CDC's No-Sail Order Officially Extended Till Oct 31

[Intr3pid]

Last time I checked, CDC is fed

When one refers to the feds in banking, it's the Federal Reserve. CDC is as far removed from the Federal Reserve as a tomato from a mortgage. The specific institution we are talking about is the CDC - not the entire federal government.

Unfortunately even when wholly within a state they continue to be regulated by fed (which can be CDC if they so chose) under consumer protection clauses and even advertising is regulated. There are many many ways the CDC can continue to bogart into your company.

Unfortunately this is not a criminal case, so the burden of proof is on the business not on the government. If it were a criminal case, you would be correct and the burden of proof would be on the state but just isn't so in a non-criminal case. This is what the cruise lines have been screaming about, the feds make them prove they're safe instead of the feds having to prove they are not.

Like I said, if you have any examples of CDC shutting down a business because of its supposed powers, feel free to enlighten us.

CDC hasn't even shut down a cruise line. All cruise lines are free to operate as they wish anywhere they wish - they are just not allowed to load and unload passengers at the US ports.

I've given you examples, violate the CDC eviction ban and just tell the non-paying tenants that according to you the CDC has no jurisdiction within a state. I do not think that's going to fly but worth a try. By the way, I agree with you, I don't think they should have a say in how property management companies that operate entirely inside a state conduct their business but unfortunately for both of us the CDC has proven otherwise and has regulated an area that is within a state and not a port of entry. Whether it's being challenged or not is irrelevant, this is what is called an example as you say.

The only example I see is something that is "unprecedented" and potentially fraught with tons of counter litigation. May get tossed out in a court. It's as much an example as your local ferry is of a cruise ship.

 

[Intr3pid]

Let's say for example if WDW was open to FL residents only it would give people from other states less of a reason to travel to FL from another state. If CDC and states probably could have done more to ensure that travel between states were strictly for business, then perhaps cases would have been a bit less

But what evidence is there that travelling between the states is the source of transmission of the virus? FL has had one of the highest incidence of the virus in the country for quite a while now.

 

[Intr3pid]

On the other hand, like @T&R said, the feds interpret the above requirement very broadly (just like the Commerce Clause), and the regulations allow them to restrict completely intrastate travel of quarantined individuals.

• §70.5 (b)(2)(d) The Director may additionally apply the provisions in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to individuals traveling entirely intrastate and to conveyances that transport such individuals upon the request of a State or local health authority of jurisdiction.

and

• §70.5 (b)(2)(e) The Director may additionally apply the provisions in paragraphs (a) through of this section (c) to individuals traveling interstate or entirely intrastate and to conveyances that transport such individuals whenever the Director makes a determination under 42 CFR 70.2 that based on the existence of inadequate local control such measures are needed to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or U.S. territory to any other State or U.S. territory.

Another regulations allows the CDC to supersede local authorities with protective measures when it determines they aren't doing enough:

• §70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control. Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.

While the CDC would need to show the risk caused by the local inaction was to surrounding states, it would be an extremely low bar given existing case law on the Commerce Clause. For example, the Supreme Court found a man planting his own garden for his own consumption, and not even selling it, fell within the fed's authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. It would be very easy for the CDC to say a particular state's COVID-19 outbreak was significant enough to spill over into other states.

So, a few points to note here:

1. §70.5 (b)(2)(d) isn't quite an issue since that would require a request from the state itself.

2. §70.5 (b)(2)(e) can be invoked if CDC can prove that a lack of state-level control is leading to virus transmission into another state. Now, the bar to prove it goes considerably higher if it involves shutting down a business or results in economic or other harm to broader population. Secondly, the provisions are still only applicable to (i) travelers and (ii) conveyances. So, the CDC in such cases will have the authority to isolate and quarantine those traveling, or stop a transport conveyance from operating. It's a much narrower power than asking WDW to shut down.

