Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[drron]

We just don't know if the ones positive after quarantine have infected others as that information basically isn't released.

And as to Asymptomatic cases not being infective the WHO has withdrawn that statement.

WHO walks back comments on asymptomatic coronavirus spread, says much is still unknown

The WHO scrambled to clarify its comments that transmission of the coronavirus by people who never developed symptoms is "very rare."

www.cnbc.com

So the answer is we just don't know.

The Victorians I think are testing people now at the end of quarantine after being embarrassed by the SA woman who tested positive on arrival in SA after telling those looking after her in Victoria that she had symptoms yet they still didn't test her.

SA has been the standout as their protocol is to test on Day 13.

 

[Pushka]

I keep coming back to the point of, have people been shown to have been infected by other people pos-quarantine? At present there just seems to be occasional reports of people who have been quarantined later testing positive, but no cases of someone being linked to a hotel quarantine case through contact with a person post quarantine.

I assume all states do genomic testing of all new cases (I know they do in Vic). If they do, then they will know if any case has come from contact with a post-quarantined person. I may have missed it, but I have yet to read a report of this.

And I keep coming back to the phrase used to explain so much at the moment, 'in an abundance of caution'. Testing everyone before being released from overseas quarantine doesn't even seem to be a cautious approach more like a "why wouldn't they?" And given the issues from quarantine that have occurred, it seems irrelevant as even a "once off" should dictate the protocols.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

We just don't know if the ones positive after quarantine have infected others as that information basically isn't released.

We don't, but the health departments will as they do the genomic testing and they have not budged from the 14 day quarantine period for those that are not showing symptoms.

That to me means that they are ok with the 14 day period.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

And I keep coming back to the phrase used to explain so much at the moment, 'in an abundance of caution'. Testing everyone before being released from overseas quarantine doesn't even seem to be a cautious approach more like a "why wouldn't they?" And given the issues from quarantine that have occurred, it seems irrelevant as even a "once off" should dictate the protocols.

What are the issues that you refer to? Someone testing positive is only a problem if they are also infectious. So has someone been found to be infectious?

"why wouldn't they? Well the answer may well be that if no one actually gets infected is it really an issue though?
But I do know that the Vic Authorities, and do genomic testing of all unkown infection cases, I suspect the other states will as well, so that they can try and find the source.

In Australia many tens of thousands of people have now gone through hotel quarantine. I believe that Vic and NSW that is is now over 70,000 people. So if not one person has been indicated to have been infected from some-one post quarantine then perhaps it is not a problem or issue?

 

[drron]

We don't, but the health departments will as they do the genomic testing and they have not budged from the 14 day quarantine period for those that are not showing symptoms.

That to me means that they are ok with the 14 day period.

Though as the Health departments are not routinely testing at the end of quarantine they can't exclude the possibility.
And the 14 day quarantine having not changed doesn't exclude the possibility that those released from quarantine and then tested positive could infect others.Going back to the SA woman who became symptomatic on day 13 of quarantine.Totally consistent with reported incubation periods.Released on Day 14 and travelled to SA.We know that she was probably infectious on days 12,13,14 and 15 and possibly infective though with reduced chance for some days after that.

And someone who becomes positive on day 14 may not develop symptoms for another day or 2.

 

[Pushka]

So if not one person has been indicated to have been infected from some-one post quarantine then perhaps it is not a problem or issue?

I have no idea why you are using the negative to defend that position when that flies in the face of the test test test mantra. Incubation can be as late as Day 13 and they may not yet be symptomatic but logic suggests they are most certainly infectious at that time.

And we don't know how people are infected with the virus because that information is not released.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I have no idea why you are using the negative to defend that position when that flies in the face of the test test test mantra.
Incubation can be as late as Day 13 and they may not yet be symptomatic but logic suggests they are most certainly infectious at that time.

Because if it is not a problem, then it means that you will be extending how long people are being quarantined for for no benefit. And extending the quarantine costs money, and for the people involved is punitive. Some people have stayed positive for months. If it was a problem then ok, but if it is not a problem then why force people to extend for longer.

Given the numbers of people who have been through hotel quarantine now if not one case has actually been determined then logic would indicate is is not a problem.

 

[Pushka]

Because if it is not a problem, then it means that you will be extending how long people are being quarantined for for no benefit. And extending the quarantine costs money, and for the people involved is punitive. Some people have stayed positive for months. If it was a problem then ok, but if it is not a problem then why force people to extend for longer.

Given the numbers of people who have been through hotel quarantine now if not one case has actually been determined then logic would indicate is is not a problem.

At least it can be assessed at the time. Test at Day 6 to get a benchmark and Day 13 as a final sign off. If positive on day 13 but wasnt on Day 6, assess symptoms if any that need treatment, if not, they can go to self isolate for another 7 days. They don't need to be clear but they shouldn't be walking around within 7-10 days of a positive test or the whole system is a scam!

What you are saying is that on Day 13 you don't care if they have just turned positive because you wouldn't test for that. Turning positive, and infectious, is definitely a possibility; you would let them leave untested, with a potential to become symptomatic and infectious.

Sorry but I do not understand why you are not taking the most prudent approach of any of us given you have family at the forefront.

 

[drron]

On the other hand the 2 women who have just tested positive in NZ after getting an exemption after 7 days quarantine are now restarting the 14 day quarantine.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Sorry but I do not understand why you are not taking the most prudent approach of any of us given you have family at the forefront.

You stated that there were issues and I have asked you what the issues are. So far you have not listed anything that is actually an issue.

