Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[MEL_Traveller]

Been vomiting about it for a long time, especially when in the next breath we're told the health system is "under strain" or "at capacity".

Refusing citizens to board flights back home because they "test positive" to a virus that 90% of the country is vaccinated against (and subsequently abandoning them in a foreign country potentially without a valid visa) is simply not sustainable, let alone reasonable. I suspect it simply hasn't been very well thought out as yet. We were able to ignore it when it was only "rich expats" being refused boarding onto their $10,000 one way tickets home, but when Bazza is stuck at Nadi airport for months on end, somebody will take notice.

I can't see that happening - the most someone should be in another country for is around 2 or so weeks - assuming they are fully vaccinated as a condition of entry to that country. There may be the odd outlier where a fully vaccinated person still needs an extended stay in hospital... but that's no different to any other medical emergency now. I doubt visa expiry will be an issue with covid anymore than it is with other medical issues?

Travel insurance will cover any extended stays or repatriation - so no one will be stranded. Some countries have it as a condition of entry - this may become widespread.

 

[arrow]

I can't see that happening - the most someone should be in another country for is around 2 or so weeks - assuming they are fully vaccinated as a condition of entry to that country. There may be the odd outlier where a fully vaccinated person still needs an extended stay in hospital... but that's no different to any other medical emergency now. I doubt visa expiry will be an issue with covid anymore than it is with other medical issues?

Travel insurance will cover any extended stays or repatriation - so no one will be stranded. Some countries have it as a condition of entry - this may become widespread.

Per your comment earlier if there’s no isolation requirement why bother with the test at all

 

[N860CR]

I can't see that happening - the most someone should be in another country for is around 2 or so weeks - assuming they are fully vaccinated as a condition of entry to that country. There may be the odd outlier where a fully vaccinated person still needs an extended stay in hospital... but that's no different to any other medical emergency now. I doubt visa expiry will be an issue with covid anymore than it is with other medical issues?

Adds some serious complexity though. They aren't going to receive a negative PCR test 2 weeks later. So they'll need a "recovery letter" from a doctor. I guess there's a good chance that some doctors will hand them out like regular medical certificates, but can't say it'll be that easy everywhere. It's simply not sustainable long term, and realistically is of zero benefit.

And even then... we abandon our own citizens and make them another country's problem?

 

[Must...Fly!]

And even then... we abandon our own citizens and make them another country's problem?

Would an airline want someone COVID positive on board? I wouldn't, too many liabilities. How do you truly know they're not symptomatic?

I'll stick with my comment about country entry requirements...mine field.

 

[PineappleSkip]

the AU government allow you to present a test that is 96 hours old.

....Can the 72-hour time frame be extended​

Even 72 hours before departure is a generous timeframe. Quite a few countries, including Azerbaijan where I am now, want 72 hours before arrival. My time from Checkin SYD to arrival here was 40 hours, leaving 32 hours test window, actually less because I flew from BNE day before. I had to fly out of SYD as the flights out of BNE didn't match up and you need 24h in BNE before checkin for test results. Looking forward to no more tests, but suspect it will take a year or two.

Cheers skip

 

[N860CR]

Would an airline want someone COVID positive on board? I wouldn't, too many liabilities. How do you truly know they're not symptomatic?

I'll stick with my comment about country entry requirements...mine field.

I have absolutely no doubt that, should the Australian government say a PCR test is not required, the airlines will happily comply. There are already provisions in place for refusing boarding to people who are genuinely unwell.

 

[Mr H]

The worldwide strategy is to move away from isolation towards vaccination - where Covid is just one of many infectious diseases in circulation. Vaccination will reduce likelihood of catching it and reduce severity if people do get it, but it will still be common to get it and some unlucky people will get very sick and die. But there will no longer be a point in singling it out, testing and mandating isolation. The testing and isolation will soon be seen as burdensome and will, I expect, be ditched as having been a hangover from a previous strategy.

 

[jakeseven7]

The government isn't paying for travel related PCR tests.

Do you really believe that?

 

[Pom-DownUnder]

Testing in general seems very strange currently.
two of my mates in uk:

A. Tested negative on lateral flows doing 3 tests over 6 days and felt ill still so did a PCR and showed positive.

B. mate with 2 kids around 10, 1 shows positve pcr, positive lateral flow, one shows negative pcr positive lateral flow.

 

[MooTime]

Do you really believe that?

