MASKS REQUIRED ?

[mcrcruiser]

imo we are getting closer to cruise freedom of wearing masks   . The better news will be sailing commencing from all  US ports 😃

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, Laminator said:

Was he hospitalized? I thought he was the only one of that group was symptomatic!

Yes, and the following article maintains that this is proof that vaccines work as no one was hospitalized. And if goes on to say that without the vaccinations given the working conditions many more might have been infected.

 

The Yankees’ covid-19 outbreak shows vaccines work, health experts say (msn.com)

[Laminator]

55 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, and the following article maintains that this is proof that vaccines work as no one was hospitalized. And if goes on to say that without the vaccinations given the working conditions many more might have been infected.

 

The Yankees’ covid-19 outbreak shows vaccines work, health experts say (msn.com)

I was pretty sure I read where he was NOT hospitalized. Thank You for verifying.

[POA1]

On 5/13/2021 at 10:18 PM, KirkNC said:

In announcing the decision Thursday, the CDC pointed to additional data from the last few weeks that show the vaccines work in the real world, stand up to the variants and make it unlikely vaccinated people can transmit the virus.

 

Maybe it's me, but I can't find their peer reviewed studies that support these statements. Can you help me out with a link?

[KirkNC]

13 minutes ago, POA1 said:

 

Maybe it's me, but I can't find their peer reviewed studies that support these statements. Can you help me out with a link?

Nope, my quote was from a NYT article.

[Hlitner]

47 minutes ago, POA1 said:

 

Maybe it's me, but I can't find their peer reviewed studies that support these statements. Can you help me out with a link?

I love the subtlety of your question :).  The reality is that those who continue to support the CDC's approach to COVID can no longer site anything that supports the recent CDC decision making.  We are supposed to simply accept what they say without question.  I was glad to see Frank del Rio having the guts to finally speak out....while most of his fellow cruise line executives still seem to cower in a corner refusing to say what they really think.

 

Hank

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Laminator said:

I was pretty sure I read where he was NOT hospitalized. Thank You for verifying.

You are welcome. 

 

It's an interesting phenomenon how the original headlines often do not reflect the actual story.

[nocl]

6 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I love the subtlety of your question :).  The reality is that those who continue to support the CDC's approach to COVID can no longer site anything that supports the recent CDC decision making.  We are supposed to simply accept what they say without question.  I was glad to see Frank del Rio having the guts to finally speak out....while most of his fellow cruise line executives still seem to cower in a corner refusing to say what they really think.

 

Hank

You mean the decision for those vaccinated to be able to go without masks in most situations?  That seems to be the recent decision making.  The CDC itself has identified the studies behind that decision.

 

Though I must say that quite a few epidemiologists are not exactly in favor of that announcement since there is no practical way to distinguish between those vaccinated and those not vaccinated during day to day activities.  As a result you will get many non-vaccinated ditching the mask.  I expect that you might find during day to day activities that you are likely to encounter more vaccinated people continuing to wear masks than unvaccinated.

 

Or their decision to allow cruise lines to avoid the test cruises if they attest to the 95 and 98%  criteria.

 

Exactly what recent decisions are you referring to.

[POA1]

7 hours ago, KirkNC said:

Nope, my quote was from a NYT article.

Thanks. I'm sure the peer reviewed study citation will be along any second now.

Edited May 15, 2021 by POA1

[Hlitner]

6 minutes ago, nocl said:

You mean the decision for those vaccinated to be able to go without masks in most situations?  That seems to be the recent decision making.  The CDC itself has identified the studies behind that decision.

 

Though I must say that quite a few epidemiologists are not exactly in favor of that announcement since there is no practical way to distinguish between those vaccinated and those not vaccinated during day to day activities.  As a result you will get many non-vaccinated ditching the mask.  I expect that you might find during day to day activities that you are likely to encounter more vaccinated people continuing to wear masks than unvaccinated.

 

Or their decision to allow cruise lines to avoid the test cruises if they attest to the 95 and 98%  criteria.

