Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

caveat emptor

Stevek101 wrote: »

I didn't see when the others tested positive. Even if it was day 5 it would suggest exposure at MHQ.

No it wouldn't if the incubation period is on average 6 days.

gozunda

is_that_so wrote: »

There are 750K of these variants and an absolutely minute number have been shown to be VOCs. The current extreme alarm is because of a lack of a vaccinated population pools.

It only takes one VOC to be an issue. See B.1.1.7 here after Christmas.

We don't need any others...

So yes getting people vaccinated whilst keeping a lid on the rate of infection is the main goal atm.

Stevek101

caveat emptor wrote: »

No it wouldn't if the incubation period is on average 6 days.

Odds are against onboard transmission. All passengers had the gold standard PCR test which will pick up the virus pre, post and asymptomatically. As the majority tested positive many days after arrival combined with the lack of contact tracing to find the source makes the most probable source the MHQ.

Many MHQ hotels lack windows that can be opened and staff are tested only once a week. That combined with guest mingling and lack of hard evidence of on board transmission has all fingers pointing in one direcion.

It's the leaky part of the whole travel experience. But lets not get the facts get in the way of a good lie.

is_that_so

gozunda wrote: »

It only takes one VOC to be an issue. See B.1.1.7 here after Christmas.

We don't need any others...

So yes getting people vaccinated whilst keeping a lid on the rate of infection is the main goal atm.

Fear of what might be over getting control of what is, is not a sound policy.

gozunda

Stevek101 wrote: »

As most tested positive on the 12th day it's more than likely they acquired it in MHQ and not onboard.

No - some 22 of the 47 cases detected were found to be positive after 12 days of quarantine

That means that 25 (the majority) cases were detected as having tested positive for covid after arriving in Hong Kong

That said it can take up to 14 days for people to develop the disease and / or become asymptomatic

But yes you're correct in one possible regard. Hong Kong has very strict entry requirements, and all arriving international passengers are both tested and put into a quarantine facility following arrival. So yes there was some potential that there was some limited cross infection in the quarantine hotel with families staying together.

OwenM

Stevek101 wrote: »

Odds are against onboard transmission. All passengers had the gold standard PCR test which will pick up the virus pre, post and asymptomatically. As the majority tested positive many days after arrival combined with the lack of contact tracing to find the source makes the most probable source the MHQ.

Many MHQ hotels lack windows that can be opened and staff are tested only once a week. That combined with guest mingling and lack of hard evidence of on board transmission has all fingers pointing in one direcion.

It's the leaky part of the whole travel experience. But lets not get the facts get in the way of a good lie.

That makes me laugh, yes it is 'the gold standard' but in reality it means we don't have anything better than it. It is a terrible test, the inventor is on record as saying it should not be used like this. PCR gives positive results for people before, during and after an infection. Sometimes people can test positive several weeks after recovery.

gozunda

Stevek101 wrote: »

Odds are against onboard transmission. All passengers had the gold standard PCR test which will pick up the virus pre, post and asymptomatically. As the majority tested positive many days after arrival combined with the lack of contact tracing to find the source makes the most probable source the MHQ.

Many MHQ hotels lack windows that can be opened and staff are tested only once a week. That combined with guest mingling and lack of hard evidence of on board transmission has all fingers pointing in one direcion.

It's the leaky part of the whole travel experience. But lets not get the facts get in the way of a good lie.

Not so. There is a growing number of cases where on board spread has been shown to be the most likely cause of infection.

In the Hong Kong case - the majority (25) were found to be positive with Covid shortly after arriving in Hong Kong.

One of the most extensive research of transmission after pre-travel testing comes from the New Zealand Ministry of Health, which joined with other researchers to study seven infected people who traveled aboard Emirates Flight 448 from Dubai to Auckland last year.

Two of the seven were likely infected before traveling but had tested negative in Zurich, Switzerland, within 72 hours of departing on their trip. Four of the seven were likely infected in-flight, the study found, and another likely during mandatory 14-day quarantine in New Zealand required of all passengers.

All seven people had genetically identical strains of the virus, even though the passengers had originated in five different countries. All seven sat within two rows of the presumed spreaders, and all were in aisle seats, the study reported. Travelers reported wearing masks and some wore gloves. There were 86 passengers on the Boeing 777.

As highlighted PCR is at best a snapshot in time. Once taken - it does not stop someone contacting covid whilst in transit, in the airport or flying. There is also an known issue with false negatives in a small number of cases.

normanoffside

gozunda wrote: »

No - some 22 of the 47 cases detected were found to be positive after 12 days of quarantine

That means that 25 (the majority) cases were detected as having tested positive for covid after arriving in Hong Kong

That said it can take up to 14 days for people to develop the disease and / or become asymptomatic

But yes you're correct in one possible regard. Hong Kong has very strict entry requirements, and all arriving international passengers are both tested and put into a quarantine facility following arrival. So yes there was some potential that there was some limited cross infection in the quarantine hotel with families staying together.

