New Travel Development going to Maui

[csodjd]

Again everyone is placed under quarantine for 14 days. There is no discrimination between visitors and residents as everyone must endure it. On the 15th day, if you are well you are free to explore and enjoy any public venue you wish. Until those 14 days are up, you are in quarantine of your quarters.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct. My understanding (Hawaiian residents can chime in) is that residents can go out to get take out food, or go to the market, or perform other essential activities. Tourists cannot leave their room under any circumstances. If that is the case there are important distinctions being made between visitors and residents.

 

[csodjd]

Hawai‘i Senate COVID-19 Committee Reports Travel Quarantine Will Likely be Extended | Maui Now

The Hawai‘i State Senate Special Committee on COVID-19 discussed CARES Act aid, the likely extension of the 14-day travel quarantine, and increased costs associated with airport operations amid the ongoing pandemic.

mauinow.com

Not happy about this either. Seems like we were making progress to remove the quarantine. Makes me bitter and spiteful.

Holding out one more week.

There seemed little or no doubt that the quarantine would be extended, at least until they have a plan in place and ready to execute for how to handle tourist entry, with some kind of testing either before or after flying seeming to be the obvious option. I can imagine easily a scenario with a testing requirement upon arrival and repeated on day 2. If both are negative, you are out of quarantine. It would be funded by the traveler, who would have the option of not being tested and agreeing to a 14-day quarantine.

 

[lynne]

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct. My understanding (Hawaiian residents can chime in) is that residents can go out to get take out food, or go to the market, or perform other essential activities. Tourists cannot leave their room under any circumstances. If that is the case there are important distinctions being made between visitors and residents.

The 14 day quarantine applies to everyone coming into Hawaii - residents, intended residents, visitors. The only allowance to leave their place of residence is for a medical condition. The 14 day quarantine does not apply to essential workers who are either medical or travelling inter-island for a business that has been identified as essential.

 

[cman]

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct. My understanding (Hawaiian residents can chime in) is that residents can go out to get take out food, or go to the market, or perform other essential activities. Tourists cannot leave their room under any circumstances. If that is the case there are important distinctions being made between visitors and residents.

Here's what the governors order says for traveler to the state. Notice it makes no distinction between resident or non-resident;
1. Pursuant to section 127A-13(a)(1), HRS, all persons entering the State of Hawaiʻi shall be subject to mandatory self-quarantine, except those persons performing emergency response or critical infrastructure functions who have been exempted by the Director of Emergency Management. The period of self-quarantine shall begin from the time of entry into the State of Hawaiʻi and shall last 14 days or the duration of the person’s presence in the State of Hawaiʻi, whichever is shorter. This selfquarantine mandate shall take effect on March 26, 2020 at 12:01 am.

You can read it here; https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-cont...ementary-Proclamation-for-COVID-19-signed.pdf

Here's what it says for inter-island travelers. Again, no distinction between resident and non-resident;
1. Pursuant to section 127A-13(a)(1), HRS, all persons traveling between any of the islands in the State of Hawai‘i shall be subject to mandatory self-quarantine. The period of self-quarantine shall begin from the date of entry onto the island and shall last 14 days. This self-quarantine mandate shall take effect on April 1, 2020 at 12:01 am.

You can read this supplement here; https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-cont...lamation-for-COVID-19-distribution-signed.pdf

The bottom line is that the same rules that apply to you and I, apply to the people of Hawaii.

 

[csodjd]

Here's what the governors order says for traveler to the state. Notice it makes no distinction between resident or non-resident;
1. Pursuant to section 127A-13(a)(1), HRS, all persons entering the State of Hawaiʻi shall be subject to mandatory self-quarantine, except those persons performing emergency response or critical infrastructure functions who have been exempted by the Director of Emergency Management. The period of self-quarantine shall begin from the time of entry into the State of Hawaiʻi and shall last 14 days or the duration of the person’s presence in the State of Hawaiʻi, whichever is shorter. This selfquarantine mandate shall take effect on March 26, 2020 at 12:01 am.

You can read it here; https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-cont...ementary-Proclamation-for-COVID-19-signed.pdf

Here's what it says for inter-island travelers. Again, no distinction between resident and non-resident;
1. Pursuant to section 127A-13(a)(1), HRS, all persons traveling between any of the islands in the State of Hawai‘i shall be subject to mandatory self-quarantine. The period of self-quarantine shall begin from the date of entry onto the island and shall last 14 days. This self-quarantine mandate shall take effect on April 1, 2020 at 12:01 am.

You can read this supplement here; https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-cont...lamation-for-COVID-19-distribution-signed.pdf

The bottom line is that the same rules that apply to you and I, apply to the people of Hawaii.

