Australian (Open) Tennis and COVID-19

[Lynda2475]

You also seem to have an extraordinally low opinion of health professionals that you actually believe that they are looking for "loopholes".

I belive the AO organisers and players agents are the ones looking for the loopholes and then pressuing the health orfficial to do extra testing to prove this, something that doesnt happen for the average person.

It;s already been shown when they held the charter flight for that Tennys guy to allow him to fly when he tested positive, and his agent was able to call senior AO officials to get them to get an immediate review of his case history in record time so he could fly.

No normal person with a positive pre-flight test would be able to board a flights and have a team on tap on the phone to force through an emmergency review of medical history to have it deemed shedding and get an exemption then and there,

The local media reports I have seen about positive cases being deemed shedding have all been in the community. I have not read anythign about those in medi-hotels being reclassified as such.

I know in NSW they test all arrivals and run genomics, but they only do serology when they are having trouble linking community cases, I do not belive blood tests are standard in any of the states HQ programs (if it os please peovide a reference).

In NSW if you test positive (omn arrival or at any point in HQ) you get moved from a regular HQ hotel to a Medi hotel and stay there for the remainder of your 14 days, You dont get moved back to HQ from a medi-hotel or released earlier than 14 days due to serology,

AO arrivals are being afforded priviledge not affordeed a regualr citizen.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I belive the AO organisers and players agents are the ones looking for the loopholes and then pressuing the health orfficial to do extra testing to prove this, something that doesnt happen for the average person.

It;s already been shown when they held the charter flight for that Tennys guy to allow him to fly when he tested positive, and his agent was able to call senior AO officials to get them to get an immediate review of his case history in record time so he could fly.

No normal person with a positive pre-flight test would be able to board a flights and have a team on tap on the phone to force through an emmergency review of medical history to have it deemed shedding and get an exemption then and there,

The local media reports I have seen about positive cases being deemed shedding have all been in the community. I have not read anythign about those in medi-hotels being reclassified as such.

I know in NSW they test all arrivals and run genomics, but they only do serology when they are having trouble linking community cases, I do not belive blood tests are standard in any of the states HQ programs (if it os please peovide a reference).

In NSW if you test positive (omn arrival or at any point in HQ) you get moved from a regular HQ hotel to a Medi hotel and stay there for the remainder of your 14 days, You dont get moved back to HQ from a medi-hotel or released earlier than 14 days due to serology,

AO arrivals are being afforded priviledge not affordeed a regualr citizen.

What you have stated is not correct and when you stated it previously you were advised of the protocol that was followed for Tennys, which was the protocol for all to fly on the Charter Flights. A number of people were refused permission to fly.

Tennis Australia moved to clarify the situation in a statement Thursday that outlined players who've previously tested positive to COVID-19 were "required to provide additional and highly detailed medical information as proof they are a recovered case and no longer infectious or a risk to the community."

Tennis Australia added: "In the case of Tennys Sandgren, who has self-disclosed that he previously tested positive in late November, his medical file had to be reviewed by Victorian [state government] health authorities. Upon completion of that review he was cleared to fly."

 

[Lynda2475]

Nothing you have stated disproves what I have said - the plane was held, it was an 11th hour review. Yes he provided the information for review, but he didnt have that permission at the point he boarded the plane, the approval came through after boarding and but before plane departed. No normal person would be given this benefit.

The time line and help from AO officials in having his case reviewed are things the avergae joe doesnt get.

Australia has an obligation to help our citizens come home, we shouldnt be welcoming tennis players or celebrities from high risk locations, and they certainly shouldnt be given extra consideration that Aussies dont get.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

The local media reports I have seen about positive cases being deemed shedding have all been in the community. I have not read anythign about those in medi-hotels being reclassified as such.

I know in NSW they test all arrivals and run genomics, but they only do serology when they are having trouble linking community cases, I do not belive blood tests are standard in any of the states HQ programs (if it os please peovide a reference).

" but they only do serology when they are having trouble linking community case"

Whereas the the quote below is from Dr Chant when she was speaking on testing of people in Hotel quartine/isolation and specifically on international arrivals:

"If you are positive, we have a case-by-case assessment with experts who will do things like [assess] whether you have antibodies in response, whether the PCR marker is showing whether you're infectious," she (Dr Chant) said.

.

Why can COVID-19 cases be released from isolation after 10 days? A short explainer​

By Natassia Chrysanthos​

There has been some concern and confusion since this morning's revelation that a positive COVID-19 case was released from isolation in Victoria after just 10 days, and without a negative test.

NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant has explained why that was the case. Essentially, a 14-day quarantine period applies to people who may have been exposed to the virus (such as close contacts or returned travellers) because that is the general incubation period for infection to reveal itself.

But when someone actually has COVID-19, a different isolation requirement sets in. The guidelines were established by the Communicable Diseases Network Australia, and they change depending on whether the person had a mild or serious case.

The returned traveller reported this morning, who first arrived in Victoria and travelled to Queensland, had a mild case of COVID-19. Dr Chant explained what rules applied and why:

"The guidelines require that you have 10 days in isolation after your [COVID-19] symptoms. So you flip from quarantining 14 days to [minimum 10 days] when you are a case.

"For mild cases you were able to be discharged if you were 10 days from your symptom onset and you had been free of symptoms for 72 hours before.

"The reason that was necessary is that we found cases where you can detect the virus in people's noses and throats, three months and even four months after the infection. What we're also observing is sometimes they may be negative at a certain point, but then you get a runny nose or something, and then if you get tested at that time, you can sometimes have the remnants of the virus come out.

"Because of that, you would have people permanently locked up. That's why the Communicable Disease Network looked at the evidence. That was that people are most infectious in that beginning bit, the pre-symptomatic time-frame."

That explains why some people can be released after 10 days so long as they have been free of symptoms for 72 hours. It also explains why a negative test was not required before cases left isolation and entered the community - a positive test at that later stage does not necessarily mean they are still infectious.

"Obviously there is a different set of criteria if you have been hospitalised, there are much more stringent guidelines," Dr Chant said. That different set of criteria also applies to people who were in intensive care or have had more intensive lung involvement.

Of course, these requirements have now shifted in light of the new mutant strains appearing overseas and arriving on Australian shores. "The Communicable Diseases Network Australia guidelines have been renewed and we will further discuss that situation today," Dr Chant said.

But in short: the minimum isolation period for positive mild cases has been lengthened to 14 days and a negative test will be required before people enter the community. Those who still test positive after their symptoms have passed will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

"In NSW we've now re-instituted PCR testing on all negatives, but we are also making sure that we have the timely genetic genome sequencing, so again that can inform the decision-making," Dr Chant said.

"If you are negative, you will be able to [leave isolation], but we will extend the period to 14 days, not 10 days, as a precaution. We will test you before you go out and if you're negative, we will let you go out.

"If you are positive, we have a case-by-case assessment with experts who will do things like [assess] whether you have antibodies in response, whether the PCR marker is showing whether you're infectious," she said.

Such measures will alter the way that mild COVID-19 cases, such as the woman who travelled to Queensland from Victoria, will be treated in the future.


So

"If you are positive, we have a case-by-case assessment with experts who will do things like [assess] whether you have antibodies in response, whether the PCR marker is showing whether you're infectious," she said.​

sounds pretty much what is being done with the AO positive cases.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Nothing you have stated disproves what I have said

Only the facts.

 

[Lynda2475]

Firsty Dr Chant in the article above was explaining a historic Victorian case. Following that (and all the panic it caused) practices in NSW were changed all arrivals have to do minimum 14 days HQ regardless of test result.

None of the many people I know who have done HQ in Sydney have had bloods taken, even one friend who had Covid 2 months before returning home.

 

[Lynda2475]

Only the facts.

Show me the media retraction re the plane being delayed awaiting his results?

The additional information re assessing his medical records that you posted was about how the decision was made, it does not disprove he received assistance from AO in having that assessment done (because he did have help) nor that the decision wasn't made just before departure.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

None of the many people I know who have done HQ in Sydney have had bloods taken, even one friend who had Covid 2 months before returning home.

So " but they only do serology when they are having trouble linking community case"

is based on the many people that you know who have done HQ and not by what NSW Health actually has indicated that they do then?

So you actually have no real factual basis for your statement then?

And of the many how many returned a positive test, and were thus in the category to:

"If you are positive, we have a case-by-case assessment with experts who will do things like [assess] whether you have antibodies in response, whether the PCR marker is showing whether you're infectious," she said.

Mind you I don't know what NSW used to do, just what Dr Chat recently stated is what they do now.

 

[RooFlyer]

If a non-tennis player, non-celebrity arrived and tested positive, I doubt the health team would work so hard to find a loophole to declare it shedding. The reality is that regular person would be in medi hotel for 14 days regardless.