 

Exactly what recent decisions are you referring to.

I am completely fine with tossing masks into the garbage heap.  But count me among the group that has looked at the science and data (on the CDC's own web site) and concluded (months ago)  that my personal risk, being fully vaccinated with the Pfizer Vaccine, is very low and does not justify wearing a mask (especially outdoors).  The data recently cited by the CDC (theoretically used to justify the recent mask decision) seem to be based on studies, the most recent of which was published in early April.  And even back into last winter there was plenty of data to support the high effectiveness of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.  The CDCs May 5 modifications to their CSO talked about vaccinated cruisers needing to stay masked while on deck (even if in a gale) which is a precaution completely contradicted by their own published studies!  

 

As to avoiding test cruises, I think (and have posted this for over 6 months) that the entire concept of test cruises was a complete "crock" and an onerous requirement.  While one could possibly make a case for a single test cruise (with one vessel) to review procedures, requiring such a test cruise for each and every vessel was simply an absurdity meant to prevent cruising (and it has succeeded).   Keep in mind that it has been 6 1/2 months since the CDC issued their so-called CSO and there has not been a single cruise because it has been impossible for any ship to comply with a CSO that did not include the operational details.  Even today, the CDC has yet to publish the details of what cruise lines must do to comply with their "Phase 3" requirements.

 

So I will ask you a question?  What reason is there (in terms of science or peer reviewed studies) to prevent a cruise where 100% of everyone aboard has been vaccinated (and also tested if deemed necessary)?  There is no issue with non-vaccinated tossing masks if everyone is vaccinated.  That is the proposal put out there by Frank del Rio and it has apparently been ignored by the CDC.  So while we have heard the new modifications/dictates of the CDC in the past 2 weeks there is still no clear path for cruises to begin.  With the CDC we continue to get changing rhetoric (sometimes daily) but nothing that actually gets cruising on a start track.  

 

Hank

[nocl]

9 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I am completely fine with tossing masks into the garbage heap.  But count me among the group that has looked at the science and data (on the CDC's own web site) and concluded (months ago)  that my personal risk, being fully vaccinated with the Pfizer Vaccine, is very low and does not justify wearing a mask (especially outdoors).  The data recently cited by the CDC (theoretically used to justify the recent mask decision) seem to be based on studies, the most recent of which was published in early April.  And even back into last winter there was plenty of data to support the high effectiveness of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.  The CDCs May 5 modifications to their CSO talked about vaccinated cruisers needing to stay masked while on deck (even if in a gale) which is a precaution completely contradicted by their own published studies!  

 

As to avoiding test cruises, I think (and have posted this for over 6 months) that the entire concept of test cruises was a complete "crock" and an onerous requirement.  While one could possibly make a case for a single test cruise (with one vessel) to review procedures, requiring such a test cruise for each and every vessel was simply an absurdity meant to prevent cruising (and it has succeeded).   Keep in mind that it has been 6 1/2 months since the CDC issued their so-called CSO and there has not been a single cruise because it has been impossible for any ship to comply with a CSO that did not include the operational details.  Even today, the CDC has yet to publish the details of what cruise lines must do to comply with their "Phase 3" requirements.

 

So I will ask you a question?  What reason is there (in terms of science or peer reviewed studies) to prevent a cruise where 100% of everyone aboard has been vaccinated (and also tested if deemed necessary)?  There is no issue with non-vaccinated tossing masks if everyone is vaccinated.  That is the proposal put out there by Frank del Rio and it has apparently been ignored by the CDC.  So while we have heard the new modifications/dictates of the CDC in the past 2 weeks there is still no clear path for cruises to begin.  With the CDC we continue to get changing rhetoric (sometimes daily) but nothing that actually gets cruising on a start track.  

 

Hank

The problem is that Frank Del Rio did not put forth a proposal.  He submitted a letter and the safe sail recommendations. In return he asked to be excused from the CSO.

