Cruise industry won't recover until 2030

[tvguy]

So let's make more?

No, let's enforce them

 

[PrincessShmoo]

No, let's enforce them

Hear, hear.

 

[Cheburashka]

Well, the Kitty Hawk memorial is on the other side of the state from the other two.

Here's the link to NC's restrictions.
https://www.nc.gov/covid-19/staying-ahead-curve

Yes, I know where Kitty Hawk is in relation to Asheville. It's important to us to visit both. The restrictions didn't look too bad, mostly regulating liquor sales and after hours activities, which are not a concern to me. As long as there are no quarantine/testing requirements and the places I'm going are still open in July (and since they're open now, I don't see how they could be closed in July), that will be fine with me. I wear a mask all day every day at work, so I don't care about that.

The states I won't travel to in 2021 are the states that have quarantine/testing requirements for incoming travelers, or states where attractions are mostly closed. The real lockdown states: Hawaii, California, New York, Maine, etc.

 

[jane01jp]

No, let's enforce them

As much as some would desire a heavier-handed approach to enforcing some of these mandates, I don't see that as being very realistic.

"Let's" is a contraction for "let us." Law enforcement, particularly elected sheriffs, have avoided enforcing the mandates in many locales. In Charlotte, NC, which is where we live, police have said from the beginning that they would not be citing people for mask violations. So, who is the "us" that will begin to enforce these mandates more strictly?

 

[tvguy]

As much as some would desire a heavier-handed approach to enforcing some of these mandates, I don't see that as being very realistic.

"Let's" is a contraction for "let us." Law enforcement, particularly elected sheriffs, have avoided enforcing the mandates in many locales. In Charlotte, NC, which is where we live, police have said from the beginning that they would not be citing people for mask violations. So, who is the "us" that will begin to enforce these mandates more strictly?

People don't have the heart to enforce it. As for Law Enforcement not enforcing, yes an issue. One solved by those the Law Enforcement agencies work for ordering them to enforce it.

 

[jane01jp]

People don't have the heart to enforce it. As for Law Enforcement not enforcing, yes an issue. One solved by those the Law Enforcement agencies work for ordering them to enforce it.

I believe that the will to enforce these mandates will be on the decline in 2021, not on the increase. The same officials to whom law enforcement agencies report are often the same people making anti-law enforcement statements for perceived political gain. And, law enforcement can not afford to lose more public support from any well-publicized incidents that go awry in trying to enforce the mandates against some of the same citizens who have traditionally been the biggest supporters of law enforcement. Citizens who desire more authoritarian responses are, by and large, going to be disappointed in my opinion.

 

[hrhdhd]

No, let's enforce them

By doing what? Throwing people in jail? Fining people who may already be out of a job?

 

[nursejackie]

I've only been on one cruise (7 night Eastern Caribbean with Celebrity cruises) which i really enjoyed and would have booked another straight away if I could. However, since then I've read about the damage this mass tourism does to the places the ships dock, especially in Europe, I don't want to be part of this problem.

I read an article about Venice that stated (not in exact words) 'thousands of day trippers descend on the city from cruise ships, often bringing food from the ship so don't dine locally, walk around the city for photo ops, then board the ship again and leave without spending one cent, what do they bring to the city?'

I'm not blaming just cruises for mass tourism, but reading it made think about the places I visit and what they gain from me being there.

 

[hrhdhd]

I've only been on one cruise (7 night Eastern Caribbean with Celebrity cruises) which i really enjoyed and would have booked another straight away if I could. However, since then I've read about the damage this mass tourism does to the places the ships dock, especially in Europe, I don't want to be part of this problem.

I read an article about Venice that stated (not in exact words) 'thousands of day trippers descend on the city from cruise ships, often bringing food from the ship so don't dine locally, walk around the city for photo ops, then board the ship again and leave without spending one cent, what do they bring to the city?'

I'm not blaming just cruises for mass tourism, but reading it made think about the places I visit and what they gain from me being there.

Well, they bring port fees, for one, and jobs in the tourism industry. And speaking only for myself, I spend quite a bit of money in cruise ports. For every non-shopper, there's someone like me.

It will be interesting to see the economic impact on ports that have banned certain sizes of ship (e.g., Key West).

