I'm beginning to think the CDC may very well lose the lawsuit that Florida initiated

[bigrednole]

Facts are facts and the CDC is going to have to have factual, quantifiable/verifiable facts to disprove the cruise lines. The main fact the cruise lines have is data from cruises for the last 9-ish months with a 0.02% infection rate. That is 250x lower than any land based rates over the same period. The CDC has no data or research to counter that. Then, they have no factual data to counter MIT's research that social distancing has no effect on infection rates. After that, they have no data to even argue their mask mandate when the "leaders" of the country do not follow them...and this is all the way up to POTUS. 

 

On top of all that, they have a Judge that is more in line with opening the country that shutting it down. The CDC is going to be very reclusive in this case because like any court case, anything said can and will be used against you. What they say on the stand can be used for criminal proceeding and SEC investigations later. There is no way the CDC legal team wants to put a doctor on the stand who works in ambiguity and guess work. That does not fly in a court case. It is facts, data, and verifiable information, not conjectures and maybes.

[cruisemom42]

6 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Why given all the CDC has said lately about the safety of those who are vaccinated, do all these nitpicking rules have to then be in place?

 

Not ALL cruise lines have declared that they will operate 100% (or close to it) vaccinated cruises. Thus, the CDC guidance is not based on full vaccination.

 

[ontheweb]

19 minutes ago, mom says said:

Has common sense become that uncommon?

- who swims laps in a ship pool? 4 strokes and its time to turn. If its that necessary, then swim early or late to minimize others in the pool

- if the pool is crowded, don't get in. 

- if someone else is doing laps, then you do yours on the other side of the pool. 

- if someone is swimming laps too close to you, and you were there first, ask them to distance themselves 

 

And finally, there may not be lifeguards, but there are pool attendants.  One would hope they will monitor and restrict both pool and hot tub capacity. 

You noted quite correctly that the pools are small. So how many can be in one at the same time on a very hot day and maintain the 6 foot distancing? Are the pool attendants going to tell people they must get out so others can swim? Or maybe you will need a reservation to get in the water.

 

None of this is practical in real life.

[ontheweb]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Not ALL cruise lines have declared that they will operate 100% (or close to it) vaccinated cruises. Thus, the CDC guidance is not based on full vaccination.

 

So why don't they respond to NCL and give them guidance on what can be done with 100% vaccination? Isn't that their function when the cruise line submits what it intends to do to meet requirement to sail from US waters?

 

And even without 100%, the 95/98 that the CDC has said it would allow should be close enough for there not to be so many nitpicking rules. 95/98 sounds safer than what you would probably run into your neighborhood.

[bigrednole]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Please read the REAL requirements. I cannot believe how the news is getting away with reporting these half snippets of information that are designed to inflame public sentiment.

 

Here is what is ACTUALLY in the CDC document:

 

"Ensure bathers wear masks while congregating outside of recreational water facilities (RWFs) and while seated on the pool deck area. Masks do not need to be worn in the water, e.g., in RWFs or while swimming in the ocean. A wet cloth mask can make it difficult to breathe and likely will not work correctly. This means it is particularly important for bathers to maintain social distancing of at least 6 feet (2 meters) when in the water with others who are not traveling companions or part of the same family."

 

Some people in other threads have had a laugh about the CDC feeling there was a need to include the fact that masks do not need to be worn in the water because they do not work in the water...  Now I can see why they included the wording!  😂

I am not questioning what the CDC claims. What I am question is how do they defend this "requirement" when science backed, factual research from MIT proves the CDC 100% wrong. The CDC has no research, data, proof, fact, any shred of detail or anything other than conjecture to argue MIT's factual research. What do you think they are going to say on the stand when questioned:

 

Uh, I don't know, MIT doesn't know what they are doing and we know because we say so. It will take 3-years for us to review what MIT did in about 2 months with all of their researchers and students that have IQs 2x our own. It will take another 10 years of us getting some level of an education to even comprehend the data they provided. 

 

I am sorry. Court cases are based on facts, research, and provable data. None of this the CDC has. 5% infection rate on land, 0.02% on cruise ships since August 2020. Social distancing is required, but MIT proved that wrong on an immense scale. You have to wear a mask, but we changed out mask policy 20x because we have no clue what we are saying. That is all bad news in a court case. The last thing a Legal Team wants on a witness stand is someone that cannot state fact and back it up with data. 