 

They did not submit the detailed operational plans for each ship that would constitute an actual plan.  Nor did he include signed attestation documents that would make the vaccination requirement legally binding.  Nor has he submitted the port agreements.

 

Now they have said that they are working on the port agreements and that they are working with the CDC on what would be required for the actual cruises.  So would you not think that if they are working to get details for their actual plans that they already know the answer to their letter.

 

There is a clear path

 

1. Port agreement

2. Attest to the 95 and 98% vaccination levels or submit a plan for test cruises

3. Submit plan for cruises to occur to the CDC.

 

That path is clear and has been for 6 months.  A bit easier now with the attestation option for vaccination if the cruise lines take it.

 

What you are saying concerning a 100% vaccinated cruise, the issue is getting the cruise lines to submit the paperwork making them legally obligated to do such.  Without that the cruise line can do whatever they want.

Edited May 15, 2021 by nocl

[Hlitner]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

The problem is that Frank Del Rio did not put forth a proposal.  He submitted a letter and the safe sail recommendations. In return he asked to be excused from the CSO.

 

They did not submit the detailed operational plans for each ship that would constitute an actual plan.  Nor did he include signed attestation documents that would make the vaccination requirement legally binding.  Nor has he submitted the port agreements.

 

Now they have said that they are working on the port agreements and that they are working with the CDC on what would be required for the actual cruises.  So would you not think that if they are working to get details for their actual plans that they already know the answer to their letter.

 

There is a clear path

 

1. Port agreement

2. Attest to the 95 and 98% vaccination levels or submit a plan for test cruises

3. Submit plan for cruises to occur to the CDC.

 

That path is clear and has been for 6 months.  A bit easier now with the attestation option for vaccination if the cruise lines take it.

While I agree that the recent CDC modifications do move us one step closer to a solution they still fell short of the necessary details.  Just as an example, cruise lines such as RCI, Celebrity and Seabourn are resuming Caribbean cruises by July by simply using non-US embarkation ports.  The lines already have the necessary approvals from the multiple ports they will visit.  But getting deals with foreign ports that will satisfy the CDC cannot happen until the CDC puts their requirements in legal language...and this has yet to happen.

 

For folks here that wonder about cruising I will toss out a new factoid.  Our next cruise is a 14 day cruise (which would not be allowed by the CDC) out of Pireaus, Greece.  The day we embark on our cruise (to Greek Islands and Cyprus) there are 4 other ships (including the new Celebrity Apex) also embarking in Pireaus.  I only mention this to point out that cruises are resuming (in a big way) but the USA is simply being left behind for a single reason....the CDC.   For me it is no big deal because we are easily able to fly to places from where we can cruise.  But I do feel for the hundreds of thousands who want to cruise out of US ports who must cool their heels why the CDC decides their "policy of the day."  Just yesterday we cancelled an October 14 day cruise that was to embark out of Miami because we do not want to gamble on the next steps of the CDC.  We simply moved our booking to another cruise line (and cruise) out of Barbados.  The thousands of dollars we would have brought to Florida will now be spent in Barbados.  This is not something we desired (we would have preferred to give some economic support to Florida) but the CDC has forced our hand.  Kind of sad.

 

Hank

 

 

 

 

[nocl]

35 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

While I agree that the recent CDC modifications do move us one step closer to a solution they still fell short of the necessary details.  Just as an example, cruise lines such as RCI, Celebrity and Seabourn are resuming Caribbean cruises by July by simply using non-US embarkation ports.  The lines already have the necessary approvals from the multiple ports they will visit.  But getting deals with foreign ports that will satisfy the CDC cannot happen until the CDC puts their requirements in legal language...and this has yet to happen.