Exactly! that’s the point I was making up thread. The tournament apologists can make all the huff and puff and excuses they like but it’s a hypocritical government that manages to apply “shedding” to excuse the fact that they have allowed the virus to enter the state needlessly when their own citizens aren’t allowed the same privilege and have to stew away from home.

The ‘I stand with Dan’ mentality overrides all sensibility I think.

Only the facts.

I think we need “fact check” again.

 

[jakeseven7]

Exactly! that’s the point I was making up thread. The tournament apologists can make all the huff and puff and excuses they like but it’s a hypocritical government that manages to apply “shedding”

The government has nothing to do with determining whether or not a case is shedding or not. Neither technically does the Dept of health in VIC have the whole power to do this as it is assessed by an expert panel which has multiple members on it so it can't be controlled by one person or an agenda....

But don't let facts get in the way of a good vent

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Show me the media retraction re the plane being delayed awaiting his results?

The additional information re assessing his medical records that you posted was about how the decision was made, it does not disprove he received assistance from AO in having that assessment done (because he did have help) nor that the decision wasn't made just before departure.

So:

Was the flight was a charter for AO participants? Yes

Can the organisation that books a charter have its departure time varied? Yes

Is AO managing and arranging these flights? Yes

So would AO assisting a person on such a charter flight be considered to be unusual? No

Tennys was not allowed to board till his case was reviewed.

Does AO do the review? No

Do Vic Health officials do the review? Yes

Was there a protocol to be followed for this very situation? Yes

Is there any accurate report of the protocol not being adhered to? No

Is there anything to suggest that the assistance provided by the AO was in any way not what would be expected for such a flight? = No

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Firsty Dr Chant in the article above was explaining a historic Victorian case..

I posted the article to indicate what you claimed on blood tests in NSW was not the case. I assume that Dr Chant would be a credible source. However you prefer your many friends instead evidently.

 

[Lynda2475]

Dr Chant is a credible source (and the most pragmatic of all the CHOs), but the article you posted was her explaning what Vic Health did in the past in releasing an arrival from HQ earlier after only 10 days which is no longer allowed. That case was precisely the reason the policy was changed to enforce 14 days quarantine for all arrivals no exceptions (noticed you edited your post to reflect that).

Fact is that HQ cases are not removed from the tally or released early because their infection is deemed historic based on serology - they must serve a full 14 days.

I stand corrected that there are some instances where serology is done on overseas arrivals in NSW, but from that article it is when the person knows they have had the virus previously. They definitely dont do blood test on all people in HQ.

Many many Australias are appalled at the way Vic Govt is enabling arrivals form high risk countries to play a silly ball game putting the wider community at risk, all whilst locking out people from LGAs in Sydney that have had no cases for over 90 days.

The decison is economic and political not health based, Andrews is spruiking the shedding as likely because it suits his political narrative in justifying his facilitating an event that should not be happening. He doesnt stand up routinely and say oh joe average who arrived from overseas last week and is in HQ should be removed from the tally because he is shedding not active (despite test), they count the case as active, make them serve out the 14 days and move on.

AO invitees are getting multitudes more assistance to get to Australia than Australians. They have AO staff helping them navigate health requirments, free flights, free accmodation, free meals, 100k bonus payments for making it to a certain round, most also have the ability to leave HQ for 5 hours a day. Whereas returning Aussies who have to pay for their flights, pay for HQ, remain in theri rooms for full 14 days (many without any fresh air at all - no window or balcony).

 

[Pushka]

Dr Chant is a credible source (and the most pragmatic of all the CHOs), but the article you posted was her explaning what Vic Health did in the past in releasing an arrival from HQ earlier after only 10 days which is no longer allowed. That case was precisely the reason the policy was changed to enforce 14 days quarantine for all arrivals no exceptions (noticed you edited your post to reflect that).

Fact is that HQ cases are not removed from the tally or released early because their infection is deemed historic based on serology - they must serve a full 14 days.

I stand corrected that there are some instances where serology is done on overseas arrivals in NSW, but from that article it is when the person knows they have had the virus previously. They definitely dont do blood test on all people in HQ.

Many many Australias are appalled at the way Vic Govt is enabling arrivals form high risk countries to play a silly ball game putting the wider community at risk, all whilst locking out people from LGAs in Sydney that have had no cases for over 90 days.

The decison is economic and political not health based, Andrews is spruiking the shedding as likely because it suits his political narrative in justifying his facilitating an event that should not be happening. He doesnt stand up routinely and say oh joe average who arrived from overseas last week and is in HQ should be removed from the tally because he is shedding not active (despite test), they count the case as active, make them server out the 14 days and move on.