The tweet says they all tested negative on Arrival and that 22 tested positive after day 12, the other 25 at some point in between (not sure of the MHQ testing system in HK but if tested on Day 0 and Day 12, probably a test half way in between (day 6?).

Sounds like they either picked it up at the Hotel or perhaps even from a staff member when being held at the Airport for day 0 tests.

caveat emptor

Stevek101 wrote: »

Odds are against onboard transmission. All passengers had the gold standard PCR test which will pick up the virus pre, post and asymptomatically. As the majority tested positive many days after arrival combined with the lack of contact tracing to find the source makes the most probable source the MHQ.

Many MHQ hotels lack windows that can be opened and staff are tested only once a week. That combined with guest mingling and lack of hard evidence of on board transmission has all fingers pointing in one direcion.

It's the leaky part of the whole travel experience. But lets not get the facts get in the way of a good lie.

Who's lying?
So you are saying 47 people independently contracted in hotel quarantine?

That's a stretch, Most likely lots of them got it on the plane.

Also they were in different hotels.

Stevek101

caveat emptor wrote: »

Who's lying?
So you are saying 47 people independently contracted in hotel quarantine?

That's a stretch, Most likely lots of them got it on the plane.

Hard evidence would point towards MHQ. There are very few documented cases of onboard transmission especially since the introduction of PCR testing. It is the same 2 studies mentioned over and over which are as water tight as a sieve. Hard to believe there is so little evidence with so many flights internationally.



The study mentioned above was commissioned by an interested party of a MHQ system.

josip

Sounds similar to what happens in the NZ and Aus quarantine hotels.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/worker-new-zealand-quarantine-hotel-tests-positive-coronavirus/100062084
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/06/new-zealand-another-covid-case-linked-to-pullman-hotel
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55929180

Stevek101

josip wrote: »

Sounds similar to what happens in the NZ and Aus quarantine hotels.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/worker-new-zealand-quarantine-hotel-tests-positive-coronavirus/100062084
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/06/new-zealand-another-covid-case-linked-to-pullman-hotel
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55929180

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/just-one-hotel-quarantine-staff-member-has-tested-positive-for-covid-19-so-far-1.4532396?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fjust-one-hotel-quarantine-staff-member-has-tested-positive-for-covid-19-so-far-1.4532396

Thankfully just one staff member tested positive here after the first few days of operation. :pac:

gozunda

normanoffside wrote: »

The tweet says they all tested negative on Arrival and that 22 tested positive after day 12, the other 25 at some point in between (not sure of the MHQ testing system in HK but if tested on Day 0 and Day 12, probably a test half way in between (day 6?).

Sounds like they either picked it up at the Hotel or perhaps even from a staff member when being held at the Airport for day 0 tests.*

*Unlikely. It is known that those infected with SARS-CoV-2 but who not have enough virus may show a negative result . For example, this may happen if a person has only recently became infected but don’t have symptoms, yet.

The tweet states passengers were tested "after arrival" - with no detail as to exactly what day that was. News reports also detail that 25 of the infected passengers tested positive within the first 11 days of them being in Hong Kong. A further 22 passengers tested positive following routine sampling on day 12.

The incubation period for the virus that causes COVID-19 can be as long as 14-days, although most people display symptoms just five days after being infected. Hong Kong requires air passengers to observe a 21-day quarantine period. Like the New Zealand study - research into the strain or strains involved should provide a definitive answer.

Interestingly Authorities in Hong Kong have moved to further resrict flights following the flight in question.

gozunda

josip wrote: »

Sounds similar to what happens in the NZ and Aus quarantine hotels.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/worker-new-zealand-quarantine-hotel-tests-positive-coronavirus/100062084
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/06/new-zealand-another-covid-case-linked-to-pullman-hotel
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55929180

So what youre saying there is that workers were being infected by incoming quarantine passengers?


As detailed

Melbourne saw this last July when a quarantined traveller infected a hotel guard, who unwittingly took the virus into the community. The resulting outbreak accounts for over 90% of Australia's 29,000 cases and 909 deaths to date.

So no not similar at all...

And people wonder why we have quarantine?

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

*Unlikely. It is known that those infected with SARS-CoV-2 but who not have enough virus may show a negative result . For example, this may happen if a person has only recently became infected but don’t have symptoms, yet.

The tweet states passengers were tested "after arrival" - with no detail as to exactly what day that was. News reports also detail that 25 of the infected passengers tested positive within the first 11 days of them being in Hong Kong. A further 22 passengers tested positive following routine sampling on day 12.

The incubation period for the virus that causes COVID-19 can be as long as 14-days, although most people display symptoms just five days after being infected. Hong Kong requires air passengers to observe a 21-day quarantine period. Like the New Zealand study - research into the strain or strains involved should provide a definitive answer.