 

For folks here that wonder about cruising I will toss out a new factoid.  Our next cruise is a 14 day cruise (which would not be allowed by the CDC) out of Pireaus, Greece.  The day we embark on our cruise (to Greek Islands and Cyprus) there are 4 other ships (including the new Celebrity Apex) also embarking in Pireaus.  I only mention this to point out that cruises are resuming (in a big way) but the USA is simply being left behind for a single reason....the CDC.   For me it is no big deal because we are easily able to fly to places from where we can cruise.  But I do feel for the hundreds of thousands who want to cruise out of US ports who must cool their heels why the CDC decides their "policy of the day."  Just yesterday we cancelled an October 14 day cruise that was to embark out of Miami because we do not want to gamble on the next steps of the CDC.  We simply moved our booking to another cruise line (and cruise) out of Barbados.  The thousands of dollars we would have brought to Florida will now be spent in Barbados.  This is not something we desired (we would have preferred to give some economic support to Florida) but the CDC has forced our hand.  Kind of sad.

 

Hank

 

 

 

 

First of all the CDC is not requiring agreements with foreign ports only US ports.  The requirements for those agreements have been pretty clearly specified.  The actually legal language is a matter between the ports and the cruise lines.  The CDC even went so far as to allow one agreement to cover multiple ports provided that all relevant parties from each port signed on to the master agreement.  The requirements were spelled out in the technical document concerning port agreements.

 

Remember in the early days of the pandemic when Royal and Celebrity were saying that it was too expensive to use charter flights to fly their crew out of the US.  When they were telling crew that the US would not them them depart through the US.  While at the same time they took their ships to Barbados and flew their crew home from the closed airport via charter flights. The major difference was not cost it was that in the US the cruise line management was legally liable to enforce what they committed to.  Eventually they did sign and followed the safe crew embarkation and disembarkation procedures.

 

Pretty much the same now.  The CDC's requirements are not much different then what MSC did in Italy, what Germany was requiring for cruises there.  Pretty close to what the UK is requiring for cruises around the UK.

 

The major difference is that in the US the cruise lines must sign a legal document that says that they are responsible for making sure that the cruise reach the vaccination levels required if they go that route.  That the cruise lines are financially responsible for any passengers that get infected on board and must provide the arrangements for treatment and quarantine.  That they must follow the plans that they submit and must get approval for changes.

 

That in a nutshell is the primary difference.

 

The CDC has been consistent all along with the requirements.  Any changes related to the cruise lines have been some relaxing of potential requirements.  

 

Can you say with absolute certainly what the protocols will be for any cruise you sign up for today?  If they will require vaccination or not for that cruise.

Edited May 15, 2021 by nocl

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

First of all the CDC is not requiring agreements with foreign ports only US ports.  The requirements for those agreements have been pretty clearly specified.  The actually legal language is a matter between the ports and the cruise lines.  The CDC even went so far as to allow one agreement to cover multiple ports provided that all relevant parties from each port signed on to the master agreement.  The requirements were spelled out in the technical document concerning port agreements.

 

Remember in the early days of the pandemic when Royal and Celebrity were saying that it was too expensive to use charter flights to fly their crew out of the US.  When they were telling crew that the US would not them them depart through the US.  While at the same time they took their ships to Barbados and flew their crew home from the closed airport via charter flights. The major difference was not cost it was that in the US the cruise line management was legally liable to enforce what they committed to.  Eventually they did sign and followed the safe crew embarkation and disembarkation procedures.

 

Pretty much the same now.  The CDC's requirements are not much different then what MSC did in Italy, what Germany was requiring for cruises there.  Pretty close to what the UK is requiring for cruises around the UK.

 

The major difference is that in the US the cruise lines must sign a legal document that says that they are responsible for making sure that the cruise reach the vaccination levels required if they go that route.  That the cruise lines are financially responsible for any passengers that get infected on board and must provide the arrangements for treatment and quarantine.  That they must follow the plans that they submit and must get approval for changes.

 

That in a nutshell is the primary difference.

 

The CDC has been consistent all along with the requirements.  Any changes related to the cruise lines have been some relaxing of potential requirements.  

 

Can you say with absolute certainly what the protocols will be for any cruise you sign up for today?  If they will require vaccination or not for that cruise.

