Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[jase05]

Thank you. Tiffany must not know her facilities.

Though the ABC also describes it as a medi-hotel???????

SA Health investigating whether Victorian man caught coronavirus in Adelaide medi-hotel

SA health authorities are investigating whether a man who was released from hotel quarantine — then tested positive for COVID-19 in Melbourne — acquired the virus while in isolation. The Victorian man was in a room alongside another traveller who tested positive to COVID-19.

www.abc.net.au

I don’t know what they define it as but all our positives go to Tom’s Court as soon as they test positive

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I don’t know what they define it as but all our positives go to Tom’s Court as soon as they test positive

Ok, mystery solved!. After a quick google it appears that the term medi-hotel is used very loosely in SA

You have your actual fair dinkum one in Tom's Court, and then other ones that are not but are still called med-hotels LOL

Unlike other medi-hotels in Adelaide, where private companies have been employed to provide security, Tom's Court will be exclusively staffed by SA Health and SA Police, who will deliver nursing and security services.​

​

"Some modifications to the heating ventilation and air-conditioning system have been made to enable the hotel to meet SA Health's stringent requirements as a medi-hotel, with additional CCTV cameras also being installed.​

​

"We have also increased health support and mental health wellbeing checks for guests."​

​

A spokeswoman from SA Health said the opening of the facility marked "a significant enhancement" of the state's quarantine process and would be a site for other potential cases.​

More security and no soft furnishings: Here's how SA's newest medi-hotel will work


So is medi-hotel in SA just HQ?

 

[Pushka]

Just noticed this snippet:
View attachment 247703

So despite not being negative he was presumably for a medical reason put into the facility that houses positive cases.

Any positive cases go from say a Playford Med Hotel (all travellers go to Med Hotel in SA) to Tom’s Court. Sick people but not from Covid would go to RAH.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Any positive cases go from say a Playford Med Hotel (all travellers go to Med Hotel in SA) to Tom’s Court. Sick people but not from Covid would go to RAH.

Yes the SA nomenclature all understood now. Well except why they are using the Med term for non med facilities

Though Tom's does have: "We have also increased health support and mental health wellbeing checks for guests."

 

[Pushka]

Yes the SA nomenclature all understood now. Well except why they are using the Med term for non med facilities

Though Tom's does have: "We have also increased health support and mental health wellbeing checks for guests."

Ah. All travellers are regarded as unclean around these traps. . The rhetoric is to consider them all positive until proven otherwise. Except for the guy who just seemed to have escaped.

 

[oz_mark]

So following our HQ gift from WA we now get one from SA HQ Which just goes to show that these HQ generated cases can happen anywhere.

Victoria has a crack at sending one to WA as well, although in the end they say it was an historic case.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Vic Update.

Man retested. Positive on the second test.

3 primary household contacts are negative.

Post automatically merged: May 11, 2021

Exposure sites











You can see these at: Case alerts – public exposure sites | Coronavirus Victoria


The restaurant would be the site of greatest concern one would presume. Though at least being late on the 7th, they if infected probably would not be infectious yet.

 

[drron]

Though isn't the underlying reason for Victoria getting cases from WA and SA after HQ the fact that Victoria has slashed the number of returning travellers.
They can hardly complain when Victorians are forced to enter Australia through another State.

 

[Carrots]

Just noticed this snippet:
View attachment 247703

So despite not being negative he was presumably for a medical reason put into the facility that houses positive cases.

The Playford isn't a just a quarantine hotel, not for the positives - that is Tom's Court.

Edit - Oops, sorry should've kept reading on to this already being answered.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Though isn't the underlying reason for Victoria getting cases from WA and SA after HQ the fact that Victoria has slashed the number of returning travellers.
They can hardly complain when Victorians are forced to enter Australia through another State.

I wasn't complaining. My point was more that HQ cases can be generated in any state even after the increased measures. (ie Testing staff, some venues having upgraded HVAC, some venues tested for ventilation, vaccinating staff, pre-flight testing, more frequent testing after arrival etc.

As soon as it was known that CV19 can be aerosolised from just average people in quarantine (not all, as it just seems that some random people aerosolise more than others) we needed as a nation to adopt separate cabin quarantine (cheaper), or high grade quarantine (more expensive).

HQ continues to be improved at different rates, but is still very much playing russian roulette with those who stay there in some of the buildings.