[navybankerteacher]

8 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

... Then, they have no factual data to counter MIT's research that social distancing has no effect on infection rates. ...

 

 

Granted that there is much to be clarified and verified,  but you undermine your entire stance with a statement like this.   

 

Please provide a link referring to MIT's determination that "social distancing has no effect on infection rates."

[bigrednole]

4 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Granted that there is much to be clarified and verified,  but you undermine your entire stance with a statement like this.   

 

Please provide a link referring to MIT's determination that "social distancing has no effect on infection rates."

Google is your friend just like anything else in the 21st century. I don't have to supply the information for your counter argument.

[navybankerteacher]

1 minute ago, bigrednole said:

Google is your friend just like anything else in the 21st century. I don't have to supply the information for your counter argument.

I can understand your reluctance to attempt the impossible.  

[Mary229]

I have been lurking.   here is an article re  MIT study 

 

https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2021/04/26/mit-study-social-distancing-reader-poll

[navybankerteacher]

6 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I have been lurking.   here is an article re  MIT study 

 

https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2021/04/26/mit-study-social-distancing-reader-poll

Yes - the study indicated that six feet distancing indoors is not sufficient — it did NOT say that that “social distancing has no effect on infection rates” — which is what the post I questioned claimed.

 

It is unfortunate that half-understood reports are grasped by those who seem to want to see no effort to control COVID if it might inconvenience them in the least,   The CDC never said that 6 feet distance indoors would make people safe - they urged that people not hang out indoors at all.  
 

And - “distancing” is NOT limited to six feet  and distancing of any sort -  especially greater distancing - surely does limit infection rates.

 

p.s. Keep an eye on Florida’s ongoing infection and mortality rates. The “proof of the pudding” as they say …

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

But the rules don't suggest that. Sounds like you fell for the hyperbole. 

I wasn’t just referring to the CDC piece. I was referring to the notion in general. The suggestion has been made from time to time in various states, and on these boards. Someone above even said that’s what they do in their state. 

[slidergirl]

51 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes - the study indicated that six feet distancing indoors is not sufficient — it did NOT say that that “social distancing has no effect on infection rates” — which is what the post I questioned claimed.

 

It is unfortunate that half-understood reports are grasped by those who seem to want to see no effort to control COVID if it might inconvenience them in the least,   The CDC never said that 6 feet distance indoors would make people safe - they urged that people not hang out indoors at all.  
 

And - “distancing” is NOT limited to six feet  and distancing of any sort -  especially greater distancing - surely does limit infection rates.

 

p.s. Keep an eye on Florida’s ongoing infection and mortality rates. The “proof of the pudding” as they say …

Problem is, DeSantis is prohibiting the actual rates to be made public...

[slidergirl]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

So why don't they respond to NCL and give them guidance on what can be done with 100% vaccination? Isn't that their function when the cruise line submits what it intends to do to meet requirement to sail from US waters?

 

And even without 100%, the 95/98 that the CDC has said it would allow should be close enough for there not to be so many nitpicking rules. 95/98 sounds safer than what you would probably run into your neighborhood.

They can't respond to NCL about the 100% vaccination rate because DeSantis enacted an EO which prohibits any business/entertainment entity, etc., to require vaccination or ask vaccination status.  So, until that little mess is cleaned up and tossed aside, no way for anyone to guarantee what percentage of their guests are vaccinated.  

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, bigrednole said:

I am not questioning what the CDC claims. What I am question is how do they defend this "requirement" when science backed, factual research from MIT proves the CDC 100% wrong. The CDC has no research, data, proof, fact, any shred of detail or anything other than conjecture to argue MIT's factual research. What do you think they are going to say on the stand when questioned:

 

Uh, I don't know, MIT doesn't know what they are doing and we know because we say so. It will take 3-years for us to review what MIT did in about 2 months with all of their researchers and students that have IQs 2x our own. It will take another 10 years of us getting some level of an education to even comprehend the data they provided. 

 

I am sorry. Court cases are based on facts, research, and provable data. None of this the CDC has. 5% infection rate on land, 0.02% on cruise ships since August 2020. Social distancing is required, but MIT proved that wrong on an immense scale. You have to wear a mask, but we changed out mask policy 20x because we have no clue what we are saying. That is all bad news in a court case. The last thing a Legal Team wants on a witness stand is someone that cannot state fact and back it up with data. 

