Coronavirus (COVID-19) Respiratory illness - Effect on Travel

The Chinese delegates at the Singapore conference have tested negative for covid 19.So the search for the index case goes on. The UK case has infected 5 others including 2 GPs.
Getting messy.
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

NIne Group newspapers/websites ('SMH', 'Brisbane Times' and so on) have a major story this morning (Sunday 16 February) about how international companies are restricting or disallowing business travel, and how ''Qantas and Virgin Australia are in the firing line' as in lower demand for seats.

This builds upon what AFFers like dajop (who said he had to obtain permission to fly MEL to BNE) have previously said.

The airlines are largely mute on how advance bookings are going, presumably because they don't like their competitors to know and also if they disclose this, it creates a herd-like effect of other companies, government organisations or individuals harbouring thoughts about 'health risk' and hence bookings decline further.
 
Last edited:
NIne Group newspapers/websites ('SMH', 'Brisbane Times' and so on) have a major story this morning (Sunday 16 February) about how international companies are restricting or disallowing business travel, and how ''Qantas and Virgin Australia are in the firing line' as in lower demand for seats.

This builds upon what AFFers like dajop (who said he had to obtain permission to fly MEL to BNE) have previously said.

The airlines are largely mute on how advance bookings are going, presumably because they don't like their competitors to know and also if they disclose this, it creates a herd-like effect of other companies, government organisations or individuals harbouring thoughts about 'health risk' and hence bookings decline further.

Interesting. My employer (in Healthcare) has c. 100,000 employees.
We have not had any restrictions on work related travel except for the general ones publicly posted.

What has changed in the past 24 hours is the case definition.
The following has been added:

It is recommended that clinicians should consider testing people with a clinically compatible illness
who travelled to any of the following countries in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:
- Hong Kong
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Singapore
- Thailand

Note this only applies to those who have stayed in these countries not transited.

HCW (Health Care Workers) returning from these countries (excluding Mainland China) are permitted to return to work and should monitor themselves for symptoms.
 
I remember a few years ago our family returned from a trip from Bali and teenage son developed a nasty cough. I thought it was just bronchitis but I knew as soon as we mentioned we’d been to Bali then this was going to invoke a chain of medical events I just didn’t consider necessary. Sure enough, he was sent to the local hospital by the GP and was met by staff in Hazmat gear. Multiple blood tests and xrays taken and as he has always been one of those people who fainted when having his childhood Immunisations, he turned pale, lips blue and he started sweating. Nothing to do with his illness I said but of course that was ignored. Tests showed he had a simple chest infection. Back home with antibiotics and better within a day but arms bruised with all the blood draws.
 
If an AFFer with access could paste the above 'SMH' article on business' travel restrictions (two companies mentioned were accountants EY and construction firm Lendlease), that would be helpful.

'The Weekend Australian' online (though perhaps not in print edition that I have but haven't yet read) or Nine Group papers (I forget which) also had an article quoting an eminent scientist suggesting that two-thirds of the world's population could get this virus.

If even remotely close to factual, that could see our Prime Minister Mr Morrison imposing entry restrictions for a lot longer than the recently announced further seven day extension. It's a work in progress and difficult to follow for the vast majority of us who lack healthcare qualifications (unlike AFFer Princess Fiona.) If the scientific community squabbles over the accepted name, what hope have the rest of us got in knowing whether nations like mainland communist China are reporting developments factually?
 
Last edited:
...The following has been added:

It is recommended that clinicians should consider testing people with a clinically compatible illness
who travelled to any of the following countries in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:
- Hong Kong
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Singapore
- Thailand

Note this only applies to those who have stayed in these countries not transited.

Very interesting that Indonesia features as we've all read articles suggesting it's likely to have been affected, but claims not to have been. This suggests healthcare practitioners/entities don't believe the Indonesians, and yet it's a major destination for Australian tourists.

As one might expect. Singapore's handling of this 'crisis' has been exemplary with a large amount of sensibly worded information available. 'Disneyland with the death penalty' excels in many areas.
 
Understanding the "real" R# of the disease number seems topical.
The apparent lack of International proliferation compared to the rampant Chinese reproduction is both puzzling and perhaps heartening.
I guess time will tell….
 
With the death of a Chinese tourist in Paris, this may focus European nations more. So far it seems Italy has been by far the most concerned.
 
With the death of a Chinese tourist in Paris, this may focus European nations more. So far it seems Italy has been by far the most concerned.
Actually the UK has had the same case definition we have just updated to (including SIN, etc) for more than a week now.
 
With the death of a Chinese tourist in Paris, this may focus European nations more. So far it seems Italy has been by far the most concerned.
Has anyone other than someone from Hubei province died?
 
The apparent lack of International proliferation compared to the rampant Chinese reproduction is both puzzling and perhaps heartening.
I guess time will tell….
I’ve ceased to look at the &$@# PRC numbers, which are obscuring the picture. It is proliferating elsewhere, just somewhat hidden by the &$@# PRC numbers, coming off a much lower base. It appears to be romping along in the places where local transmission has started, not so much in the places (e.g. Aus) where that hasn’t occurred.

Infection number shifts from the Johns Hopkins table for a sample in the last 10 days...
SIN 18 to 72, 400% increase, but appears to be excellent detection
HKG 17 to 56, 329% increase
World outside PRC 192 to 685, 357% increase, influenced by the Diamond Princess numbers

I have an eye in the latter numbers now, as ‘World outside PRC’ has a mix of data series for countries with good to not so good detection, and nil to very high apparent spread rates.

cheers skip
 
The death in Japan was a woman in her 80’s with no travel history.
Thankyou. Has it been confirmed that the coronavirus was the cause of her death as it was only determined she had it post mortem I read somewhere and perhaps might have been treated differently if prior detection.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top