[Closed - new thread started] Will Hawaii Open by [OCTOBER???] [Please use this thread for all Hawaii Coronavirus discussions]

[Luanne]

I would not plan on going in early July. I'm hoping we can go in late October, but can't even say I'm "fairly certain" that travel from California will be allowed then.

This was from four days ago (if I'm repeating information already known I apologize).

"Governor Ige did not provide a date for when the state will lift the mandatory quarantine for out of state arrivals to Hawaii, but an announcement on that decision is expected by the end of June."

That, to me, would make it very shaky to have plans for July. You might not know until a day or so before the beginning of your trip if the quarantine had been lifted.

 

[DeniseM]

Actually - On May 28th the Gov. said that he would extend the quarantine into July, so I don't think there is any doubt.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/...-outline-latest-steps-reopen-hawaiis-economy/

 

[Yellowfin]

 

[csodjd]

This was from four days ago (if I'm repeating information already known I apologize).

"Governor Ige did not provide a date for when the state will lift the mandatory quarantine for out of state arrivals to Hawaii, but an announcement on that decision is expected by the end of June."

That, to me, would make it very shaky to have plans for July. You might not know until a day or so before the beginning of your trip if the quarantine had been lifted.

Those of us on the mainland it seems will be down the road a bit, so even when HA does open to out-of-state travelers, it will be from other countries before the US mainland. So yes, it's going to be a while still.

 

[Yellowfin]

Maybe the post should be changed to: Will Hawaii open by October?

 

[Luanne]

Maybe the post should be changed to: Will Hawaii open by October?

I think the thread name has changed each time the quarantine date gets pushed out.

 

[DeniseM]

Yes - When the quarantine is officially extended to July, then I will change the title to "August."

However, my vote is for September at the earliest, but the protests may set things back a bit. Time will tell.

 

[controller1]

Yes - When the quarantine is officially extended to July, then I will change the title to "August."

However, my vote is for September at the earliest, but the protests may set things back a bit. Time will tell.

I'm hoping you're correct. We have reservations for two weeks beginning the last Friday of September. Fingers crossed!

 

[csodjd]

Yes - When the quarantine is officially extended to July, then I will change the title to "August."

However, my vote is for September at the earliest, but the protests may set things back a bit. Time will tell.

Hard to imagine it will be before September, at least if coming from the mainland US.

 

[Yellowfin]

Governor Ige mentioned that California is registering an important spike in the number of cases and that he does not see anyone from that state being allowed to visit Hawaii without a quarantine anytime soon. He also said on June 1st that he would make an announcement in about a week about the trans-Pacific travel. I think he was referring to the "safe" coridors Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand.

My guess is that, depending on where you live, making travel arrangements to Hawaii is risky any month of this year.

 

[Yellowfin]

However, my vote is for September at the earliest, but the protests may set things back a bit. Time will tell.

A big spike in the number of cases due to the protests will set things back by quite a bit. If there isn't a significant increase, what better proof one needs that the state has to open and that the current measures are excessive?

 

[csodjd]

Governor Ige mentioned that California is registering an important spike in the number of cases and that he does not see anyone from that state being allowed to visit Hawaii without a quarantine anytime soon. He also said on June 1st that he would make an announcement in about a week about the trans-Pacific travel. I think he was referring to the "safe" coridors Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand.

My guess is that, depending on where you live, making travel arrangements to Hawaii is risky any month of this year.

You may well be correct, but it's such a logically flawed thinking because if there is pre-flight testing, that'll identify and keep out almost all infections, and reasonable policies once in Hawaii will limit or prevent any significant community spread from the occasional miss. If spikes are a "no come" trigger, it'll be like wack-a-mole. Say they open for S. Korea. And 60 days later they have a resurgence for whatever reason. I think they need now to move beyond keeping it out and into mitigating and living with it.

 

[controller1]

You may well be correct, but it's such a logically flawed thinking because if there is pre-flight testing, that'll identify and keep out almost all infections, and reasonable policies once in Hawaii will limit or prevent any significant community spread from the occasional miss. If spikes are a "no come" trigger, it'll be like wack-a-mole. Say they open for S. Korea. And 60 days later they have a resurgence for whatever reason. I think they need now to move beyond keeping it out and into mitigating and living with it.

We all know that a person may test negative one day and two days later test positive due to the incubation period of COVID-19. Doesn't it stand to reason that scenario is more likely of a person coming from a state that is registering a spike in cases rather than a state registering decreases in cases?

 

[Yellowfin]

You may well be correct, but it's such a logically flawed thinking because if there is pre-flight testing, that'll identify and keep out almost all infections, and reasonable policies once in Hawaii will limit or prevent any significant community spread from the occasional miss. If spikes are a "no come" trigger, it'll be like wack-a-mole. Say they open for S. Korea. And 60 days later they have a resurgence for whatever reason. I think they need now to move beyond keeping it out and into mitigating and living with it.