I believe getting a PCR test before international departure is on the person/s travelling, You have to go to a GP or the like.

Mrs Moo & I will go get PCR done & swipe the credit card, how / why do you say Gov will pay for travel related PCR tests? Loophole?

It is an expensive addon for a family with kids & hope they will be abolished in short time.
In addition a place like Fiji require you to stay in your accom on arrival, not leave the resort & after 48hours do a RAT of some sort at cost to you again, only ~$25 thou.

 

[jakeseven7]

I believe getting a PCR test before international departure is on the person/s travelling, You have to go to a GP or the like.

Mrs Moo & I will go get PCR done & swipe the credit card, how / why do you say Gov will pay for travel related PCR tests? Loophole?

It is an expensive addon for a family with kids & hope they will be abolished in short time.
In addition a place like Fiji require you to stay in your accom on arrival, not leave the resort & after 48hours do a RAT of some sort at cost to you again, only ~$25 thou.

Agree I think it should be on the traveller too, but in Australia (when exiting) it’s on the taxpayer was what I was referring to. Overseas - different story.

 

[justinbrett]

For all the billions that went to airlines on jobkeeper, I don't think it's a huge burden to fund PCR tests for international travel to stimulate the market. It's a drop in the ocean. They won't be around for that long.

 

[dajop]

Agree I think it should be on the traveller too, but in Australia (when exiting) it’s on the taxpayer was what I was referring to. Overseas - different story.

Where do we get free PCR tests - that meet the documentation requirements of foreign governments - when exiting Australia? Or are you referring to Medicare subsidies when getting such tests done at GP?

 

[Mr H]

For all the billions that went to airlines on jobkeeper, I don't think it's a huge burden to fund PCR tests for international travel to stimulate the market. It's a drop in the ocean. They won't be around for that long.

That would just prolong the testing - which will be a major disincentive for travel as people would be rolling the dice and hoping for negative results - with potentially catastrophic consequences if they test positive.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Where do we get free PCR tests - that meet the documentation requirements of foreign governments - when exiting Australia? Or are you referring to Medicare subsidies when getting such tests done at GP?

I'm with you on this... I thought PCR tests for departing pax were at the pax expense. Certainly for the travel bubble to NZ they required additional information on the certificate that was not provided by any medicare subsidised tests. I would *hope* it's no different for any other departures... the tax payer shouldn't be paying for something like that.

 

[justinbrett]

That would just prolong the testing - which will be a major disincentive for travel as people would be rolling the dice and hoping for negative results - with potentially catastrophic consequences if they test positive.

Sure, we'd all prefer no testing, but if the choices are paid PCR tests or free PCR tests, I'll take the free ones.

 

[Mr H]

Sure, we'd all prefer no testing, but if the choices are paid PCR tests or free PCR tests, I'll take the free ones.

And I would prefer to leave the onus on individuals as I think it would bring a quicker end to a procedure that is purely cosmetic. If you have Covid spreading freely in a vaccinated population at both ends of a flight, there is no point in trying to keep Covid off the flight. Plus, Delta spreads so quickly that even a one day old negative PCR test is no guarantee that a person won't be infectious on a flight.

 

[justinbrett]

And I would prefer to leave the onus on individuals as I think it would bring a quicker end to a procedure that is purely cosmetic. If you have Covid spreading freely in a vaccinated population at both ends of a flight, there is no point in trying to keep Covid off the flight. Plus, Delta spreads so quickly that even a one day old negative PCR test is no guarantee that a person won't be infectious on a flight.

You're arguing against the test and that's not something I've disagreed with.

I don't see the link between who pays for the test and the government's requirement for what the regime is.

 

[Mr H]

You're arguing against the test and that's not something I've disagreed with.

I don't see the link between who pays for the test and the government's requirement for what the regime is.

I think if states pay for the test, it entrenches it - makes states own it in a way they wouldn't if punters had to pay for it themselves.

 

[justinbrett]

I think if states pay for the test, it entrenches it - makes states own it in a way they wouldn't if punters had to pay for it themselves.

I think that's quite wishful thinking. States are pretty happy for us to spend money on lots of things.

You could argue the opposite, if they're not paying, no incentive for them to get rid of it. But 6 months on, some bean counter will say "we're spending X on these ridiculous tests".