OLD/Closed General Discussion Thread: C-19/Hawaii. Will Hawaii re-open Oct. 15th? (+ NEW POLL)

[HGVC Lover]

Looks like the mayor of Kauai is getting seriously cold feet about tourists. I didn't realize that the mayors could augment the requirements made by the governor, but I understand the reasoning.

Kawakami asks Ige to approve post-travel program - The Garden Island

LIHU‘E — Kauai County inched closer on Wednesday to a two-test system to detect COVID-19 infections once the state opens further to tourism on Oct. 15 as Mayor Derek S.K. Kawakami formally asked the governor’s office to approve a program to require a second test after visitors arrive on the island.

www.thegardenisland.com

Looks like the same for Harry Kim on the Big Island.....not comfortable with the Governor's plan.....Mayors are some of the most powerful politicians in the state.....https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/202...ific-travel-ready-for-prime-time-kim-says-no/

 

[b2bailey]

Time out, boys! This is the HAWAII Forum, not the Vaccine forum!

Any more Vaccine posts will be deleted!

Thank you Denise.

 

[klpca]

Looks like the same for Harry Kim on the Big Island.....not comfortable with the Governor's plan.....Mayors are some of the most powerful politicians in the state.....https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/202...ific-travel-ready-for-prime-time-kim-says-no/

I am amazed at how much power they have! I had no idea that the individual mayors could essentially overturn the state's decision. I really just feel sorry for everyone trapped in these decisions. I know that we personally had a issue with covid/San Diego city govt/our rental property and it was so very frustrating to have our city leadership make decisions that directly affected our property rights and we couldn't do a thing about it. I have never felt more frustrated in my life. It has to be painful for the residents who haven't been able to work for months.

 

[jabberwocky]

While I understand their concerns I think that this is going to have long term ramifications for their economy. I feel really bad for people trying to survive economically on the island. And if a new relief package is passed I think that they will shut things down again. It's their sandbox, their rules, but I am having trouble seeing how this is going to work out in the long run.

Agreed. The problem with locking down is that as soon as you open up again to allow free movement, the spread of the disease will return. The lock-down strategy is the only one that is guaranteed to fail both medically and economically in the long-run.

 

[1Kflyerguy]

Well, our next Hawaii trip is scheduled for May.. I was considering booking a separate trip for Jan or Feb but think i will wait until after Hawaii is actually open, which hopefully is Oct 15th. I am fine taking a pretravel test, but I am not interested in a 2nd test with a forced quarantine.

Our original trip was set for two islands, but decided to simplify the trip to just the Big Island, and am planning to visit a different island on a separate trip. That may ultimatly be more expensive, but avoids any issue with inter-island quarantine, as well easier to rebook if things go south...

 

[csodjd]

Agreed. The problem with locking down is that as soon as you open up again to allow free movement, the spread of the disease will return. The lock-down strategy is the only one that is guaranteed to fail both medically and economically in the long-run.

Generally agree. To me, the only effective strategy that gives the economy and residents a fair chance is a surgical lockdown approach. Science seems to agree that small indoor places are high risk. Bars and nightclubs are high risk. Large gatherings are high risk. Those things can be off-limits, while leaving lots of other things available with appropriate restrictions. For example, around here you can get your nails done... but only outside and with good separation from others. You can eat at a restaurant... but only outside with tables < 6, and separated.

The fact is, Costco and supermarkets are open and they don't appear to be superspreaders. That means it can be done.

If it were me I'd get the Gov., Lt. Gov., some medical experts, and all the Mayors into a (large well ventilated) room and not let them leave until they had a comprehensive plan for all the islands, with clear objective markers for when plans change. If 7-day ave cases per day goes above 125 on Oahu, this is what happens.... If Maui goes above 15, this is what happens.... Etc.

 

[klpca]

He said the will have all the details out at least 72 hours before Oct. 15.

Lol. Planning on going right up to the wire, I see.

As if no one else will be dependent on the announcement. What if you have to make an appointment? What if they change their minds again? I'm not particularly worried for myself because we know that this may not happen, but what a hot mess.