3. The narrower use of powers is also highlighted in §70.2, where fumigation, destruction of animals, etc is mentioned. The courts will probably find pest control 'reasonably necessary' but shutting down a business altogether will need to clear a higher bar.

Back to cruising, CDC seems to have enough data to claim that an infected cruise ship will bring home a lot of virus. This has already happened. The cruise lines need to prove that is no longer the case.

And they are on the right track. As they have submitted, there should be some test runs first. It should be evidence-based. They need to give CDC a good reason that can be supported internally - if for no other purpose but just for the optics.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

So, a few points to note here:

1. §70.5 (b)(2)(d) isn't quite an issue since that would require a request from the state itself.

2. §70.5 (b)(2)(e) can be invoked if CDC can prove that a lack of state-level control is leading to virus transmission into another state. Now, the bar to prove it goes considerably higher if it involves shutting down a business or results in economic or other harm to broader population. Secondly, the provisions are still only applicable to (i) travelers and (ii) conveyances. So, the CDC in such cases will have the authority to isolate and quarantine those traveling, or stop a transport conveyance from operating. It's a much narrower power than asking WDW to shut down.

3. The narrower use of powers is also highlighted in §70.2, where fumigation, destruction of animals, etc is mentioned. The courts will probably find pest control 'reasonably necessary' but shutting down a business altogether will need to clear a higher bar.

Back to cruising, CDC seems to have enough data to claim that an infected cruise ship will bring home a lot of virus. This has already happened. The cruise lines need to prove that is no longer the case.

And they are on the right track. As they have submitted, there should be some test runs first. It should be evidence-based. They need to give CDC a good reason that can be supported internally - if for no other purpose but just for the optics.

So bear in mind that the government tends to very loosely interpret it's own clauses. The very same power above delegated to the CDC director is being thought to be used to prevent evictions (under the justification that if you evict someone from their house, you could force them into a more tightly grouped areas which can cause COVID to spread). IMHO that's a vary thin connection, but nonetheless, the government has said they could use that as justification. Note that evictions have NOTHING to do with interstate movement.

What it boils down to usually is that the government can do whatever it feels it can justify and then let the courts settle it. By the time any lawsuit gets underway, works it way through the lower courts into any court that can do anything about it, the entire thing will likely be over. In the rare case it's not, the government rarely has to pay financial repercussions for such decisions.

However it is the industry that suffers.

I know you think that the CDC can just sit on high and tell people no, but I still claim the government is an extenti0on of the wishes of the people. I for one - and of the thousand of public comments to the RFC it is clear I am not alone - feel that the government has an obligation to state it's case to the industry and give the industry a chance to prove it can safely open. The problem I have is that CLIA has said "Here, Mr. Government, Sir. We have prepared a complex set of guidelines under which we can safely conduct business. This is more than ANY OTHER INDSUTRY HAS BEEN ASKED TO DO". And the CDC is flat our saying "no" without saying what restrictions they would like added or guidelines they want to see followed. Again, this is in stark contrast to the way the CDC has engaged any other service or industry in which the CDC has started off the conversation with "here is a recommended set of guidelines we would like to see followed" and then start the conversation from there.

You want hard examples and proof?

CDC guidelines for schools / child care: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/index.html
CDC guidelines for work / job: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/returning-to-work.html
CDC Guidelines for Gyms and Fitness: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/gym-employers.html
CDC Guidelines for Churches: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/faith-based.html
CDC Guidelines for Restaurants and Bars: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ions/business-employers/bars-restaurants.html
CDC Guidelines for Travelling Carnivals for the love of everything holy. .... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/parks-rec/amusement-park-carnival.html

So you claim the CDC does not have jurisdiction in intrastate, but they put out guidelines for intrastate businesses and give them their blessing. And why can they put out recommendation to allow a travelling carnival to operate, but go ahead and look up CDC Guidelines for Cruise Ships and all you get is "The CDC has a no sail order"

Again, this is about CONSISTENCY. I would have no argument with you if the CDC up to now has said "Travelling Carnivales... you need to submit your guidelines to us for consideration and if we find them acceptable, we will allow it" and "Gyms... tell us why you can safely open and we will consider it". But they have not done that. They have IN EVERY OTHER CASE, and some of them even serious fringe industries put out guidelines and said "Do this and you're good". But Cruise Lines? No guidance. And when the industry "Fine. If you won't do it, WE WILL", they get flat out rejected.

