyond the vaccine is needed.  In times of high incidence the vaccines might be a necessary condition for protection, but not a sufficient condition.  That one should till continue to supplement the vaccine with other protection measures (making the vaccine your last line of defense) until the incidence rate drops.

[nocl]

20 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

NOCL,  Your data is in the ballpark of my own calculations (this has become a personal obsession).  I also like a generalized figure (tossed around by several sources) that the incidence of COVID in fully vaccinated folks is about 1 case in 10,000.  Because of some of the data problems with timing (that you have referenced) I suspect that figure is probably closer to 1 in 15,000 but even sticking with the 1:10,000 it sure makes a strong case for vaccination.  It also means that the push to get fully vaccinated folks to wear masks is ridiculous other then as a "statement."  Just the other day Dr. Fauci, when asked about mask wearing for vaccinated folks, said his concern was the asymptomatic spread by that vaccinated population.  But considering the 1:10.000 stat and the fact that some of those cases are symptomatic (generally mild cases) Dr. Fauci's latest mask wearing dictate fails any logic test.  One TV show had some fun using the term :  Dr. Fauci's Permanent Pandemic,"   Not sure that is fair, but if you carry his logic forward it means that mask wearing would need to permanent for everyone since COVID will surely not be completely eliminated.

 

So, I imagine we can expect the CDC to eventually push the idea that cruisers should wear masks in public spaces, forever!    And that assumes that the CDC will ever permit cruising since it can never achieve the zero risk that seems to be their goal.

 

Hank

I do not think forever.  I do think that masks should be worn in public with the current rates of infection. If in an environment where one is certain of the vaccination status of everyone around them, then not necessary.  Once the disease incidence rate gets low enough then the supplemental forms of protection would not be necessary.

 

Depending upon the nature of the spread occurring at the time and which variants are being spread I would expect that to be somewhere in the 20-30 cases per million per day range. We are currently running about 205 cases per million per day, but the recent uptick is rolling over and appears to be returning to a downward track again.  So if vaccinations continue and no new surprises on the variant front we should be hitting that point sometime around mid-July dealing with most domestic US. 

 

Still would expect masks to remain on airplanes after that point.  Also expect even more focus on International travel with the continuing restrictions including both vaccination requirements and/or testing being needed.

Edited April 20, 2021 by nocl

[Hlitner]

7 minutes ago, nocl said:

I do not think forever.  I do think that masks should be worn in public with the current rates of infection. If in an environment where one is certain of the vaccination status of everyone around them, then not necessary.  Once the disease incidence rate gets low enough then the supplemental forms of protection would not be necessary.

 

Depending upon the nature of the spread occurring at the time and which variants are being spread I would expect that to be somewhere in the 20-30 cases per million per day range. We are currently running about 205 cases per million per day, but the recent uptick is rolling over and appears to be returning to a downward track again.  So if vaccinations continue and no new surprises on the variant front we should be hitting that point sometime around mid-July dealing with most domestic US. 

 

Still would expect masks to remain on airplanes after that point.  Also expect even more focus on International travel with the continuing restrictions including both vaccination requirements and/or testing being needed.

My point is that the disease rate is already very low for those who are fully vaccinated.  Perhaps you saw my other post where I used a mythical city of 100,000 souls.  50,000 of those are likely vaccinated and another 25,000 to 35,000 have natural immunity.  So you are going to worry about 5 people out of 50,000 spreading COVID to the unvaccinated folks (most of whom will never get vaccinated).  Here in PA I heard a news report (yesterday) that a major poll estimated that 1/3 of our population is "vaccine resistant" and mostly will choose to avoid any vaccine.  This all goes to another prediction I made on CC about 1 months ago when I said that by the end of April the supply of vaccines in the USA will exceed the demand.   So we now are moving into the next phase (which was predicted) where we need to convince those resistant to being vaccinated that they should change their mind.  Good luck with that task as we tried all kinds of campaigns (over many years) to convince folks to get flu shots and never had good results.

 

Hank

[nocl]

Just now, Hlitner said:

My point is that the disease rate is already very low for those who are fully vaccinated.  Perhaps you saw my other post where I used a mythical city of 100,000 souls.  50,000 of those are likely vaccinated and another 25,000 to 35,000 have natural immunity.  So you are going to worry about 5 people out of 50,000 spreading COVID to the unvaccinated folks (most of whom will never get vaccinated).  Here in PA I heard a news report (yesterday) that a major poll estimated that 1/3 of our population is "vaccine resistant" and mostly will choose to avoid any vaccine.  This all goes to another prediction I made on CC about 1 months ago when I said that by the end of April the supply of vaccines in the USA will exceed the demand.   So we now are moving into the next phase (which was predicted) where we need to convince those resistant to being vaccinated that they should change their mind.  Good luck with that task as we tried all kinds of campaigns (over many years) to convince folks to get flu shots and never had good results.

 

Hank

When looking at this situation you look at incidence over the entire population. Not just a subgroup.

[kazu]

10 minutes ago, Wonderingabout said:

Ie Masks: its been over a year, where is the statistical evidence that they are effective?

 

Just take a look at China & Japan’s covid results and successes where mask wearing is prevalent.  Take a look at the flu cases this year in North America - way down compared to any other year and accredited to mask wearing and physical distancing.

 

Looking at any scientific report shows you how masks help and why they are so effective.  It’s really not rocket science and have been proven  to work - even during SARS and as far back as 1918.

[harkinmr]

5 minutes ago, Wonderingabout said:

So why not let them use their free will and suffer the consequences whatever they may be ie death, or permanent post covid effects.  That is their problem and not yours as long as you are vaccinated.  

The argument that the vaccine is no good unless everybody gets vaccinated can be made but does appear to be stretching logical reasoning to its limit.  It appears to be more a case of you must follow the leader, no questions asked or atleast no questions answered.  Ie Masks: its been over a year, where is the statistical evidence that they are effective?

 

I do like the final statement "Good Lord" as it does appear that we are approaching this pandemic like  religion in the 16th century.

I'm all for them using their free will and if they get sick or worse from COVID then fine.  What's not fine is them griping and complaining and demanding that everyone cater to their needs.  They have access to all of the information that's available which shows that vaccines are both safe and effective.  What more do they want or need? 

 

No one said that everyone needs to be vaccinated, but a sufficient percentage of the adult population does in order to achieve herd immunity.  So, they buck health protocols and now they're bucking the vaccine.  I'm beginning to think they don't really want things to be over, so they can continue to complain about it.  JMO.

 

Not even going to give your comment on mask efficacy the time of day.

[Wonderingabout]

38 minutes ago, kazu said:

 

Just take a look at China & Japan’s covid results and successes where mask wearing is prevalent.  Take a look at the flu cases this year in North America - way down compared to any other year and accredited to mask wearing and physical distancing.

 

Looking at any scientific report shows you how masks help and why they are so effective.  It’s really not rocket science and have been proven  to work - even during SARS and as far back as 1918.

So you have statistics?  Is it Social distancing or is it the Masks?