Interestingly Authorities in Hong Kong have moved to further resrict flights following the flight in question.

Doublethink?

Average time to symptoms is 6 days, we arent told when most of the 25 who tested positive <11 actually had their tests, but there further 22 tested positive on day 12.

Extremely unlikely that all 22 were infected before flight or on the flight and tested negative each time until day 12. Incredibly unlikely stuff - far more likely that they contracted it from staff or other people who were quarantined.

Stevek101

gozunda wrote: »

So what youre saying there is that workers were being infected by incoming quarantine passengers?

So no not similar at all...

And people wonder why we have quarantine?

Could of been community transmission. Again as all previously used examples no detailed contact tracing so nobody knows the source.

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

Doublethink?

Average time to symptoms is 6 days, we arent told when most of the 25 who tested positive <11 actually had their tests, but there further 22 tested positive on day 12.

Extremely unlikely that all 22 were infected before flight or on the flight and tested negative each time until day 12. Incredibly unlikely stuff - far more likely that they contracted it from staff or other people who were quarantined.

Well no. Or do you mean that what you're doing?

Its already stated in news reports that 25 cases were detected within the first 11 days.

And as detailed it is possible the remaining 22 casss detected at day 12 were as a result of spread between quarantining family members sharing the same rooms plus a number of possible late detections

As per the New Zealand Study - a genetic analysis of the strains involved will provide a more comprehensive answer

fly_agaric

josip wrote: »

Sounds similar to what happens in the NZ and Aus quarantine hotels.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-11/worker-new-zealand-quarantine-hotel-tests-positive-coronavirus/100062084
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/06/new-zealand-another-covid-case-linked-to-pullman-hotel
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55929180

We are (well) over-due a few sneery sour grape posts about how what those fools in Aus/NZ have done is barbaric and pointless.
Every Covid case serves 'em right for daring to stamp on human right to cheap and easy global travel like they did! :pac:

muddypuppy

fly_agaric wrote: »

We we (well) over-due a few sneery sour grape posts about how what those fools in Aus/NZ have done is barbaric and pointless.
Every Covid case serves 'em right for daring to stamp on human right to cheap and easy global travel like they did! :pac:

It is barbaric, there are lots of citizen from those countries that want to just come back to their homes, and can't. Honestly it's sad how you people can't think that someone might have to travel for reasons unrelated to holidays.
But at least their MHQ make sense, since they're pursuing a zero covid approach. Here it serves to just block maybe 1% of the cases (big maybe).

gozunda

Stevek101 wrote: »

Could of been community transmission. Again as all previously used examples no detailed contact tracing so nobody knows the source.

not so for example the New Zealand example used genetic testing of the covid strain to determine its origins

Perhaps the most extensive research of transmission after pre-travel testing comes from the New Zealand Ministry of Health, which joined with other researchers to study seven infected people who traveled aboard Emirates Flight 448 from Dubai to Auckland on Sept. 29.

Two of the seven were likely infected before traveling but had tested negative in Zurich, Switzerland, within 72 hours of departing on their trip. Four of the seven were likely infected in-flight, the study found, and another likely during mandatory 14-day quarantine in New Zealand required of all passengers.

All seven people had genetically identical strains of the virus, even though the passengers had originated in five different countries. All seven sat within two rows of the presumed spreaders, and all were in aisle seats, the study reported. Travelers reported wearing masks and some wore gloves. There were 86 passengers on the Boeing 777.

I suspect this will be done in Hong Kong to determine the most likley origin of the infection.
.

fly_agaric

muddypuppy wrote: »

It is barbaric, there are lots of citizen from those countries that want to just come back to their homes, and can't. Honestly it's sad how you people can't think that someone might have to travel for reasons unrelated to holidays.

I did not mention holidays in my post.
Was being sarcastic there. It is not barbaric - that's just debasing language imo.
Genocide is barbaric. Torture is barbaric. The death penalty is barbaric. Stuff like that. Not loss/curtailment of rights to travel internationally.

muddypuppy wrote: »

But at least their MHQ make sense, since they're pursuing a zero covid approach. Here it serves to just block maybe 1% of the cases (big maybe).

At least you can see that what they've done makes sense.
Alot that post here don't want to admit that + every time they have a new outbreak due to a slip up or bad luck, the claim is "see, it failed!".
As for us, I know we can't get to "zero covid". I think the situation is still quite uncertain at the moment despite the miracle of the vaccines. I believe we'd be better off having system like this in place and working properly even if we ended up largely getting rid of it quite soon [in terms of how long this has gone on for so far].

is_that_so

fly_agaric wrote: »

As for us, I know we can't get to "zero covid". I think the situation is still quite uncertain at the moment despite the miracle of the vaccines. I believe we'd be better off having system like this in place and working properly even if we ended up largely getting rid of it quite soon [in terms of how long this has gone on for so far].