 

[BartmanLA]

So bear in mind that the government tends to very loosely interpret it's own clauses. The very same power above delegated to the CDC director is being thought to be used to prevent evictions (under the justification that if you evict someone from their house, you could force them into a more tightly grouped areas which can cause COVID to spread). IMHO that's a vary thin connection, but nonetheless, the government has said they could use that as justification. Note that evictions have NOTHING to do with interstate movement.

What it boils down to usually is that the government can do whatever it feels it can justify and then let the courts settle it. By the time any lawsuit gets underway, works it way through the lower courts into any court that can do anything about it, the entire thing will likely be over. In the rare case it's not, the government rarely has to pay financial repercussions for such decisions.

However it is the industry that suffers.

I know you think that the CDC can just sit on high and tell people no, but I still claim the government is an extenti0on of the wishes of the people. I for one - and of the thousand of public comments to the RFC it is clear I am not alone - feel that the government has an obligation to state it's case to the industry and give the industry a chance to prove it can safely open. The problem I have is that CLIA has said "Here, Mr. Government, Sir. We have prepared a complex set of guidelines under which we can safely conduct business. This is more than ANY OTHER INDSUTRY HAS BEEN ASKED TO DO". And the CDC is flat our saying "no" without saying what restrictions they would like added or guidelines they want to see followed. Again, this is in stark contrast to the way the CDC has engaged any other service or industry in which the CDC has started off the conversation with "here is a recommended set of guidelines we would like to see followed" and then start the conversation from there.

You want hard examples and proof?

CDC guidelines for schools / child care: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/index.html
CDC guidelines for work / job: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/returning-to-work.html
CDC Guidelines for Gyms and Fitness: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/gym-employers.html
CDC Guidelines for Churches: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/faith-based.html
CDC Guidelines for Restaurants and Bars: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ions/business-employers/bars-restaurants.html
CDC Guidelines for Travelling Carnivals for the love of everything holy. .... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/parks-rec/amusement-park-carnival.html

So you claim the CDC does not have jurisdiction in intrastate, but they put out guidelines for intrastate businesses and give them their blessing. And why can they put out recommendation to allow a travelling carnival to operate, but go ahead and look up CDC Guidelines for Cruise Ships and all you get is "The CDC has a no sail order"

Again, this is about CONSISTENCY. I would have no argument with you if the CDC up to now has said "Travelling Carnivales... you need to submit your guidelines to us for consideration and if we find them acceptable, we will allow it" and "Gyms... tell us why you can safely open and we will consider it". But they have not done that. They have IN EVERY OTHER CASE, and some of them even serious fringe industries put out guidelines and said "Do this and you're good". But Cruise Lines? No guidance. And when the industry "Fine. If you won't do it, WE WILL", they get flat out rejected.

One aspect relating to the CDC's handling of the cruise industry you have to take in to account and it's probably the most important and critical aspect I think (my personal opinion) is that cruising is the one "business/industry" that is comprised primarily of travel, traveling with many many people from all over this country and foreign countries, these same people are transported in large groups of dense close together environments to completely different areas of the world, (OTHER foreign countries)!! This alone is their primary reason for imposing such prohibitions on traveling, it's basically like each cruise ship is a loaded virus gun being aimed at places like The Bahamas, Grand Cayman, BVI, Mexico, etc... YES I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE THAT BOARDS A CRUISE SHIP IS INFECTED!!! I'm NOT making that claim at all! All I am saying they're erring on the extreme side of caution and that preventing ships from sailing a necessary precaution or they're risking being blamed for inflicting the spread to further reaches of the globe, it's just too risky and I for one can understand why they've been to hard nosed about it all. That is why they've imposed the No Sail Order, it's not punitive or an attempt to destroy the cruise industry, it's actually to protect it from continuing to be a source of the virus spread like it was accused of all the way back in February when this all started.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