I agree with you that it is a flawed argument. If you live in rural North California for example you may be at a much lower risk than in a big city in many parts of the world. Testing is the answer otherwise they will have to keep on changing the list of good/bad countries and states faster than people can amend their travel plans.

 

[JIMinNC]

We all know that a person may test negative one day and two days later test positive due to the incubation period of COVID-19. Doesn't it stand to reason that scenario is more likely of a person coming from a state that is registering a spike in cases rather than a state registering decreases in cases?

Testing will never completely eliminate the risk for the reason you note, but it will reduce the risk. If the goal of any state or country is elimination of the risk of importing a virus case, then there will be no travel for a long, long time. And as others have noted, state-level statistics mean very little. Within states, the bigger cities all present greater risks than smaller towns, rural areas, and even the suburban areas of those major cities. Even in New York City, an outsized proportion of the cases were focused on Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. Manhattan was impacted much less. So why should someone from upstate New York or the upper peninsula of Michigan be denied travel opportunities just because Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Detroit were hot spots?

I get the impression that people think at some point in the next year or so we are going to be declared "COVID-free" and everything goes back to the way it was in January or February. I just don't see that happening. If a future free from any risk of COVID-19 transmission is the goal, the future of any kind of travel is certainly bleak. Mitigating the risk to the greatest extent practical, while allowing life's activities to continue, should be the goal, IMHO.

 

[csodjd]

We all know that a person may test negative one day and two days later test positive due to the incubation period of COVID-19. Doesn't it stand to reason that scenario is more likely of a person coming from a state that is registering a spike in cases rather than a state registering decreases in cases?

If the person didn't engage in risky behavior and wasn't exposed to a known infected person, that's possible but very low risk. I'd suggest that the risks of relying on the testing in a foreign country over which Hawaii has no control has its own risks.

That aside, while I accept your premise -- yes, more risk coming from a location that is spiking -- that leaves unanswered what that higher risk means. In other words, how much more risk? Is it a material increase in risk or more theoretical than real? Does that translate to one more person a month coming in infected, or does it translate to 100 more per week? Let's consider California. There are 40,000,000 people. If the number of new cases "spikes" from 1000 to 4000, what does that really mean for the difference in risk to Hawaii? Even if we assume that those cases are happening entirely in people with the MEANS to travel to Hawaii (which we know isn't the case), that's still a tiny difference in the overall numbers.

 

[JIMinNC]

New information from WHO casts considerable doubt on the whole "Asymptomatic Spread" argument that is driving a lot of the travel quarantine hysteria. If this proves out, screening for symptoms may accomplish 90% of what we need to do to mitigate the spread due to travel. COVID-19 "can" be spread by asymptomatic people, but it is rare.

WHO Says Asymptomatic Spread of Coronavirus is "Very Rare."

Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections.

Some people, particularly young and otherwise healthy individuals, who are infected by the coronavirus never develop symptoms or only develop mild symptoms. Others might not develop symptoms until days after they were actually infected.

Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated that the virus could spread from person-to-person contact, even if the carrier didn’t have symptoms. But WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is not the main way it’s being transmitted.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.”

 

[Ken555]

A big spike in the number of cases due to the protests will set things back by quite a bit. If there isn't a significant increase, what better proof one needs that the state has to open and that the current measures are excessive?

Certainly true for outside events. We have known for some time that the rate of infection while in a closed space is highest, based on the info we have now. Opening is not an all or nothing proposition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

New information from WHO casts considerable doubt on the whole "Asymptomatic Spread" argument that is driving a lot of the travel quarantine hysteria. If this proves out, screening for symptoms may accomplish 90% of what we need to do to mitigate the spread due to travel. COVID-19 "can" be spread by asymptomatic people, but it is rare.

WHO Says Asymptomatic Spread of Coronavirus is "Very Rare."

This is welcome news, but are you sure you trust it? Now that the USA is pulling out of the WHO... I’m waiting for all the critical and sarcastic posts (as in other threads on this topic) in response for how we can’t trust the WHO.

Waiting.

Waiting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JIMinNC]

This is welcome news, but are you sure you trust it? Now that the USA is pulling out of the WHO... I’m waiting for all the critical and sarcastic posts (as in other threads on this topic) in response for how we can’t trust the WHO.

Waiting.

Waiting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think we can truly "trust" any of the information that has been coming out from various agencies and research institutions on coronavirus like we have traditionally been able to, but that's not because they are corrupt or biased or whatever. It's because this is so new everyone is learning as we go. Normally when a new disease emerges, all of the conflicting research and uncertainty takes place in the background within the research community, health regulatory/advisory agencies like CDC and WHO, universities, research hospitals, etc. The studies are published in professional journals and are peer reviewed and analyzed for many months or years before things are truly understood. In this case, all of that back-and-forth is taking place in plain view under the microscope of the general public media and the political environment.

So, I think we are all learning as we go. That's why I said in my post above, "If this proves out...".