 

[HGVC Lover]

Important new information coming right now from the Lt. Gov. press conference. First two are key:

1. Must get a NAAT test within 72 hrs of DEPARTURE to Hawaii.
2. Must get the test from one of their official testing "partners."
3. Under 5 doesn't need a test.
4. Cost is the traveler's responsibility.
5. Will accept the Abbott ID Now test, which is a rapid (< 15 minutes) test.
6. Expect to accept antigen tests down the road with a significant price drop once approved.

They currently have 12 official testing partners. Those partners will be encoding data into the Safe Travels app that allows the Hawaii officials to verify that the result is valid.

I missed the start so I don't have the list of partners but he mentioned Walmart, Kaiser, Quest, LabCorp, and CVS. He said the will have all the details out at least 72 hours before Oct. 15.

Seems like there are still a lot of moving parts on what might happen on October15, 2020.....

https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/10/w...te-objection-to-states-pre-travel-test-plans/

 

[klpca]

Seems like there are still a lot of moving parts on what might happen on October15, 2020.....

https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/10/w...te-objection-to-states-pre-travel-test-plans/

Did you see this quote: Requiring two or more tests will enable the tourist industry to “target higher-spending visitors in order to increase economic activity with lower impact on public health and the environment,” the resolution says.

I keep reading about this desire to target big spenders. For some reason it never sits right with me. It seems that the reason for two tests it that it self limits those who can't afford to travel there. Now, I can afford two tests but there's no way that we are sitting in our room for three days waiting for results so we won't come under those circumstances. I suspect that others will come to a similar conclusion. Who will come at all? Just because someone is "wealthy" enough afford two tests does not mean that they will jump through the rest of the hoops. I would say that this is a "careful what you wish for" situation.

 

[HGVC Lover]

Did you see this quote: Requiring two or more tests will enable the tourist industry to “target higher-spending visitors in order to increase economic activity with lower impact on public health and the environment,” the resolution says.

I keep reading about this desire to target big spenders. For some reason it never sits right with me. It seems that the reason for two tests it that it self limits those who can't afford to travel there. Now, I can afford two tests but there's no way that we are sitting in our room for three days waiting for results so we won't come under those circumstances. I suspect that others will come to a similar conclusion. Who will come at all? Just because someone is "wealthy" enough afford two tests does not mean that they will jump through the rest of the hoops. I would say that this is a "careful what you wish for" situation.

When we recently moved from in Kona after living there for many years it is the season for snowbirds to start arriving for the winter and I can see them be willing to pay. Many of our local friends on Hi Island are not convinced the October 15 date will hold because inter-island air is not opening until October 31, 2020. You also have the Kauai plan for resort bubbles in the works. They say that locals are not excited about having visitors with Covid-19 going up in the majority of places on the mainland. Aloha may not be as visible as in the past with the fear of illness. Stay tuned.....it's Hawaii time....

 

[rickandcindy23]

Did you see this quote: Requiring two or more tests will enable the tourist industry to “target higher-spending visitors in order to increase economic activity with lower impact on public health and the environment,” the resolution says.

I keep reading about this desire to target big spenders. For some reason it never sits right with me. It seems that the reason for two tests it that it self limits those who can't afford to travel there. Now, I can afford two tests but there's no way that we are sitting in our room for three days waiting for results so we won't come under those circumstances. I suspect that others will come to a similar conclusion. Who will come at all? Just because someone is "wealthy" enough afford two tests does not mean that they will jump through the rest of the hoops. I would say that this is a "careful what you wish for" situation.

I would bet money that celebrities are not being blocked in any way from visiting the islands. They aren't taking tests and not isolating themselves. Maui's mayor would love for only hotel guests to visit the islands. Forget the timeshare owners, who do not pay for 100% restaurant meals.

 

[klpca]

I would bet money that celebrities are not being blocked in any way from visiting the islands. They aren't taking tests and not isolating themselves. Maui's mayor would love for only hotel guests to visit the islands. Forget the timeshare owners, who do not pay for 100% restaurant meals.

Just pay double the taxes.

It just reeks of elitism. What about newlyweds or someone who saves for 2 years to go there? It feels very icky to state that ability to spend is a consideration for travelers. Go ahead and raise taxes or prices and give everyone a chance to decide for themselves.