One aspect relating to the CDC's handling of the cruise industry you have to take in to account and it's probably the most important and critical aspect I think (my personal opinion) is that cruising is the one "business/industry" that is comprised primarily of travel, traveling with many many people from all over this country and foreign countries, these same people are transported in large groups of dense close together environments to completely different areas of the world, (OTHER foreign countries)!! This alone is their primary reason for imposing such prohibitions on traveling, it's basically like each cruise ship is a loaded virus gun being aimed at places like The Bahamas, Grand Cayman, BVI, Mexico, etc... YES I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE THAT BOARDS A CRUISE SHIP IS INFECTED!!! I'm NOT making that claim at all! All I am saying they're erring on the extreme side of caution and that preventing ships from sailing a necessary precaution or they're risking being blamed for inflicting the spread to further reaches of the globe, it's just too risky and I for one can understand why they've been to hard nosed about it all. That is why they've imposed the No Sail Order, it's not punitive or an attempt to destroy the cruise industry, it's actually to protect it from continuing to be a source of the virus spread like it was accused of all the way back in February when this all started.

Yup, I get what you are saying. I am not denying that opening the cruise industry must be done very carefully and carries risk.

At the same time, as a member of the voting, tax paying public of who pays the CDC's payroll, I am suggesting that my employees (because in truth that is what they are) should be working with the industry to address the concerns and come up with possible preventative procedures to address those underlying risks like they are with every other industry (and I am sorry, but with all due respect, I fail to see how traveling carnivals are anything but leisure... please explain to me how that's more business related than a cruise ship).

 

[_auroraborealis_]

One of the key issues is that cruise ships have been a far greater burden and expense to the CDC than any intrastate concern.

 

[T & R]

One of the key issues is that cruise ships have been a far greater burden and expense to the CDC than any intrastate concern.

An expense that the gov would make back many times fold. Cruising contributes $53+ Billion per year in economic activity in the U.S. and employs almost a half a million Americans. Those half a million Americans would be paying income tax on their income to the gov if they were allowed to work and not unequally shutdown. Plus the other revenue in fees, licenses and taxes generated by the gov due to cruising. So even if the CDC invested a billion dollars (which they won't) working with the cruise industry to provide guidance on safe operations, it would still make economic sense.

Cost aside, cruising is a legally licensed, regulated and permitted business. The CDC has an obligation per their role to work with cruise lines on guidance for safe operating regardless of the expense. Instead the CDC has offered no guidance, stonewalled and just done the easy/effortless way out of their responsibilities by the endless ban renewals. Hopefully the CDC being told that's enough this last time around will force them to actually do their job and work with the cruise lines instead of just taking the easy road by typing up a new word document every few months banning cruises.

 

[tvguy]

An expense that the gov would make back many times fold. Cruising contributes $53+ Billion per year in economic activity in the U.S. and employs almost a half a million Americans. Those half a million Americans would be paying income tax on their income to the gov if they were allowed to work and not unequally shutdown. Plus the other revenue in fees, licenses and taxes generated by the gov due to cruising. So even if the CDC invested a billion dollars (which they won't) working with the cruise industry to provide guidance on safe operations, it would still make economic sense.