 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

First of all the CDC is not requiring agreements with foreign ports only US ports.  The requirements for those agreements have been pretty clearly specified.  The actually legal language is a matter between the ports and the cruise lines.  The CDC even went so far as to allow one agreement to cover multiple ports provided that all relevant parties from each port signed on to the master agreement.  The requirements were spelled out in the technical document concerning port agreements.

 

Remember in the early days of the pandemic when Royal and Celebrity were saying that it was too expensive to use charter flights to fly their crew out of the US.  When they were telling crew that the US would not them them depart through the US.  While at the same time they took their ships to Barbados and flew their crew home from the closed airport via charter flights. The major difference was not cost it was that in the US the cruise line management was legally liable to enforce what they committed to.  Eventually they did sign and followed the safe crew embarkation and disembarkation procedures.

 

Pretty much the same now.  The CDC's requirements are not much different then what MSC did in Italy, what Germany was requiring for cruises there.  Pretty close to what the UK is requiring for cruises around the UK.

 

The major difference is that in the US the cruise lines must sign a legal document that says that they are responsible for making sure that the cruise reach the vaccination levels required if they go that route.  That the cruise lines are financially responsible for any passengers that get infected on board and must provide the arrangements for treatment and quarantine.  That they must follow the plans that they submit and must get approval for changes.

 

That in a nutshell is the primary difference.

 

The CDC has been consistent all along with the requirements.  Any changes related to the cruise lines have been some relaxing of potential requirements.  

 

Can you say with absolute certainly what the protocols will be for any cruise you sign up for today?  If they will require vaccination or not for that cruise.

At the risk of boring most folks (who should not read further) you and I can have a discussion here about the CSO.  The first time I read the document (about 40 pages) I also thought it did not require agreements with foreign ports.  But then on a 2nd reading I noticed in a later section which speaks to what happens if there would be a COVID case the CDC used the following language:

 

"4. Disembark and evacuate passengers and crew only in such a manner as prescribed in the cruise ship operator's preexisting port and local health authority agreements."

 

As one who used to write government healthcare regulations this got my interest and I read it a few times.  It clearly implies that there must be a "preexisting" agreement with port and health authorities on how to handle COVID cases.  If I were working for a cruise line I would have already asked the CDC to clarify this section but we have heard of no clarification.   There are quite a few of these somewhat ambiguous sections in the original CSO and they have not been clarified in subsequent amendments of statements.    Back in the those November days when a few of us were commenting on the CSO, I posted some thoughts that the CSO seemed to be designed in a way as to make compliance onerous and darn near impossible.  Apparently the cruise lines agree because they have been pushing the CDC for over 6 months to clarify the language and issue clear/concise technical instructions.  Meanwhile, the months roll on, the lines keep losing over $1 Billion a month, and there is no end is sight.  Perhaps the only real hope for the cruise lines is that the CDC cancels the CSO (very unlikely) or simply allows it to expire on Nov 1 (no clue if this will happen).  If the CDC follows the latter then there will be zero cruises involving US Ports until at least Nov 1, 2021.  At this point most cruise lines have already cancelled their cruises through July so I am starting to wonder if the CDC thinks that playing these silly word games for an additional 3 months (until Nov 1) is the best face saving option.  I hope I am wrong, but who among us thought that we would be looking at a stoppage over a year?

 

For what its worth (probably not much) I am walking the walk with my own money and plans.  As I have mentioned in some other posts, after a lot of soul searching DW and I decided (2 days ago) to cancel our October MSC 14 day Caribbean cruise because we have little faith that the CDC will let it happen!  While we both saw some reason for optimism, we have grown weary of cancelled cruises (5 to date) and wanted more certainty.  For us, the only option was to book a cruise that was outside of the control to the CDC and we did book such a 14 day cruise that embarks from Barbados and involves no USA ports.  To be blunt we were not willing to gamble on anything involving the CDC. It may well turn out that we guessed wrong (on the October cruise from Miami) but we saw the odds at no better then 50-50 while the Barbados cruise is close to 100% certain

 

Hank

 

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

At the risk of boring most folks (who should not read further) you and I can have a discussion here about the CSO.  The first time I read the document (about 40 pages) I also thought it did not require agreements with foreign ports.  But then on a 2nd reading I noticed in a later section which speaks to what happens if there would be a COVID case the CDC used the following language:

 

"4. Disembark and evacuate passengers and crew only in such a manner as prescribed in the cruise ship operator's preexisting port and local health authority agreements."