Fair enough. It doesn't change anything. Again, the premise is that Hawaii was entirely successful in eradicating the virus. At that point, however that's defined or determined, I believe the Constitution may require that a less intrusive order be put in place. The 14-day quarantine cannot last indefinitely. It is not the least intrusive means of achieving the goal.

 

[frank808]

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct. My understanding (Hawaiian residents can chime in) is that residents can go out to get take out food, or go to the market, or perform other essential activities. Tourists cannot leave their room under any circumstances. If that is the case there are important distinctions being made between visitors and residents.

Nope EVERYONE arriving in the islands are subject to the 14 day quarantine. Unless you are a essential medical worker. Then you are allowed to goto work but have to quarantine any time you are not at work for 14 days of quarantine.

Now there would be a very real legal problem if residents are treated differently than visitors.

Now a resident might have family and friends shop for them. But you are not allowed to leave the domicile you are quarantined at. Or if you have no help there is always instacart, grub hub and all the other delivery services.

I can confirm the quarantine from first hand experience. A good friend is one of the commanders at the airport National Guard contingent checking all passengers deplaning. Everyone has to fill out those forms outlining the restrictions for 14 days.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[ljmiii]

Absolutely agree, provided there remains an emergency within their jurisdiction. But that's what I mean by their right is not unlimited. There has to be an emergency. My premise was that Hawaii is effectively clear of any COVID-19 virus, assuming they have gone several weeks without any new infection. Given the incubation period, one would then believe there is NO COVID causing agent in Hawaii.

In that scenario, what emergency exists?...

The continued COVID-19 outbreak outside the state of Hawaii. Hawaii's case for quarantine is airtight...the emergency doesn't have to be an *in* the state.

As Chief Justice John Marshall put it in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the ability to quarantine is a power “flowing from the acknowledged power of a State to provide for the health of its citizens.” There was ample precedent for his decision as US states and cities had been quarantining for decades. To pick two examples, in 1793 New York and other cities banned travel from Philadelphia when it suffered from an outbreak of Yellow Fever. In 1798, the Governor of Pennsylvania returned the favor when Yellow Fever struck New York.

Later in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health (1902) in the face of yet another outbreak of Yellow Fever, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of states to quarantine and upheld Louisiana's order that “in the case of any town, city, or parish of Louisiana being declared in quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers, or others shall be allowed to enter said town, city, or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist.”

A more interesting question is whether Hawaii could successfully justify selectively lifting the quarantine for people from states or countries that have successfully eradicated the disease.

 

[csodjd]

The continued COVID-19 outbreak outside the state of Hawaii. Hawaii's case for quarantine is airtight...the emergency doesn't have to be an *in* the state.

As Chief Justice John Marshall put it in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the ability to quarantine is a power “flowing from the acknowledged power of a State to provide for the health of its citizens.” There was ample precedent for his decision as US states and cities had been quarantining for decades. To pick two examples, in 1793 New York and other cities banned travel from Philadelphia when it suffered from an outbreak of Yellow Fever. In 1798, the Governor of Pennsylvania returned the favor when Yellow Fever struck New York.

Later in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health (1902) in the face of yet another outbreak of Yellow Fever, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of states to quarantine and upheld Louisiana's order that “in the case of any town, city, or parish of Louisiana being declared in quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers, or others shall be allowed to enter said town, city, or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist.”

A more interesting question is whether Hawaii could successfully justify selectively lifting the quarantine for people from states or countries that have successfully eradicated the disease.

Again, all true, but Constitutionally, they still must use the least restrictive means to achieve the protection of the health of their citizens. A continuing broad, indiscriminate order that makes no attempt to distinguish between those that are a risk from those that are not, and (incorrectly) assumes all people entering Hawaii have equal risk of being and are assumed to be contagious, is not likely to pass the least restrictive means test. It may have been at the point in time where the assumption had some rational basis, but as the facts and technology evolve, that assumption is no longer true. Here is an EASY example. Let's assume a vaccine is FDA approved that prevents you from being infected. Would that all-people-must-quarantine-14-days order make sense even as against someone that is vaccinated? Would that pass Constitutional muster? Clearly not. It would be Constitutionally over broad and fail the least restrictive means test.

If the President of the United States is adequately protected by testing of the people around him, than certainly the citizens of Hawaii would be reasonably protected by a proper/adequate testing protocol, especially inasmuch as you can freely enter Hawaii with any other contagious disease without any restriction or testing at all.