 

[Lynda2475]

even after the increased measures

Except its apparent no increased measures were applied. The recommendations from previous HQ acquired infections were not followed. No discharge (and post discharge) testing done, just a she'll be right after 14 days flawed assumption. Couple that with the fact the traveler waited to get tested despite have symptoms on 8th, didn't go for a test until 10th.

The recommendation to test on departure and then after 2 days, is really low cost compared with risk of community spread. The National Cabinet need to agree nationwide standards and every state needs to get on board.

 

[Pushka]

Seems he may have been infected in quarantine because he was next door to a positive case before they moved that one to Tom’s Court.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Vic Update.

Man retested. Positive on the second test.

3 primary household contacts are negative.

Post automatically merged: May 11, 2021

Exposure sites

View attachment 247704


View attachment 247705



View attachment 247706


You can see these at: Case alerts – public exposure sites | Coronavirus Victoria


The restaurant would be the site of greatest concern one would presume. Though at least being late on the 7th, they if infected probably would not be infectious yet.

From Sutton: Just on why from the 6th. They work on the basis of a person might be infectious for 48 hours prior to syptom onset.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

And plane flights ADL - Mel presuming he flew.

Sutton has now stated that they believe that he would not have been infectious during the flight., and indeed not till the 6th or later.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Seems he may have been infected in quarantine because he was next door to a positive case before they moved that one to Tom’s Court.

The typical 5-7 days range prior to the 8th puts him in the Adelaide Hotel for when he is likely to have been infected.

When was that case moved?

 

[Pushka]

The typical 5-7 days range prior to the 8th puts him in the Adelaide Hotel for when he is likely to have been infected.

When was that case moved?

They haven't gone into details as to when the positive case was moved to Toms Court but all the chat today on SA Health update was all about how hotels were never designed for quarantine purposes so I think they reckon this was the infection. Testing will confirm or otherwise.

 

[Lynda2475]

The positive case at the Playford hotel tested positive on 4th May (day 9 of HQ) and was moved the same day, which is also the day the Melbourne man was discharged and flew back to MEL.

Given they don't test inmates at the hotel daily (up to a week between tests), the Melbourne man could have been infected through aerosols up to 5 days before the 4th (as his last test was also day 9 i.e. 30th April), although Vic seem to assume it happened on the 4th.

Melbourne guy had symptoms from the 8th, but you can be infectious before you experience symptoms so im not sure the claim that he wouldnt have been infectious on the ADL-MEL flight is a given.

Spurrier provided the dates in this article:

SA Health investigating whether Victorian man caught coronavirus in Adelaide medi-hotel

SA health authorities are investigating whether a man who was released from hotel quarantine — then tested positive for COVID-19 in Melbourne — acquired the virus while in isolation. The Victorian man was in a room alongside another traveller who tested positive to COVID-19.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Pushka]

The positive case at the Playford hotel tested positive on 4th May and was moved the same day, which is also the day the Melbourne man was discharged.

Given they don't test inmates at the hotel daily, the Melbourne man could have been infected through aerosols before the 4th, although Vic seem to assume it happened on the 4th.

Melbourne guy had symptoms from the 8th, but you can be infectious before you experience symptoms so im not sure the claim that he wouldnt have been infectious on the ADL-MEL flight is a given.

Spurrier provided the dates in this article:

SA Health investigating whether Victorian man caught coronavirus in Adelaide medi-hotel

SA health authorities are investigating whether a man who was released from hotel quarantine — then tested positive for COVID-19 in Melbourne — acquired the virus while in isolation. The Victorian man was in a room alongside another traveller who tested positive to COVID-19.

www.abc.net.au

After all the testing in SA in quarantine that this man had, we should be very grateful that he did go in for another test and didn't dismiss the symptoms.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Sutton stated that the man was most likely infected 5-7 days before symptom onset. Symptom onset was on the 8th. So that would be from the 1st to 3rd. The 5-7 days is just typical range though.

The 6th on for exposure sites is based on symptom onset (the 8th) minus 48 hours.

Note apart from what Sutton stated on the 48hrs, that Harvard Health indicates:

We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms.​

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

The typical 5-7 days range prior to the 8th puts him in the Adelaide Hotel for when he is likely to have been infected.

When was that case moved?

I think they were moved on 4 May