Cost aside, cruising is a legally licensed, regulated and permitted business. The CDC has an obligation per their role to work with cruise lines on guidance for safe operating regardless of the expense. Instead the CDC has offered no guidance, stonewalled and just done the easy/effortless way out of their responsibilities by the endless ban renewals. Hopefully the CDC being told that's enough this last time around will force them to actually do their job and work with the cruise lines instead of just taking the easy road by typing up a new word document every few months banning cruises.

I wonder if last night's news out of the White House will have an impact on cruises? I don't think it's going to help.

 

[T & R]

I wonder if last night's news out of the White House will have an impact on cruises? I don't think it's going to help.

There is no telling. I'm interested to see how the market reacts today. I think the key will be if he gets sick or not. To me positive tests and rate of positive tests are irrelevant, it's the death and hospitalization rates that matter (how many are sick). If you have a disease and 5 people catch it and all 5 require hospitalization vs a disease where 5 caught it and nobody needed treatment, it's the hospitalization that mattered not the positivity rate. This is how diseases are quantified and why positivity rates for many other diseases are ignored because they have a low or no death/hospitalization rate. As far as Covid goes the media keeps reporting positive tests such as Florida had so many positive tests, to me that doesn't matter, did their deaths or hospitalizations go up? If the death or hospitalization rate stays flat or goes down then the number of positive tests is irrelevant, just like other diseases.

 

[BartmanLA]

There is no telling. I'm interested to see how the market reacts today. I think the key will be if he gets sick or not. To me positive tests and rate of positive tests are irrelevant, it's the death and hospitalization rates that matter (how many are sick). If you have a disease and 5 people catch it and all 5 require hospitalization vs a disease where 5 caught it and nobody needed treatment, it's the hospitalization that mattered not the positivity rate. This is how diseases are quantified and why positivity rates for many other diseases are ignored because they have a low or no death/hospitalization rate. As far as Covid goes the media keeps reporting positive tests such as Florida had so many positive tests, to me that doesn't matter, did their deaths or hospitalizations go up? If the death or hospitalization rate stays flat or goes down then the number of positive tests is irrelevant, just like other diseases.

Positive tests vs hospitalizations are fine to differentiate, but the main factor in Positive tests can result in exposure to many people, it doesn't matter if the person positive gets sick or not, they can STILL pass the virus to thousands of other people with out proper precautions such as quarantining or isolation, so you can't discount the number of people that are positive running around the nation with out acknowledging the potential impact those POSITIVE people can have on literally everyone. So positive tests DO count and are important to track, report and monitor, you can't just ignore them and focus on who gets sick enough to require medical treatment or hospitalization.

 

[tvguy]

There is no telling. I'm interested to see how the market reacts today. I think the key will be if he gets sick or not. To me positive tests and rate of positive tests are irrelevant, it's the death and hospitalization rates that matter (how many are sick). If you have a disease and 5 people catch it and all 5 require hospitalization vs a disease where 5 caught it and nobody needed treatment, it's the hospitalization that mattered not the positivity rate. This is how diseases are quantified and why positivity rates for many other diseases are ignored because they have a low or no death/hospitalization rate. As far as Covid goes the media keeps reporting positive tests such as Florida had so many positive tests, to me that doesn't matter, did their deaths or hospitalizations go up? If the death or hospitalization rate stays flat or goes down then the number of positive tests is irrelevant, just like other diseases.

He has mild symptoms so he is sick

 

[TiggerBouncy]

Cost aside, cruising is a legally licensed, regulated and permitted business. The CDC has an obligation per their role to work with cruise lines on guidance for safe operating regardless of the expense.

Ultimately, this. The CDC is not industry funded unlike other areas of the government. The NRC, for example, gets most of its budget paid for by industry. They will give more attention to areas that provide more funded activities (like export over plant licensing). Parts of the FDA are industry funded... for example, tobacco, which always has money to do advertising or whatever is needed.

The CDC is not industry funded. They get their funding from congress. They are required to do their job. They have an obligation to be good stewards of tax payer money and not waste it, but they are not supposed to close an industry because it’s too expensive for them to monitor.