That has been described as a false hope by NPHET and we don't have enough hotels in the country.

Blut2

fly_agaric wrote: »

I did not mention holidays in my post.
Was being sarcastic there. It is not barbaric - that's just debasing language imo.
Genocide is barbaric. Torture is barbaric. The death penalty is barbaric. Stuff like that. Not loss/curtailment of rights to travel internationally.

What do you call people being kept from coming back to Ireland to visit their dying parents on their death beds, if not barbaric?

Being kept from saying goodbye to a parent (or a child, or sibling) on their death bed is honestly one of the worst things that I could think of happening in a life. Thats something that will haunt someone for the entire rest of their life.

Particularly when theres no logic behind it. Why are professional athletes exempt from MHQ? Are sports games really more important than dying family members?

fly_agaric

is_that_so wrote: »

That has been described as a false hope by NPHET and we don't have enough hotels in the country.

What is a "false hope"?

No place doing this for majority of incoming travellers would have enough hotel spaces for demand.

That is why people (incl. citizens/residents) get can stuck outside the countries that are doing it even if they have money to pay for quarantine and main reason why other posters are getting quite overwrought and (non ironically) describing such systems as "barbaric".:rolleyes:

Blut2 wrote:

What do you call people being kept from coming back to Ireland to visit their dying parents on their death beds, if not barbaric?

It's awful, but not "barbaric".

Blut2 wrote:

Why are professional athletes exempt from MHQ? Are sports games really more important than dying family members?

I can't defend that but if you want to set up targets to knock down + pick out all the inconsistencies in what they have done fire away.

is_that_so

fly_agaric wrote: »

What is a "false hope"?

It was their way of saying we're not doing this and they don't believe it'd be anyway feasible.

fly_agaric

is_that_so wrote: »

It was their way of saying we're not doing this and they don't believe it'd be anyway feasible.

Forgive my denseness, but without more specifics (like a source) still not getting what you mean there or who exactly said what, or what this "false hope" you refer to is?

Is it that "zero Covid" is a "false hope" (agree).

Is it quarantining incoming travellers is a "false hope"?

It should help keep some as yet unknown dangerous new variant out of the country or at least slow down its spread here, but yes it can't drive Covid-19 down or protect us fully (without some other changes which seem very unlikely now after a year into this).

is_that_so

fly_agaric wrote: »

Forgive my denseness, but without more specifics (like a source) still not getting what you mean there or who exactly said what, or what this "false hope" you refer to is?

Is it that "zero Covid" is a "false hope" (agree).

Is it quarantining incoming travellers is a "false hope"?

It should help keep some as yet unknown dangerous new variant out of the country or at least slow down its spread here, but yes it can't drive Covid-19 down or protect us fully (without some other changes).

Zero COVID. The terrifying unknown scariant which may never arrive will be addressed once we get enough vaccinations done. Cases in MQH are miniscule in comparison with what we are spreading ourselves in the community.

Mullaghteelin

Blut2 wrote: »

What do you call people being kept from coming back to Ireland to visit their dying parents on their death beds, if not barbaric?

Being kept from saying goodbye to a parent (or a child, or sibling) on their death bed is honestly one of the worst things that I could think of happening in a life. Thats something that will haunt someone for the entire rest of their life.

We're over a year into a global pandemic. I have limited sympathy for those who chose to travel at a time when there was severe disruption to travel worldwide. It's not as if we weren't warned, or had no advance notice that travel disruption was a likelihood.
Many generations of Irish people emigrated with no little or no hope of seeing family members again. Travel was a luxury, rather than an entitlement.

M_Murphy57

Mullaghteelin wrote: »

We're over a year into a global pandemic. I have limited sympathy for those who chose to travel at a time when there was severe disruption to travel worldwide. It's not as if we weren't warned, or had no advance notice that travel disruption was a likelihood.
Many generations of Irish people emigrated with no little or no hope of seeing family members again. Travel was a luxury, rather than an entitlement.

Yes, let's bring back coffin ships whilst we are talking about very recent emigration experience like leaving Irish shores never expecting to see home again and travel being a luxury.

Shame on people for not being better at predicting when their family members would die. And shame on their family members for not knowing that Donnelly would put 70 odd random countries on an MHQ list with just a few days notice and with no visible criteria.

faceman

Mullaghteelin wrote: »

We're over a year into a global pandemic. I have limited sympathy for those who chose to travel at a time when there was severe disruption to travel worldwide. It's not as if we weren't warned, or had no advance notice that travel disruption was a likelihood.
Many generations of Irish people emigrated with no little or no hope of seeing family members again. Travel was a luxury, rather than an entitlement.

What’s your views on smokers or drinkers who develop cancer and heart disease?