 

As one who used to write government healthcare regulations this got my interest and I read it a few times.  It clearly implies that there must be a "preexisting" agreement with port and health authorities on how to handle COVID cases.  If I were working for a cruise line I would have already asked the CDC to clarify this section but we have heard of no clarification.   There are quite a few of these somewhat ambiguous sections in the original CSO and they have not been clarified in subsequent amendments of statements.    Back in the those November days when a few of us were commenting on the CSO, I posted some thoughts that the CSO seemed to be designed in a way as to make compliance onerous and darn near impossible.  Apparently the cruise lines agree because they have been pushing the CDC for over 6 months to clarify the language and issue clear/concise technical instructions.  Meanwhile, the months roll on, the lines keep losing over $1 Billion a month, and there is no end is sight.  Perhaps the only real hope for the cruise lines is that the CDC cancels the CSO (very unlikely) or simply allows it to expire on Nov 1 (no clue if this will happen).  If the CDC follows the latter then there will be zero cruises involving US Ports until at least Nov 1, 2021.  At this point most cruise lines have already cancelled their cruises through July so I am starting to wonder if the CDC thinks that playing these silly word games for an additional 3 months (until Nov 1) is the best face saving option.  I hope I am wrong, but who among us thought that we would be looking at a stoppage over a year?

 

For what its worth (probably not much) I am walking the walk with my own money and plans.  As I have mentioned in some other posts, after a lot of soul searching DW and I decided (2 days ago) to cancel our October MSC 14 day Caribbean cruise because we have little faith that the CDC will let it happen!  While we both saw some reason for optimism, we have grown weary of cancelled cruises (5 to date) and wanted more certainty.  For us, the only option was to book a cruise that was outside of the control to the CDC and we did book such a 14 day cruise that embarks from Barbados and involves no USA ports.  To be blunt we were not willing to gamble on anything involving the CDC. It may well turn out that we guessed wrong (on the October cruise from Miami) but we saw the odds at no better then 50-50 while the Barbados cruise is close to 100% certain

 

Hank

 

 

The CDC has made it clear that the ports are US ports not foreign. The CDC has no control over foreign ports. Both the intent and the letter of the CSO is to make sure that the cruise lines maintain responsibility for those  passengers that are infected or need to be quarantined that disembark at a US port. As well as to make sure that is agreement with those ports to handle the passengers if there is infection on board, to avoid for the potential of the situations last spring when ships could not find ports to dock at.

 

 

 

The documents are pretty consistent and straight forward, but I guess one can try and make them to be much more complicated than they really are.

 

The CDC has said in the technical documents who the agreements must be with and what they must include. The the quarantine facilities and transportation arrangement are based on joint determination of risk between the port, local health authorities and the cruise line. 

 

The requirements are pretty straightforward. Pretty sure the cruiselines know who to contact if they have questions. At this stage NCL certainly seems to have that contact info since they stated that they are in discussions over the plans for fully vaccinated cruises.

 

When the cruises will occur is mostly a function of when the cruise lines complete the agreements, decide if they are going to require vaccination, either submit the attestation documents or do the test cruises, and submit their plans. Most of what they previously labeled as onerous such as testing has been relaxed with vaccination.

Edited May 16, 2021 by nocl

[Hlitner]

7 minutes ago, nocl said:

The CDC has made it clear that the ports are US ports not foreign. The CDC has no control over foreign ports. Both the intent and the letter of the CSO is to make sure that the cruise lines maintain responsibility for those  passengers that are infected or need to be quarantined that disembark at a US port. As well as to make sure that is agreement with those ports to handle the passengers if there is infection on board, to avoid for the potential of the situations last spring when ships could not find ports to dock at.