 

[DCLDVC1]

People don't have the heart to enforce it. As for Law Enforcement not enforcing, yes an issue. One solved by those the Law Enforcement agencies work for ordering them to enforce it.

Unfortunately elected law enforcement officials don't want to risk being re-elected to their cushy jobs by enforcing the mandates.

The same applies to politicians who are afraid to make difficult decisions.

 

[jane01jp]

By doing what? Throwing people in jail? Fining people who may already be out of a job?

I think sometimes people haven't thought through the implications of these mandates. That is, the logical conclusion of mandates is using state authority, up to and including violence if necessary, to bring people into compliance.

 

[tvguy]

By doing what? Throwing people in jail? Fining people who may already be out of a job?

Tough choices for sure. But all those options are better than being dead IMHO.

 

[tvguy]

Unfortunately elected law enforcement officials don't want to risk being re-elected to their cushy jobs by enforcing the mandates.

The same applies to politicians who are afraid to make difficult decisions.

Yes, tough choices.

 

[tvguy]

I believe that the will to enforce these mandates will be on the decline in 2021, not on the increase. The same officials to whom law enforcement agencies report are often the same people making anti-law enforcement statements for perceived political gain. And, law enforcement can not afford to lose more public support from any well-publicized incidents that go awry in trying to enforce the mandates against some of the same citizens who have traditionally been the biggest supporters of law enforcement. Citizens who desire more authoritarian responses are, by and large, going to be disappointed in my opinion.

You don't think the record covid cases and deaths won't have an impact? I am seeing a lot of opponents of restrictions having "Come to Jesus" moments in recent weeks as their families and friends are impacted.

 

[jane01jp]

You don't think the record covid cases and deaths won't have an impact?

It is possible that the surge in deaths that will likely peak in January will have an impact on the desire of some to see more enforcement. If a sufficient number of people are concerned enough about lack of compliance with mandates they might put more pressure on public officials for enforcement.

There are lots of laws that are openly flouted by elected officials because they do not agree with them (immigration enforcement comes to mind). There are people who are outraged by that, but their ability to influence change is limited.

But, let't think more generally about the nature of law enforcement. They have finite resources. If their job becomes much more broad, they have limited choices: divert resources from other areas to address the new areas of focus; don't address the new areas of focus; or dilute enforcement to only go after more egregious violations. Or, if they have excess resources (which I don't think most law enforcement agencies would admit, because it would imply that they were over-funded), they could deploy those to address the new mandates.

A longer-term solution would be to increase the funding to law enforcement, either from redirecting funds from other city/state uses to law enforcement, or through passing tax increases. Passing tax increases requires legislation at the very least, and public referenda in many jurisdictions. Governments have attempted to circumvent these processes by passing enforcement on to businesses, who in turn theoretically pass the costs onto their consumers or owners. Should we get to the point that tax increases, as well as behavioral norms are mandated, we no longer have a representative government.

Let's keep in mind that at this point, very few of these mandates have been addressed by legislatures and codified into laws, and that as the mandates age, their survival in court against challenges is also likely to wane. After all, "emergencies" are by their very nature new, or emergent.

 

[tvguy]

It is possible that the surge in deaths that will likely peak in January will have an impact on the desire of some to see more enforcement. If a sufficient number of people are concerned enough about lack of compliance with mandates they might put more pressure on public officials for enforcement.

There are lots of laws that are openly flouted by elected officials because they do not agree with them (immigration enforcement comes to mind). There are people who are outraged by that, but their ability to influence change is limited.

But, let't think more generally about the nature of law enforcement. They have finite resources. If their job becomes much more broad, they have limited choices: divert resources from other areas to address the new areas of focus; don't address the new areas of focus; or dilute enforcement to only go after more egregious violations. Or, if they have excess resources (which I don't think most law enforcement agencies would admit, because it would imply that they were over-funded), they could deploy those to address the new mandates.

A longer-term solution would be to increase the funding to law enforcement, either from redirecting funds from other city/state uses to law enforcement, or through passing tax increases. Passing tax increases requires legislation at the very least, and public referenda in many jurisdictions. Governments have attempted to circumvent these processes by passing enforcement on to businesses, who in turn theoretically pass the costs onto their consumers or owners. Should we get to the point that tax increases, as well as behavioral norms are mandated, we no longer have a representative government.