Also why is it not prudent to release people from quarantine at 14 days if they are not symptomatic within that period, and if so far no one has been infected post quarantine from such people?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

On the other hand the 2 women who have just tested positive in NZ after getting an exemption after 7 days quarantine are now restarting the 14 day quarantine.

Not sure why it is the other hand, as they never completed the 14 day quarantine. In addition the Kiwis despite it being their policy did not test at 3 days. So with the break in quarantine starting a new 14 day quarantine period would seem to be the required action.

 

[Princess Fiona]

If someone has tested positive in NSW they can be released from home isolation if it’s been at least 10 days since the onset of their symptoms and they have had at least 72 hours symptom free.
Logically the same thing should apply to returned travellers in quarantine. If they have symptoms then they should be tested, and if positive the clock starts again.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

given you have family at the forefront.

I appreciate your concern, but the risks have greatly changed for the better since I first expressed my concerned. And yes at the start my daughter was quite fearful, and especially when the first Covid 19 cases arrived in her ward.

But now she has no cases, and has had none fora while.

Now the number of cases has plummeted in Australia, and we just have a trickle.

Arrivals into Australia are now all quarantined rather than wandering about freely.

Over 70,000 have been through hotel quarantine, but I have yet to read of a person being infected by someone who has served an appropriate quarantine period.

Hospitals, and now well prepared. PPE and ventilators are in ample supply and more staff trained up. There are now many dedicated Covi19 wards, and most are inactive. With any patients that now come in as there is no overload the risks to staff are tiny.

Contact tracing has been better resourced and stats all now have the ability to mange new hotpots better. ie all of the recent aged care cases have not developed into wide spread of the virus within the facility.

So the risk from Covid 19 to my daughter is now extremely low. Her risks from other day to day issues that health workers all face are now much larger than that posed by Covid 19.

So all in all I see no need to have overly severe restrictions on returning travellers above the 14 day period if no symptoms. I am also not concerned by people who may be postive when they are not infectious.

 

[jase05]

15 positive tests amongst International travellers returning to MEL yesterday. I’m happy to keep the 14 days quarantine on arrival but perhaps now the cost needs to be passed on to the traveller

 

[Pushka]

15 positive tests amongst International travellers returning to MEL yesterday. I’m happy to keep the 14 days quarantine on arrival but perhaps now the cost needs to be passed on to the traveller

Oh good grief. Wait until the tin hat brigade of SA hears that. At least the Premier and Health are now stating that the infections are mostly occurring in quarantine but they've been completely ignoring that until now.

 

[jase05]

Oh good grief. Wait until the tin hat brigade of SA hears that. At least the Premier and Health are now stating that the infections are mostly occurring in quarantine but they've been completely ignoring that until now.

Yep, about time.
My understanding is that all 15 have returned from India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and that 10 were on the same flight. Not surprised seeing as though the Indian deaths are climbing rapidly

 

[Pushka]

Weird one in SA today. Victoria offloading a man from quarantine from overseas. Tested positive on 4th June in Melb quarantine and had symptoms apparently at end of May. (Although how one can ascertain it was Covid versus other respiratory I'm not sure. ) Left quarantine I think yesterday and travelled to Adelaide and has tested positive again. He is now in quarantine in SA. Although SA Health says he wasn't infectious and likely won't count as a statistic for SA but Vic. If he's had Covid and is no longer infectious, then the 14 day quarantine seems strange but I guess that's the deal.

I just

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Although SA Health says he wasn't infectious and likely won't count as a statistic for SA but Vic.

What ever happened to the case going to the state of residence? Why should a returning SA Traveller be a Vic Case?

At present Victoria is hosting a disproportionate amount of returning travellers I presume as we have a 24/7 international airport that suits many of the flights. You would think that SA Health would be appreciative that we are having travellers from around Australia serve out their infectious periods, and hence also increased risk here, but no instead it is petty point scoring to have such cases not wanted to be logged as SA cases.

All hotel quarantine in Vic is paid for by Vic Taxpayers...so SA Health could at least be grateful that we are subsidising South Australian's and also taking the extra Covid 19 risk on their behalf.

It would be somewhat ironic if they end up linking by genomic examination any of the infected security guards to returning SA Travellers.

 

[Pushka]

What ever happened to the case going to the state of residence? Why should a returning SA Traveller be a Vic Case?

At present Victoria is hosting a disproportionate amount of returning travellers I presume as we have a 24/7 international airport that suits many of the flights. You would think that SA Health would be appreciative that we are having travellers from around Australia serve out their infectious periods, and hence also increased risk here, but no instead it is petty point scoring to have such cases not wanted to be logged as SA cases.

All hotel quarantine in Vic is paid for by Vic Taxpayers...so SA Health could at least be grateful that we are subsidising South Australian's and also taking the extra Covid 19 risk on their behalf.

It would be somewhat ironic if they end up linking by genomic examination any of the infected security guards to returning SA Travellers.

Wouldn't he already have been registered as a positive in the Vic stats as it occurred some days ago anyway? You sound rather peeved. Fact is, airlines aren't flying into SA with passengers. Nothing to do with the Government. And I think the Feds should be picking up the tabs but I understand that your Vic Government declined the offer. Go figure. But we are used to being ignored here by airlines. Especially Qantas.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Wouldn't he already have been registered as a positive in the Vic stats as it occurred some days ago anyway?

Early on when this all started it was indicated that cases would be recorded to the state that you reside in. In the stats you would regularly see cases being transferred to their state of residence later on when it was confirmed where they actually resided.

I am pretty sure that Princess Fiona confirmed that.

For someone who would have contracted the virus outside of Australia it is pretty silly to record them as a case of the state that they just happen to be transiting through.