 

[frank808]

Again, all true, but Constitutionally, they still must use the least restrictive means to achieve the protection of the health of their citizens. A continuing broad, indiscriminate order that makes no attempt to distinguish between those that are a risk from those that are not, and (incorrectly) assumes all people entering Hawaii have equal risk of being and are assumed to be contagious, is not likely to pass the least restrictive means test. It may have been at the point in time where the assumption had some rational basis, but as the facts and technology evolve, that assumption is no longer true. Here is an EASY example. Let's assume a vaccine is FDA approved that prevents you from being infected. Would that all-people-must-quarantine-14-days order make sense even as against someone that is vaccinated? Would that pass Constitutional muster? Clearly not. It would be Constitutionally over broad and fail the least restrictive means test.

If the President of the United States is adequately protected by testing of the people around him, than certainly the citizens of Hawaii would be reasonably protected by a proper/adequate testing protocol, especially inasmuch as you can freely enter Hawaii with any other contagious disease without any restriction or testing at all.

When that vaccine is APPROVED by FDA I am sure the quarantine will be lifted. Until then, the least restrictive way to keep covid 19 out is by quarantine.

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

 

[csodjd]

When that vaccine is APPROVED by FDA I am sure the quarantine will be lifted. Until then, the least restrictive way to keep covid 19 out is by quarantine.

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

First, that was not my point, so you've simply evaded my point by answering a different question. Second, actually, that is the MOST restrictive way short of a ban on arriving at all. If the President of the US is adequately protected by testing of those around him, why would testing of those coming into the state not provide adequate protection?

I don't think paranoia is a good solution to a problem. Thought, that good old fashioned thing called thinking, is generally a better approach. Your "solution" may mean Hawaii goes without visitors and with a 2-week quarantine, perhaps, forever. Is that your solution? How do you think that will work out for the Hawaiian people? Or would a time come that it is clear there is no vaccine so something you could have done years earlier is implemented?

I don't think waiting for a vaccine is a solution. Nor do I think an indefinite quarantine is a solution. The state MUST find something between those or the residents and the governments will suffer an irreversible and complete economic collapse. I'm not sure Wailea or Waikili or Ko Alina or a bunch of other places will fare well with no tourists for the next few years.

 

[frank808]

First, that was not my point, so you've simply evaded my point by answering a different question. Second, actually, that is the MOST restrictive way short of a ban on arriving at all. If the President of the US is adequately protected by testing of those around him, why would testing of those coming into the state not provide adequate protection?

I don't think paranoia is a good solution to a problem. Thought, that good old fashioned thing called thinking, is generally a better approach. Your "solution" may mean Hawaii goes without visitors and with a 2-week quarantine, perhaps, forever. Is that your solution? How do you think that will work out for the Hawaiian people? Or would a time come that it is clear there is no vaccine so something you could have done years earlier is implemented?

I don't think waiting for a vaccine is a solution. Nor do I think an indefinite quarantine is a solution. The state MUST find something between those or the residents and the governments will suffer an irreversible and complete economic collapse. I'm not sure Wailea or Waikili or Ko Alina or a bunch of other places will fare well with no tourists for the next few years.

First the question I answered was one you asked directly.

Screening people that is around ONE person is a lot easier than screening 30k plus people daily.

Read one of my posts earlier that I have said Hawaii businesses cannot last without a somewhat resumption of visitor arrival and lifting of quarantine.

I do believe that the governor at this time has done a reasonable solution of keeping all of us in Hawaii safe vs prospect of letting covid19 spread through the community.

I did not say quarantine should be used until a vaccine is found. If we lived in a perfect world, it would be pefect to have a vaccine before quarantine procedures were lifted. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

So this is where we differ on opinion. Your opinion and posts is having a blanket quarantine on everyone arriving is to restrictive. I am saying the quarantine is correct and the easiest way to implement the spread of covid19 from visitors. What do you propose is the correct balance of protecting the residents of Hawaii against a highly contagious virus that currently has no APPROVED vaccine and a mortality rate that is 5-10x greater than the common cold?

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

 

[csodjd]

So this is where we differ on opinion. Your opinion and posts is having a blanket quarantine on everyone arriving is to restrictive. I am saying the quarantine is correct and the easiest way to implement the spread of covid19 from visitors. What do you propose is the correct balance of protecting the residents of Hawaii against a highly contagious virus that currently has no APPROVED vaccine and a mortality rate that is 5-10x greater than the common cold?

You're mischaracterizing my view. I think the blanket quarantine was and still is entirely appropriate and have said so many times. And I have said it should remain in place while they work vigorously at developing plans and putting the tools in place to reopen for tourism. I've also said that they should be ready to do so once Hawaii reaches the point of no new cases for two weeks, meaning the virus has been effectively eradicated from the islands. If the Univ of Washington projections are accurate they should achieve that perhaps by the end of May. If they continue through June without new infections, by July they should be ready to start welcoming some tourism back.