Let's keep in mind that at this point, very few of these mandates have been addressed by legislatures and codified into laws, and that as the mandates age, their survival in court against challenges is also likely to wane. After all, "emergencies" are by their very nature new, or emergent.

I should point out I live in an area where the big controversy in local government is CARES Act money being allocated to Law Enforcement. Granted, it is a temporary move, a shell game, where they have to list a government service that is funded by the CARE act before the money went away. They then later shift an identical sum of money that would have gone to law enforcement to appropriate pandemic programs once they are identified.
I would counter that many of the points you bring up remind me of the 1970s laws that required seatbelt use, or more recently cellphone usage while driving. People argued that police didn't have the resources to enforce those laws. Yet over time, they found ways to do it, and tickets and fines for not wearing a seatbelt or using a cell phone while driving are routine police work.

 

[pjacobi]

By doing what? Throwing people in jail? Fining people who may already be out of a job?

There was a recent case in Hawaii where a Honeymoon couple broke quarantine and spent the night in jail.

-Paul

 

[Cheburashka]

There was a recent case in Hawaii where a Honeymoon couple broke quarantine and spent the night in jail.

-Paul

There's a big difference between officers' willingness to arrest pleasure-seeking outsiders who come into a delicate situation (such as exists in Hawaii, with its geographically limited hospital capacity) and break the rules, vs. the willingness of officers in non-island locations to arrest ordinary people just trying to live their daily lives. Where I live, many officials supported a small business owner who insisted on staying open during shutdown, because she couldn't feed her family without the income. There is little enthusiasm for "enforcing" laws that ride roughshod over hardworking people.

 

[jane01jp]

I should point out I live in an area where the big controversy in local government is CARES Act money being allocated to Law Enforcement. Granted, it is a temporary move, a shell game, where they have to list a government service that is funded by the CARE act before the money went away. They then later shift an identical sum of money that would have gone to law enforcement to appropriate pandemic programs once they are identified.
I would counter that many of the points you bring up remind me of the 1970s laws that required seatbelt use, or more recently cellphone usage while driving. People argued that police didn't have the resources to enforce those laws. Yet over time, they found ways to do it, and tickets and fines for not wearing a seatbelt or using a cell phone while driving are routine police work.

Right - seatbelt laws are often enforced, but where we live, people run red lights with reckless abandon - so much so, that when your light turns green, you make sure the guy 60 yards away from the red light is really going to stop. Also, where we live, texting and driving is extremely commonplace. My car was shot by a pellet gun, and the repair cost was almost $1,000. The police did not respond to my complaint. So, maybe there is a cost to increased enforcement of new laws after all.

I would also note that seatbelt and cell phone laws are just that. Laws. The mandates are not. They are mandates. They are said to have been imposed due to a public health emergency. Also, driving is a privilege, licensed by the states. Breathing without a face covering is not - yet.

Abridgments of freedom tend to be cumulative. For each new restriction, there are seldom any previous ones removed. Over time, this could become overbearing for some people, particularly those of a more libertarian versus authoritarian perspective. Finding a balance that is acceptable requires difficult, but necessary debate - not unilateral mandates.

 

[tvguy]

Right - seatbelt laws are often enforced, but where we live, people run red lights with reckless abandon - so much so, that when your light turns green, you make sure the guy 60 yards away from the red light is really going to stop. Also, where we live, texting and driving is extremely commonplace. My car was shot by a pellet gun, and the repair cost was almost $1,000. The police did not respond to my complaint. So, maybe there is a cost to increased enforcement of new laws after all.

I would also note that seatbelt and cell phone laws are just that. Laws. The mandates are not. They are mandates. They are said to have been imposed due to a public health emergency. Also, driving is a privilege, licensed by the states. Breathing without a face covering is not - yet.

Abridgments of freedom tend to be cumulative. For each new restriction, there are seldom any previous ones removed. Over time, this could become overbearing for some people, particularly those of a more libertarian versus authoritarian perspective.

Same here with running red lights AND speeding. Highway Patrol in 2020 wrote more tickets for people going 100+ mph than they ever have! And yes, there seem to be more people texting and driving since the ban went into effect. Given current record covid levels, I can see face mask use moving from mandate to law. Primary because by wearing a mask, you are protecting others.