All the CDC needs to say is that they have NEVER claimed one method is the absolute solution to preventing exposure, just as it is in hazardous materials response. Mask isn't the magical solution, neither is social distancing, neither is washing your hands. All 3 methods combined are very effective...every step reduces your risk, so that by using all 3, plus perhaps limiting "travel" (in the broad sense...no unessential public activities during the worse surges is also included), reduces the risk of getting Covid to a very low level. Particularly and specifically in rooms.

 

The MIT study actually says, due the aerosolized nature of Covid, the social distancing isn't enough. So you add the additional "layers" of behaviors to reduce risk.

 

Notice the MIT study came out 2 weeks ago. So, for the last 15 months, the CDC has been doing what they can, with the science they had. Courts ruling in 20-20 hindsight are not uncommon, and of course, that rarely comes out in the public, so people can go around crowing how smart they are, and how dumb the CDC is. Particularly people without any science background. 

[ilikeanswers]

4 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Sigh.  

 

From the same CDC document that Cruisemom42 and I used to find the mask at dining:

• Ensure bathers wear masks while congregating outside of recreational water facilities (RWFs) and while seated on the pool deck area. Masks do not need to be worn in the water, e.g., in RWFs or while swimming in the ocean. A wet cloth mask can make it difficult to breathe and likely will not work correctly. This means it is particularly important for bathers to maintain social distancing of at least 6 feet (2 meters) when in the water with others who are not traveling companions or part of the same family.

 

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

You noted quite correctly that the pools are small. So how many can be in one at the same time on a very hot day and maintain the 6 foot distancing? Are the pool attendants going to tell people they must get out so others can swim? Or maybe you will need a reservation to get in the water.

 

None of this is practical in real life.

 

Singapore cruises have been doing pretty much both these things and managed to run cruises throughout the pandemic😂. It really is not impossible, it is just a matter of attitude. 

[ilikeanswers]

Everyone keeps talking about 100% vaccinated cruises but this is supposed to be a self imposed rule by the cruise lines so they can break it any time they want and I think we have all experienced cruise lines being flexible with their own rules. Maybe that is why the regulations the CDC keep throwing up assume unvaccinated passengers because there is no way to control the cruise lines enforcement of their own rules 🤔? 

[slidergirl]

2 hours ago, Aquahound said:

I wasn’t just referring to the CDC piece. I was referring to the notion in general. The suggestion has been made from time to time in various states, and on these boards. Someone above even said that’s what they do in their state. 

If you were referring to me - you are incorrect.  Where I live, we enter with our masks on and leave them on until the food comes.  If it's in courses, we take off to eat, put it back when we're done and we talk to each other.  When the next course arrives, we repeat.  When finished with the meal, the masks are back on.  What is so hard to understand?

[Aquahound]

38 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

If you were referring to me - you are incorrect.  Where I live, we enter with our masks on and leave them on until the food comes.  If it's in courses, we take off to eat, put it back when we're done and we talk to each other.  When the next course arrives, we repeat.  When finished with the meal, the masks are back on.  What is so hard to understand?

What’s so hard to understand is that people actually believe putting a mask back on between courses makes any sort of difference. I guess COVID can only be transmitted between courses. 🙄

Edited May 10, 2021 by Aquahound

[2wheelin]

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

 

If there is a lap pool on the ships you cruise, then I assume they would have swim lanes marked and swimmers passing each other could just face opposite directions for the one moment of passing?

Kind of the same thing as passing each other in hallways. Except that most on here advocate for mask wearing in hallways where people are not breathing heavily like swimmers are. Hmmmm

Masks are thankfully being done away with in our state as people realize the lunacy of things like mask on/mask off and wearing a mask for a 10 second encounter. Mask and distancing NOT required outdoors in crowds smaller than 500 people, vaccinated or not. Most people have not been wearing them anyway and infection rates are very low. Capacity limits removed for indoor venues and masks will not be required by next month. Retailers may choose to require them but will see their business adversely affected compared to those who do not.

[chengkp75]

19 hours ago, ontheweb said:

But, now I note that they just lost a lawsuit by landlords opposing the not being able to force tenants to leave for non payment of rent.

I have always thought the eviction moratorium based on CDC worries over interstate travel by those evicted was an overreach, but a compassionate one.  The suit against the CDC over the cruise lines is totally different, in that the cruise lines are "international commerce" almost by definition, and hence the state has no standing, and the "control" over the industry deals with health clearance at the US border (quite obviously a federal jurisdiction), in the midst of a declared national health emergency.