Perhaps initially only direct flights from California, with all airlines being required to provide testing for infection prior to boarding. Or perhaps, like Austria is doing, it is testing upon arrival, with quarantine for those that test positive and not for those that don't. (That would strongly encourage people to test before they fly over so they know they won't end up in quarantine.) They don't need to test 30,000/day. I'm not saying flip all the lights on. But I am saying they can't keep all the lights off forever. Hawaii cannot, and will not ever, be able to keep the virus 100% off the islands. It's impossible. So they need to do the best they can, and have the testing, tracing and containment ready to go. With testing upon arrival (see Austria), they will have few cases and those will be traced and isolated -- because today we know a lot more about the virus, and there will be little spread because of face coverings and social distancing.

What people forget is that, TODAY, it is no longer an unknown virus, with unknown characteristics, spreading in ways not understood, without testing available. That was March. In May we have tests. We know about asymptomatic spread. We have the ability to test, trace, and contain spread. Those capabilities did not exist in March and into April. Today we are dealing with learning to live WITH the virus, not trying to figure out why it is spreading exponentially or how to stop it.

Hawaii no longer has a risk of uncontrolled exponential community spread because now they know how to prevent that and they have the tools available to do so. Moreover, even in the worst-case scenario, Feb-March, without any testing, no social distancing, no masks, 30,000/day coming in from all over the world, and before any quarantine, Hawaii did not overwhelm its health care system and had an impressive paucity of cases and deaths. If Hawaii kept deaths of an entirely unknown and uncontrolled virus to 17, imagine what it can do now with all that IS known.

 

[vol_90]

Another article on the Hawaii quarantine:

Trapped in paradise: Breaking quarantine could mean prison time for tourists in Hawaii

Hawaii officials have been enforcing some of the strictest measures in the country aimed at stopping the spread of the coronavirus.

www.cnn.com

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Hawaii's economy relies on tourism. I am sure that the Governor is receiving pressure from all sides and will open the economy at earliest, safest opportunity.

 

[gln60]

Hawaii's economy relies on tourism. I am sure that the Governor is receiving pressure from all sides and will open the economy at earliest, safest opportunity.

Hopefully you are correct...in this election year..and the political ramifications..im not so sure

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Hopefully you are correct...in this election year..and the political ramifications..im not so sure

The Governor will be voted out of office if he messes this up. How well the Governor tracks with the Hawaiian state voter attitude toward Covid safety balanced with the economy is all that will matter. If he causes Hawaiian livelihoods to suffer excessively or causes excessive loss of life this will come home to roost.

 

[lynne]

The Governor will be voted out of office if he messes this up. How well the Governor tracks with the Hawaiian state voter attitude toward Covid safety balanced with the economy is all that will matter. If he causes Hawaiian livelihoods to suffer excessively or causes excessive loss of life for political reasons this will come home to roost.

Quite a bit can happen between now and 2022 when he is up for re-election

 

[gln60]

Quite a bit can happen between now and 2022 when he is up for re-election

EXACTLY...the Presidential election is November 3,2020.....way way before the governors re election bid in 2022.....that tells you all you need to know about the situation

 

[1Kflyerguy]

Hawaii's economy relies on tourism. I am sure that the Governor is receiving pressure from all sides and will open the economy at earliest, safest opportunity.

I agree, i think the tight controls in Hawaii and other places will become hard and harder to justify as the economic impact grows. Particularly once the local virus situations improve.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

EXACTLY...the Presidential election is November 3,2020.....way way before the governors re election bid in 2022.....that tells you all you need to know about the situation

If you believe Hawaiians and their representatives are in favor of killing their key source of income and livelihoods to sway a national election - that's a far out theory...would you do the same with your income?

 

[gln60]

If you believe Hawaiians and their representatives are in favor of killing their key source of income and livelihoods to sway a national election - that's a far out theory...would you do the same with your income?

Hawaiians...absolutely NOT...Politicians who get PAID no matter what.....ABSOLUTELY......you have your opinion.....I have mine

 

[slip]

Hawaii has a two term limit on the Governor and Ige is in his second term.

 

[gln60]

Hawaii has a two term limit on the Governor and Ige is in his second term.

Uhh ohh

 

[csodjd]

Uhh ohh

That's good. It means the Governor will do what he thinks is best/right without regard to the politics and his reelection.

 

[gln60]

That's good. It means the Governor will do what he thinks is best/right without regard to the politics and his reelection.

Huh??.......Governor now has NOTHING to lose..unfortunate for Hawaii’s hard working citizens