I'd be keen to seek SA's Prof Spurriers opinion on the shedding as she has in the past declared quite a handful of positive cases as being older cases and shedding occurring and not infectious.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

That case was precisely the reason the policy was changed to enforce 14 days quarantine for all arrivals no exceptions (noticed you edited your post to reflect that).

The policy was changed due the new UK and SA strains. (I posted the aspects at the time it occurred from before recommendations were being made till adopted. You may recall as you discounted Prof Cheng as you did not like his public speaking abilities).

Dr Chant was explaining that the traveller was released under the previously agreed rules on isolation which were all fully complied with.

Prof Cheng recommended to the AHPPC that that and other measures be adopted due the these more infectious strains. The AHPPC then made recommendations to the National Cabinet which then made the announcement that it did.

The Jetstar Case who travel from Melbourne to Queensland was therefore checked due the change in protocols. Just as other cases who had been through NSW HQ were also checked.

Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant said health authorities have been conducting follow-up tests for returning travellers after they have been released from quarantine.​

Follow up tests will mean blood tests as NSW Health are thorough.



The reason I posted the article was due what Dr Chant stated on the the blood tests which was different to what your statement was: " but they only do serology when they are having trouble linking community case"

"If you are positive, we have a case-by-case assessment with experts who will do things like [assess] whether you have antibodies in response, whether the PCR marker is showing whether you're infectious," she said.

However that quote is also pertinent to the AO cases being reviewed.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I'd be keen to seek SA's Prof Spurriers opinion on the shedding as she has in the past declared quite a handful of positive cases as being older cases and shedding occurring and not infectious.

Yes, including the UK immigrant who tested positive from memory 3 months or so after he was infected in the UK.

From memory SA Health's review at the time was that he would not have been infectious on his flight into Australia and his time living in SA.

Such viral shedding cases are not unusual.

Martin Foley says three people who retested positive for COVID-19 are being considered as "virus shedding"​

Posted 11 Nov 2020, 11:10am

Two cases were in metropolitan Melbourne and a third case was a woman who arrived in South Australia from Victoria whose case is currently under review.

 

[Lynda2475]

That is not correct as the policy was changed due the new UK and SA strains.

Actually the person that Vic let out after 10 days and then travelleed to Qld where they tested positive had the new the UK strain - so my comment stands as correct. The publicity around how that person may have still been infectious with the UK strain is what forced their hands at changing policy.

Even if health determine that the AO people who tested positive are shedding and not infectious, they should still be held to the same 14 day HQ standard as everyone else is - no outside room time.

So an old article about being able to release early if they are no longer contagious is irrelevant as all arrivals should now be doing 14 days irrespective of test results/ The rules have changed you cant use an old article to argue for a different outcome or justify any reconsideration of being confined to their rooms.

If any of the close contacts on those flights are released earlier than 14 days to train - it will be another example of special treatement and you should be equally outraged at the special treatment, especiallu since many Victroians still have no way to return from NSW.

 

[Pushka]

So an old article about being able to release early if they are no longer contagious is irrelevant as all arrivals should now be doing 14 days irrespective of test results/ The rules have changed you cant use an old article to argue for a different outcome.

Isn't that up to each respective CHO's to determine?

 

[Lynda2475]

Isn't that up to each respective CHO's to determine?

So you are in support of a CHO decalring one rule for arriving aussies and a different rule for arriving AO particpants? Why do AO deserve special treatment?

The Qld woman referenced in the article had the UK strain, experts deemed she could have still been contagious even after her symptoms subsided, which is why you now need fo 14 full days and get a negative covid test to be released from HQ (not just feel better and go at 10 days).

If Vic CHO goes against the 14 days rule that other states have implemented then they are putting other states at risk, as once in the community those people may travel to (or interact with people that travel to) other states.

After complaining about other states procedures, it is hypocrytical of Vic refuses to not enforce the agreed 14 days for everyone.

Close contacts who were on a plane with a positive case are looking likely to be allowed to leave HQ for 5 hours a day, but people in Sydney LGAs with no cases, who have not been a close contact of any case can not even apply for a permit to enter subject to a negative test - tis a complete joke.

 

[Lynda2475]

Such viral shedding cases are not unusual.

All examples you have posted prove my point that the press coverage is about local cases deemed to be viral shedding not those in HQ.