Granted their mandate is to protect the public health. However, funding is not an excuse (full disclosure, I work as a contractor in DC, and HHS abs CDC and their funding are areas I am familiar with, if not indirectly involved).

 

[brentm77]

Positive tests vs hospitalizations are fine to differentiate, but the main factor in Positive tests can result in exposure to many people, it doesn't matter if the person positive gets sick or not, they can STILL pass the virus to thousands of other people with out proper precautions such as quarantining or isolation, so you can't discount the number of people that are positive running around the nation with out acknowledging the potential impact those POSITIVE people can have on literally everyone. So positive tests DO count and are important to track, report and monitor, you can't just ignore them and focus on who gets sick enough to require medical treatment or hospitalization.

Don't want to get into the weeds too much, but it is relevant to opening cruising again. Nothing you said is untrue, though there seems to be some evidence that asymptomatic spread isn't as common as we first thought. But, the main issue is the PCR test is widely recognized as being too sensitive now, meaning we are picking up some significant portion of people who aren't actually infected or infectious anymore. Because of that, test numbers are much less helpful for determining actual infections. Several European countries have flat out stopped using them as an indication of spread because of it. If we fix the PCR cycles labs are using, it would go along way to making the case numbers more helpful. Fixing tests would help cruising resume too.

As for how Trump's infection affects cruising, it will probably depend very much on how sick he gets. If he has a mild case, he is even more likely to stick with the idea of opening up, given his personality traits (I won't say more to avoid being too political).

 

[TiggerBouncy]

Positive tests vs hospitalizations are fine to differentiate, but the main factor in Positive tests can result in exposure to many people, it doesn't matter if the person positive gets sick or not, they can STILL pass the virus to thousands of other people with out proper precautions such as quarantining or isolation, so you can't discount the number of people that are positive running around the nation with out acknowledging the potential impact those POSITIVE people can have on literally everyone. So positive tests DO count and are important to track, report and monitor, you can't just ignore them and focus on who gets sick enough to require medical treatment or hospitalization.

the problem is the accuracy of those reports. Without tracking positive compared to overall, hospitalizations, deaths, or even names, it doesn’t give us context.

Ok... 5,000 people tested positive... how many of them are retests who were already positive? Do you know? I don’t. Is the strain more or less virulent? Don’t know - the strain isn’t reported...

Positives are just a number without context and the labs doing have enough monitoring and guidelines to make sure the data is meaningful.

 

[brentm77]

He has mild symptoms so he is sick

Where are you getting that news? Times is reporting: "In her own tweet about 30 minutes later, Mrs. Trump wrote that the first couple were “feeling good,” but the White House did not say whether they were experiencing symptoms. The president’s physician said he could carry out his duties “without disruption” from the Executive Mansion."

 

[tvguy]

Where are you getting that news? Times is reporting: "In her own tweet about 30 minutes later, Mrs. Trump wrote that the first couple were “feeling good,” but the White House did not say whether they were experiencing symptoms. The president’s physician said he could carry out his duties “without disruption” from the Executive Mansion."

That is what the White House announced this morning.

 

[brentm77]

That is what the White House announced this morning.

Where? Their official Whitehouse release only says they are doing "well," and none of the other major news outlets are reporting he has symptoms. I am not saying it isn't true, I just don't see it anywhere and wonder if you misheard or someone was speculating on one of the channels?

EDIT - I found it. Times reports he has "cold like symptoms." Sorry for the trouble.

 

[tinkerone]

He has mild symptoms so he is sick

They say he has mild symptoms. Knowing how much he loves loves to tweet and not seeing anything in over 9 hours tells me different.
I hope and pray for the best but I wouldn't count on what we hear as being total truth. But who knows.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Worth noting that we don't know the long tterm impacts of even mild cases from a medical perspective, and from a health plan perspective in the United States, having had the rona will be a pre-ex.