Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[MEL_Traveller]

so Victoria has its first case of covid for this round, a returning international traveller.

The earliest they could have arrived was 8th April. They had to test negative to board the flight, but were actually carrying/infectious? Or caught it on the plane (impossible according to Qantas).

What’s the point of these tests before flying? Other than great expense and inconvenience for
absentees?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

so Victoria has its first case of covid after 42 days, a returning international traveller.

No on the 42 days. Last case was on 29 March. Flight crew from memory.

Before that a month ago there was a batch. From memory I think they were returned travellers and aircrew.

One of those seems to have been a very unusual case:

A further case of coronavirus (COVID-19) has been confirmed today – bringing to 12 the total number of cases in Victoria.​

​

The latest case is a woman in her 50s, a visitor from Indonesia, who flew from Jakarta to Perth on 27 February. She was well on the international flight.​

​

While staying in Perth she developed symptoms on 29 February.​

​

She arrived in Melbourne from Perth on Virgin Airlines flight VA682 on Monday 2 March and saw a GP in Melbourne on Friday 6 March who ordered a COVID-19 test.​

​

She was confirmed positive last night following a series of tests.​

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No on the 42 days. Last case was on 29 March. Flight crew from memory.

Thanks! I've amended my post accordingly. Still, in terms of border openings... can't see much point in getting all these tests done?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Thanks! I've amended my post accordingly. Still, in terms of border openings... can't see much point in getting all these tests done?

The recent Qld experience shows the value of ongoing testing for people with symptoms.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The recent Qld experience shows the value of ongoing testing for people with symptoms.

Not disputing that. The issue here is the pre-departure tests before being allowed to board a plane to Australia. It cost my friend $400 for a rapid test of the type suitable for entry to Oz.

The passengers arriving on these flights must have had similar tests, which must have come back negative.

Yet a day later they test positive.

What's the point in the $400 pre-departure test?

 

[ayushamity]

PM flags major changes to international travel and quarantine

www.9news.com.au

The Federal Government has requested the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) advise what thresholds need to be met in order for vaccinated Australians to travel overseas and the quarantine arrangements that would be required.

If you want to travel overseas this year, highly suggest taking the AZ vaccine. The additional Pfizer doses are coming October 20211 if you wait for the Pfizer vaccine, you will be waiting till 2022.

It looks like they will relax rules for people who get vaccinated and this will be progressive (i.e. not that everyone gets vaccinated and then travel allowed)

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

so Victoria has its first case of covid for this round, a returning international traveller.

The earliest they could have arrived was 8th April. They had to test negative to board the flight, but were actually carrying/infectious? Or caught it on the plane (impossible according to Qantas).

What’s the point of these tests before flying? Other than great expense and inconvenience for
absentees?

NZ has had lots of cases positive on day 0 but negative pre-departure, especially from India. The stated theory is infected en route to departure airport so still incubating with insufficient virus to test positive on departure.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

NZ has had lots of cases positive on day 0 but negative pre-departure, especially from India. The stated theory is infected en route to departure airport so still incubating with insufficient virus to test positive on departure.

So the tests are basically of little, if any, value? We test on arrival in Au and that should be all that's needed.

This seems another barrier to people coming home. For example last-minute seats on repatriation flights might go out empty if people can't get a test done in time.

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

It isn't no value. There are people with covid who are infectious being denied boarding. This reduces the risk of others catching covid inflight.

Rather if someone has only just caught covid they'll be negative. NZ tests pre-departure, day 0 (date of arrival), day 3 and day 12.

 

[Flashback]

The value in testing before you get on the plane is so that people who are already infected, then don't infect the rest of the plane.

Also I doubt they paid that much for a rapid test. The UK has some of, if not the, most expensive testing prices globally and you wouldn't even pay that much for the more expensive PCR test.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The value in testing before you get on the plane is so that people who are already infected, then don't infect the rest of the plane.

Also I doubt they paid that much for a rapid test. The UK has some of, if not the, most expensive testing prices globally and you wouldn't even pay that much for the more expensive PCR test.

That was the cost, in China, for a PCR test with express results (had to be done at a private clinic).

 

[Flashback]

That was the cost, in China, for a PCR test with express results (had to be done at a private clinic).

That's not a rapid test then... That's a PCR test, done with a quick turnaround.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That's not a rapid test then... That's a PCR test, done with a quick turnaround.

