CDC's cruise inspectors laid off as ship arrives in Florida with a norovirus outbreak
All full-time employees in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vessel Sanitation Program were laid off this week, even as a cruise ship arrived in Miami with another norovirus outbreak among passengers and crew.
The CDC employees whose jobs were cut were responsible for monitoring, tracking and assisting with gastrointestinal outbreaks on cruise ships. The epidemiologist tasked with leading the federal agency's outbreak response on cruise ships also was included in the layoffs, CDC officials told CBS News.
The cuts are problematic for Florida, where passengers disembark from cruise ships with gastrointestinal viruses and often travel through airports. The CDC documented a dozen outbreaks on ships in just the first four months of 2025, mostly from norovirus. Ten of those ships departed from, or docked in, Florida or both. The outbreaks involved as many as hundreds of passengers and crew members falling ill with symptoms like vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps.
On Wednesday, Seaborn Cruise Lines Encore arrived in Miami after a 3½-week voyage. Thirty-five of the roughly 800 people on board had become ill with norovirus. The cruise line reported that it consulted with Vessel Sanitation Program officials about sanitation cleaning procedures. 'VSP remotely monitored the situation, including review of the ship's outbreak response and sanitation procedures,' the CDC website says.
Employees in the Vessel Sanitation Program were cut as part of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s major layoffs in public health.
A CDC spokesperson told the South Florida Sun Sentinel, 'Critical programs in the CDC will continue under Secretary Kennedy's vision to streamline HHS to better serve Americans.'
The spokesperson also said that unannounced sanitation inspections, monitoring and assisting with gastrointestinal outbreaks and tracking and reporting illnesses on cruise ships has not stopped and the work will now be done by U.S. Public Health Service officers.
CBS reported that only one epidemiologist remains on the Vessel Sanitation Program's team to investigate outbreaks and that individual is still in the early stages of training.
Florida and many areas of the U.S. have been battling a record surge of norovirus in recent months, driven mainly by a new strain of the gastrointestinal virus.
Wastewater samples throughout Florida — home to seven major cruise ports — show high levels of norovirus as of April 7. Verily's wastewater program provides surveillance of norovirus and other pathogens at 11 sites in Florida, including two in Miami-Dade County and one in Jupiter. Wastewater testing at all three tracked high levels of norovirus.
'In all three South Florida wastewater treatment facilities in which Verily monitors pathogens, we've seen persistently high levels of Norovirus GII since November/December 2024,' said Amy Lockwood, Verily's Public Health Partnerships Lead. 'While an uptick during this season is expected, the levels we are seeing are significantly higher than the same time period in 2024 and 2023.'
Also, high levels of norovirus were reported in three of the four Central Florida (Orange County) wastewater sites. The fourth has a medium level. The site closest to Port Canaveral, which hosts multiple Disney cruises, has a high level.
'These early warning signs help officials get ahead of outbreaks, and right now, the data suggests an increased transmission risk as travelers come and go,' Lockwood said.
South Florida Sun Sentinel health reporter Cindy Goodman can be reached at cgoodman@sunsentinel.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. removes CDC vaccine panel members: What to know
US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has removed all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine advisory panel and aims to replace it with new members "currently under consideration." Yahoo Finance senior health reporter Anjalee Khemlani covers what this means for vaccine distribution in the US and the reaction from vaccine manufacturers. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief here. The US Secretary of Health and Human Services, RFK Jr., removing all 17 members of a panel that makes vaccine policy recommendations to the CDC. They're expected to be replaced by new members who are currently under consideration and here to talk about the potential ramifications. We have Yahoo Finance senior health reporter, Anjali Kamlani. Anjali, what do we know and ultimately, what is the signal to some of the publicly traded companies who rely on some stability within the CDC? Yeah, we've already seen both the FDA and the CDC go through a little bit of changes. We've seen other advisory groups maybe be fired and brought back. So, right now, things are a little bit up in the air. But what we do know, especially from some of the insiders I spoke to, is that the CDC advisory committee for vaccines, RFK Jr. is really focused on trying to put in people who will maybe change the tone of how it operates. So, just to remind you, the FDA is the regulatory body that approves the vaccines. So, the approvals are not currently in jeopardy. And the FDA has its own vaccine advisory committee that helps to talk through whether or not this vaccine is safe and and is useful and should be approved, and they make that recommendation to the FDA. Meanwhile, the CDC's panel, uh, it determines who should be given the vaccine, who is it safe for, who is vulnerable, which populations are vulnerable, and who actually needs these vaccines. That is the panel that just got fired. Could we see some reappearances based on the history of how these firings have been going? Possible. Some insiders I spoke to said that uh the process for these new applicants is very different. They're actually not applicants. They're being sought by RFK Jr. and his team. And so that really spins what we're looking at in terms of what the purpose of these of this committee could be. We know that uh if you take a look at Project 2025, we know that has been referenced multiple times in terms of action from the Trump administration, and in there it says by statute or regulation, CDC guidance must be prohibited from taking a prescriptive character. And that language does match what we've heard from RFK Jr., a known anti-vaccination individual, who has been pushing for rolling back the childhood vaccine schedule and making it more about personal choice, more individual choice, parental choice, and even physician choice about what vaccines kids should be taking. And so, it's likely we're going to see that interrupt of it. I've had conversations also with vaccine companies in the recent past, talking about what they expect. And the truth is that while this this will actually disrupt the flow of bringing uh uh vaccine to market, we have had some of what I would what was termed the big ones already on the market. And so, this is more of what are the new ones, what are some areas that, you know, long projects of bringing vaccines to market are still are still needed, and it doesn't have a very large uh impact on some of these vaccine companies. Notably the big ones in the in the game are Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi, as well as, you know, Moderna and Merck. And so, these are the companies that could be impacted in the future as they look to try and bring new products to market. But the fact that there are also companies we've seen in the recent past jump out of the vaccine game also tells you sort of where, you know, where the needle is pointed in terms of vaccines being a product that maybe aren't as big revenue, aren't as big volume, aren't as big uh uh uh uh product for these companies. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