 

The documents are pretty consistent and straight forward, but I guess one can try and make them to be much more complicated than they really are.

 

 

LOL.  Apparently they are pretty complicated (and incomplete) considering that after more then 6 months we still have no cruises and no plans for cruises, etc.  All that happens are rolling cancellations (just about everything is cancelled through July).   Most of us have hoped this would all get quickly worked out (or that the CDC would simply rescind their CSO) but the latest word from the CDC is that they are willing to work within the framework of their CSO (we have heard this for over 6 months).   I do hope that for the sake of the entire industry that they get all this resolved.  But those holding their breath and waiting to take a cruise out of Florida, California, or even Seattle might need to be patient and consider finding other options until November when the CSO expires (unless the CDC extends it for another year, 2 years, or even forever).

 

Hank

[nocl]

Just now, Hlitner said:

LOL.  Apparently they are pretty complicated (and incomplete) considering that after more then 6 months we still have no cruises and no plans for cruises, etc.  All that happens are rolling cancellations (just about everything is cancelled through July).   Most of us have hoped this would all get quickly worked out (or that the CDC would simply rescind their CSO) but the latest word from the CDC is that they are willing to work within the framework of their CSO (we have heard this for over 6 months).   I do hope that for the sake of the entire industry that they get all this resolved.  But those holding their breath and waiting to take a cruise out of Florida, California, or even Seattle might need to be patient and consider finding other options until November when the CSO expires (unless the CDC extends it for another year, 2 years, or even forever).

 

Hank

You are making the assumption the the cruise lines are really expending effort to comply to get back sailing, but really do not understand what they need to do. What a joke.

 

The cruise lines did not want to sign the documents for crew transfer back months ago because it made them legally liable to follow the rules. I doubt they want to sign attestation documents for the vaccine requirements now because they make the cruise line legally liable to make sure those standards are met.

 

The same with any plans they submit. They will be legally bound to follow those plans. They would need to request and get approval for changes.

 

The cruise lines have chosen not to move forward prior to this point. The industry is largely based upon avoiding national laws and regulations. The companies are incorporated in countries with limited enforcement and taxation, their ships are registered in countries that are most convenient to the cruise lines.

 

The pandemic would represent a major change and the cruise lines want to leave the pandemic with no more regulations then that did before it.

 

So far they have felt that it is better to try and out wait the CDC, focusing on lobbying and PR an to move forward and get sailing under CDC over sight with the legal requirements involved.

 

NCL has indicated that they are moving forward. No word yet from the others. But even NCL has not yet completed the agreements or sign the documents concerning vaccination.

[Hlitner]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

You are making the assumption the the cruise lines are really expending effort to comply to get back sailing, but really do not understand what they need to do. What a joke.

 

The cruise lines did not want to sign the documents for crew transfer back months ago because it made them legally liable to follow the rules. I doubt they want to sign attestation documents for the vaccine requirements now because they make the cruise line legally liable to make sure those standards are met.

 

The same with any plans they submit. They will be legally bound to follow those plans. They would need to request and get approval for changes.

 

The cruise lines have chosen not to move forward prior to this point. The industry is largely based upon avoiding national laws and regulations. The companies are incorporated in countries with limited enforcement and taxation, their ships are registered in countries that are most convenient to the cruise lines.

 

The pandemic would represent a major change and the cruise lines want to leave the pandemic with no more regulations then that did before it.

 

So far they have felt that it is better to try and out wait the CDC, focusing on lobbying and PR an to move forward and get sailing under CDC over sight with the legal requirements involved.

 

NCL has indicated that they are moving forward. No word yet from the others. But even NCL has not yet completed the agreements or sign the documents concerning vaccination.