The PCR type being the requirement to board a flight to Australia: Coronavirus (COVID-19) FAQs – international travellers to Australia

International air crew are exempt... so again the reason for requiring a PCR rather than rapid test looks less compelling.

 

[Flashback]

I'm quite aware PCR is the requirement, hence why I'm pointing out saying a rapid test was taken is incorrect. It's a different type of test, terminology is very important here. The UK, for example, currently accepts rapid tests as an acceptable way to board a flight to the UK. That looks likely to change though come May 17, which is an interesting step backwards. However, the traffic light system will change post arrival things a bit. Some positive, some negative.

There's all sorts of contradictions here, too. Regular arrivals/departures such as hauliers and seafarers are fine to use LFD tests for their post-arrival testing, but for Joe Common like us it has to be PCR. For day 2 that's largely so that genomic sequencing can be done, but for day 8 (or day 5 test to release, if you so choose) that's not required. Lots of money being made here.... there's also no signs that being vaccinated is going to count for anything, which is very disappointing to say the least.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm quite aware PCR is the requirement, hence why I'm pointing out saying a rapid test was taken is incorrect. It's a different type of test, terminology is very important here. The UK, for example, currently accepts rapid tests as an acceptable way to board a flight to the UK. That looks likely to change though come May 17, which is an interesting step backwards. However, the traffic light system will change post arrival things a bit. Some positive, some negative.

There's all sorts of contradictions here, too. Regular arrivals/departures such as hauliers and seafarers are fine to use LFD tests for their post-arrival testing, but for Joe Common like us it has to be PCR. For day 2 that's largely so that genomic sequencing can be done, but for day 8 (or day 5 test to release, if you so choose) that's not required. Lots of money being made here.... there's also no signs that being vaccinated is going to count for anything, which is very disappointing to say the least.

Apologies. My wording was not clear. I mentioned a rapid test ‘of the type required for entry to Oz’, which is the PCR test. Rapid was referring to the time taken for getting the results!

Still, don’t know what the point is given people are testing positive a day after arrival, and flight crew are exempt. Perhaps a true ‘rapid test’ would be sufficient?

 

[mviy]

there's also no signs that being vaccinated is going to count for anything, which is very disappointing to say the least.

Well it likely will make a difference at some point for travel insurance and that's still very important. If you're highly unlikely to need hospitalisation or die then travel insurers may be willing to provide some level of travel insurance. Whereas if you're unvaccinated you may be uninsurable or have to pay huge premiums to have an appropriate level of cover.

 

[Flashback]

Apologies. My wording was not clear. I mentioned a rapid test ‘of the type required for entry to Oz’, which is the PCR test. Rapid was referring to the time taken for getting the results!

Best not to use 'rapid' then, as that refers to lateral flow tests. Best to just use the term 'express'

 

[mviy]

Still, don’t know what the point is given people are testing positive a day after arrival, and flight crew are exempt. Perhaps a true ‘rapid test’ would be sufficient?

You're not likely to be as infectious before you test positive, I think. There's only so much testing they can do.

Expecting people to go into quarantine before travelling internationally and all workers associated with looking after those people and transporting them to the airport doing likewise for say a few weeks prior to travel isn't going to work so there's always going to be cases that slip through.

A 'Rapid Test' can be handy but it's not as reliable, I think.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You're not likely to be as infectious before you test positive, I think. There's only so much testing they can do.

Expecting people to go into quarantine before travelling internationally and all workers associated with looking after those people and transporting them to the airport doing likewise for say a few weeks prior to travel isn't going to work so there's always going to be cases that slip through.

A 'Rapid Test' can be handy but it's not as reliable, I think.

In terms of a barrier to international travel - or those wanting to come home - the rapid test at the airport would be better IMO. The PCR doesn't mean much if you can still get infected on the journey home, and we test anyway once you've arrived.

Those looking to jump on last minute availability have no chance of getting a PCR, and those who have their flights cancelled need to get another test. All adding $$$. Which many of them don't have in the first plane. Imagine multiple PCR tests, on potentially several occasions, for a family of four coming home?

 

[burmans]

So the tests are basically of little, if any, value? We test ion arrival in Au and that should be all that's needed.

This seems another barrier to people coming home. For example last-minute seats on repatriation flights might go out empty if people can't get a test done in time.

The fact they aren't perfect doesn't mean they aren't of benefit, they are picking up a number of infected people before they even travel, hence less exposure to others on the plane.