But IMHO, the whole asymptomatic spread issue is perhaps the most important dynamic to truly understand, as it seems to be driving a lot of the more draconian measures and restrictions on everyday life. If we could truly confirm conclusively that asymptomatic spread is indeed rare as the WHO official said, that opens up a world of possibilities for screening that focuses on symptoms rather than hidden infections. Getting our economy back and our lifestyle back to a more sustainable place will be much easier to do if asymptomatic spread is indeed rare.

 

[Ken555]

I don't think we can truly "trust" any of the information that has been coming out from various agencies and research institutions on coronavirus like we have traditionally been able to, but that's not because they are corrupt or biased or whatever. It's because this is so new everyone is learning as we go. Normally when a new disease emerges, all of the conflicting research and uncertainty takes place in the background within the research community, health regulatory/advisory agencies like CDC and WHO, universities, research hospitals, etc. The studies are published in professional journals and are peer reviewed and analyzed for many months or years before things are truly understood. In this case, all of that back-and-forth is taking place in plain view under the microscope of the general public media.

So, I think we are all learning as we go. That's why I said in my post above, "If this proves out...".

But IMHO, the whole asymptomatic spread issue is perhaps the most important dynamic to truly understand, as it seems to be driving a lot of the more draconian measures and restrictions on everyday life. If we could truly confirm conclusively that asymptomatic spread is indeed rare as the WHO official said, that opens up a world of possibilities for screening that focuses on symptoms rather than hidden infections. Getting our economy back and our lifestyle back to a more sustainable place will be much easier to do if asymptomatic spread is indeed rare.

Absolutely, but trust is the wrong word.

My sarcastic reply was more to do with the posts on TUG about the WHO and other scientific experts who have been the target of some here on TUG. There have been posts, sarcastic and otherwise, targeting these organizations and implying that we cannot trust them because they change their advice over time. Of course these individuals don’t understand how science works...but still, it’s quite disheartening, especially since it’s those same people who have been pro opening, pro massive spread to get it over with... and this attitude is encouraged by those who decided to cut funding to the WHO. The whole thing is a mess.

So if some of you criticize the WHO for their earlier advice, I certainly hope you’ll either apologize for it or not believe this latest news. You really can’t have it both ways.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Yellowfin]

do we even remember if there was a study at the time that the asymptomatic people could transmit the virus or if it was just "concern" and speculation? It did not make a lot of sense to me but everyone seemed so convinced...

 

[Ken555]

do we even remember if there was a study at the time that the asymptomatic people could transmit the virus or if it was just "concern" and speculation? It did not make a lot of sense to me but everyone seemed so convinced...

Many, many posts on TUG on this very topic.

A quick google search brought me to this doc from the New England Journal of Medicine, first published on April 24, which concludes:

Ultimately, the rapid spread of Covid-19 across the United States and the globe, the clear evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic persons,5 and the eventual need to relax current social distancing practices argue for broadened SARS-CoV-2 testing to include asymptomatic persons in prioritized settings. These factors also support the case for the general public to use face masks10 when in crowded outdoor or indoor spaces. This unprecedented pandemic calls for unprecedented measures to achieve its ultimate defeat.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2009758

Frankly, the rapid spread of this contagion is difficult to explain without asymptomatic spread. I’m waiting for the follow up on the WHO announcement to explain this in more detail.

Update:

This is the reference re the asymptomatic conclusions in the earlier article.

Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2008457

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JIMinNC]

do we even remember if there was a study at the time that the asymptomatic people could transmit the virus or if it was just "concern" and speculation? It did not make a lot of sense to me but everyone seemed so convinced...

I've had the same question myself.

Just did a quick Google search and found these:

March Study from China Case study of a single family

CDC Report on March 2020 Singapore Study Investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases.

Study from NIH published in May In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

It seems there is no question spread CAN occur in asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people. I suspect a lot of the earlier studies found just that, but since it was early, they really didn't have large statistically-controlled tests. The questions that need to be answered though become more nuanced:

• Is asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic spread more common in closed family settings where people are in close contact for extended periods or hours or days? Such would also apply to other close-quarters environments like nursing homes, prisons, workplaces with little ability to social distance, etc.
• Is it likely for there to be asymptomatic spread from casual, passing contact outside or even indoors if the period of exposure is short?

 

[Yellowfin]

I've had the same question myself.

Just did a quick Google search and found these:

March Study from China Case study of a single family

CDC Report on March 2020 Singapore Study Investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases.

Study from NIH published in May In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

It seems there is no question spread CAN occur in asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people. I suspect a lot of the earlier studies found just that, but since it was early, they really didn't have large statistically-controlled tests. The questions that need to be answered though become more nuanced:

• Is asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic spread more common in closed family settings where people are in close contact for extended periods or hours or days? Such would also apply to other close-quarters environments like nursing homes, prisons, workplaces with little ability to social distance, etc.
• Is it likely for there to be asymptomatic spread from casual, passing contact outside or even indoors if the period of exposure is short?

can I just say that a study that mentions the word "suggesting" is not a real study or at least should not be taken as evidence for any public policy decision? The world has been upside down for 3 months, in no small part because of the fear that asymptomatic people were very important in transmitting the virus.