I guess you are right.  MSC, RCI, Carnival, Princess, Oceania, Seabourn, Celebrity, et. al are all guilty as you charge.   Kind of amazing that all those cruise lines are trying hard to put themselves out of business.  What is even more interesting is how quite a few of those lines have somehow worked out issues with other governments in the Caribbean and Europe.  My goodness, that must be miracle.  If you are right it is a strange strategy and I guess as a stockholder I should be suing all the cruise lines for their incompetence.   

 

And of course we all understand how the CDC has handled the entire pandemic properly, never contradicted themselves, been very transparent with the public, etc.  We are all blessed to have such a competent well run organization who only has our best interests at heart.  And now if you will excuse me I have to go to the bathroom to regurgitate.

 

Hank

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

I guess you are right.  MSC, RCI, Carnival, Princess, Oceania, Seabourn, Celebrity, et. al are all guilty as you charge.   Kind of amazing that all those cruise lines are trying hard to put themselves out of business.  What is even more interesting is how quite a few of those lines have somehow worked out issues with other governments in the Caribbean and Europe.  My goodness, that must be miracle.  If you are right it is a strange strategy and I guess as a stockholder I should be suing all the cruise lines for their incompetence.   

 

And of course we all understand how the CDC has handled the entire pandemic properly, never contradicted themselves, been very transparent with the public, etc.  We are all blessed to have such a competent well run organization who only has our best interests at heart.  And now if you will excuse me I have to go to the bathroom to regurgitate.

 

Hank

Until vaccines got released there was not much effort because risk was two high so all you had was national lines in Italy and Germany, and RCL in Singapore. All doing very limited highly restrictive cruises. 

 

Following your logic Celebrity should have started cruising out of Barbados month ago. Yet there first cruise there is not for a few months. 

 

For most of it the infection rate in the US was among the worst in the world. Many countries that normally hone ported ships simply banned cruising without a path forward.

 

Now for the first time since the outbreak do you actually have a reasonable chance to do high volume cruising. 

 

It must be amazing to you that the cruise lines have managed to complete the requirements for safe exchange of crew. After all that it as complex as the other steps in the process. Yet they have managed to do so for those ships that remained in US waters and they are continuing to do so for those that return.

 

Still the cruise lines have lobbied. They have asked to be excused from the CSO. They have sent letters. But not one has stated that they have completed their port agreements. Not one. Only NCL gas even stated that they are working on them.

 

The cruise lines have done their own calculations and made the decision that it is better to wait out the CDC than to get sailing under the CSO and have to deal with long term regulations. So they continue to lobby and use their PR with two goals in mind, to restart totally outside of the CSO where they face no restrictions on their business decisions, if that is not possible to get the least possible impact.

 

While they have made a lot of noise about restarting, let's see how those cruises actually do as far as sales, the protocols actually used, and how consistent they are.

 

Let's also see how the plans work out this summer. The UK is starting to get nervous over B.1.671 starting to show up there.

 

The CDC's requirements are not much different then MSC followed in Italy.

The primary difference is in the US the cruise line must legally follow the approved plan which will be audited by the CDC/Coast Guard/PHS.

Edited May 16, 2021 by nocl

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

I guess you are right.  MSC, RCI, Carnival, Princess, Oceania, Seabourn, Celebrity, et. al are all guilty as you charge.   Kind of amazing that all those cruise lines are trying hard to put themselves out of business.  What is even more interesting is how quite a few of those lines have somehow worked out issues with other governments in the Caribbean and Europe.  My goodness, that must be miracle.  If you are right it is a strange strategy and I guess as a stockholder I should be suing all the cruise lines for their incompetence.   

 

And of course we all understand how the CDC has handled the entire pandemic properly, never contradicted themselves, been very transparent with the public, etc.  We are all blessed to have such a competent well run organization who only has our best interests at heart.  And now if you will excuse me I have to go to the bathroom to regurgitate.

 

Hank

While you are at it you can also do the same for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the other countries for which cruising is totally banned.

[Hlitner]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

While you are at it you can also do the same for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the other countries for which cruising is totally banned.

You forgot North Korea!