[ontheweb]

17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I have always thought the eviction moratorium based on CDC worries over interstate travel by those evicted was an overreach, but a compassionate one.  The suit against the CDC over the cruise lines is totally different, in that the cruise lines are "international commerce" almost by definition, and hence the state has no standing, and the "control" over the industry deals with health clearance at the US border (quite obviously a federal jurisdiction), in the midst of a declared national health emergency.

Even knowing that the CDC had lost the case about evictions, until I started this thread I had stated several times that the lawsuits against the CDC related to cruises would fail because courts gave great deference to regulatory agencies. But, as I said in the post starting this thread, my thinking has changed. The rules they have promulgated seem at odds with the changes that have come about since the approved vaccines have become so much easier to obtain.

 

Fauci Says Indoor Mask Guidance Should Ease With Vaccinations (msn.com)

 

An interesting note is that they believe in case of a surge, they would be more listened to if they would be more reasonable when things look better. Also, to what extent is there vaccine hesitancy because people say what's the difference, I still have to wear a mask, social distance, etc.? Isn't the vaccine supposed to protect me, and if so why has nothing changed?

 

So, I do agree with you that the mandate of the CDC gives them powers over cruise ships, but still their rules have to make sense in today's environment with vaccines prevalent. They can't just arbitrarily and capriciously pretend it is now the spring of 2020, not 2021, and nothing has changed.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Even knowing that the CDC had lost the case about evictions, until I started this thread I had stated several times that the lawsuits against the CDC related to cruises would fail because courts gave great deference to regulatory agencies. But, as I said in the post starting this thread, my thinking has changed. The rules they have promulgated seem at odds with the changes that have come about since the approved vaccines have become so much easier to obtain.

 

Fauci Says Indoor Mask Guidance Should Ease With Vaccinations (msn.com)

 

An interesting note is that they believe in case of a surge, they would be more listened to if they would be more reasonable when things look better. Also, to what extent is there vaccine hesitancy because people say what's the difference, I still have to wear a mask, social distance, etc.? Isn't the vaccine supposed to protect me, and if so why has nothing changed?

 

So, I do agree with you that the mandate of the CDC gives them powers over cruise ships, but still their rules have to make sense in today's environment with vaccines prevalent. They can't just arbitrarily and capriciously pretend it is now the spring of 2020, not 2021, and nothing has changed.

Yet the cruise lines have not come forward with how they are going to ensure vaccination status, so until that is submitted and approved, the what (merely saying that they will ensure vaccination) is not enough.  So, the CDC sets requirements based on the vaccination status of pax/crew being unproven.  During this whole pandemic, the cruise lines have never come forth with the how, which is their action plans to meet the requirements.

[Joebucks]

I used to think we were a nation of black and white laws. Then I've come to realize just how political decisions are. Many laws can be "interpreted" to say whatever you want. 

 

Here we are, arguing about eating meals and swimming in pools. Activities that are brand new to the world and exclusive to cruising. We are far beyond any discussion of law or even common sense.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yet the cruise lines have not come forward with how they are going to ensure vaccination status, so until that is submitted and approved, the what (merely saying that they will ensure vaccination) is not enough.  So, the CDC sets requirements based on the vaccination status of pax/crew being unproven.  During this whole pandemic, the cruise lines have never come forth with the how, which is their action plans to meet the requirements.

Yes, I realize you have consistently said that the CDC lays out the framework, and then the regulated industry works out the details since they know their industry. However, knowing how to validate that vaccines were actually administered is not within the usual knowledge of the cruise industry. I think this is one where the government, in this case the CDC, is the one who will have to lead them to a solution as how to enforce vaccination requirements whether they are 100%, or the 95/98% that the CDC has proposed.

[chengkp75]

Well, the administration has said there won't be any form of federal documentation mandated, so the CDC is bound to have a hard time describing what they would want in the way of documentation.  However, it was the cruise lines who came up with the idea of mandating vaccinations, so it should be their job to determine how they are going to do it.  It is not like the CDC went to the cruise lines and said, "if you vaccinate everyone, these are the rules you'll have to follow".  The cruise lines went to the CDC and said "we will mandate vaccinations", and the CDC said "well, until you can, the only step we will allow you to bypass is the simulated cruise."