At any rate I've never considered Hawaii to be a "budget" destination anyway. I'm surprised that they expect that the average traveler will spend more just to go to Hawaii. It will make other places suddenly more attractive.

 

[csodjd]

Just pay double the taxes.

It just reeks of elitism. What about newlyweds or someone who saves for 2 years to go there? It feels very icky to state that ability to spend is a consideration for travelers. Go ahead and raise taxes or prices and give everyone a chance to decide for themselves.

At any rate I've never considered Hawaii to be a "budget" destination anyway. I'm surprised that they expect that the average traveler will spend more just to go to Hawaii. It will make other places suddenly more attractive.

It certainly would not be hard to impose a “COVID Emergency Tourism Tax” of 5% (or whatever) on hotels, rental cars, and things of that sort. But making Hawaii more expensive doesn’t necessarily increase the wealth of the average visitor. I know plenty of very wealthy people that wholly reject doing anything where they feel they are being overcharged. increased fees are effective at reducing numbers, not necessarily at changing the demographics.

 

[Tamaradarann]

It certainly would not be hard to impose a “COVID Emergency Tourism Tax” of 5% (or whatever) on hotels, rental cars, and things of that sort. But making Hawaii more expensive doesn’t necessarily increase the wealth of the average visitor. I know plenty of very wealthy people that wholly reject doing anything where they feel they are being overcharged. increased fees are effective at reducing numbers, not necessarily at changing the demographics.

In my opinion Hawaii should be doing whatever they can to get tourists on a plane to land on their islands not put additional obstacles or costs in the way to prevent or discourage tourists from coming. The testing before flying is a good safety measure that should have been developed and set up 3 months ago to open up Hawaii to tourists. So now it looks like they might have finally gotten it set up to get tourists back in some reasonable numbers. If they start implementing a second test when landing they will lose some possible tourists right away, and then they need to figure out how they will handle the second test.

If they do implement a second test when landing and someone tests positive are they going to trace and quarantine for 14 days all those that were on the plane? (They would need to test the flight crew, who haven't had any restrictions in the past, as well as the passengers) Furthermore, is the test is going to be immediate with a holding area for all the passengers until all the results are back? If not, they would need to find and trace anyone on the plane and where they have gone since they landed and possibly spread the virus?

In conclusion, if Hawaii continues to feel that safety is more important than the economy I can understand that but the current state of the economy in Hawaii will then continue to be what it is now so they need to accept that. If they need more safety assurance before opening perhaps they need to wait until a vaccine is tested and approved before they open up.

 

[HGVC Lover]

Caviat emptor -- I know nothing about this site as far as how reliable it is, but the claim is Kauai might have its own set of rules as Hawaii as a whole opens...

Kauai Says Not So Fast On Hawaii's 'Quarantine Free' Travel Plans

Kauai isn't going along with Hawaii's plans to allow travelers carrying a recent negative covid-19 test to skip quarantine and enjoy their trip immediately.

www.godsavethepoints.com

Yes......each island can have it's own set of rules or additional rules.....that's what makes HI confusing at times.....

 

[jabberwocky]

In my opinion Hawaii should be doing whatever they can to get tourists on a plane to land on their islands not put additional obstacles or costs in the way to prevent or discourage tourists from coming. The testing before flying is a good safety measure that should have been developed and set up 3 months ago to open up Hawaii to tourists. So now it looks like they might have finally gotten it set up to get tourists back in some reasonable numbers. If they start implementing a second test when landing they will lose some possible tourists right away, and then they need to figure out how they will handle the second test.

If they do implement a second test when landing and someone tests positive are they going to trace and quarantine for 14 days all those that were on the plane? (They would need to test the flight crew, who haven't had any restrictions in the past, as well as the passengers) Furthermore, is the test is going to be immediate with a holding area for all the passengers until all the results are back? If not, they would need to find and trace anyone on the plane and where they have gone since they landed and possibly spread the virus?

In conclusion, if Hawaii continues to feel that safety is more important than the economy I can understand that but the current state of the economy in Hawaii will then continue to be what it is now so they need to accept that. If they need more safety assurance before opening perhaps they need to wait until a vaccine is tested and approved before they open up.

I agree with you. The big puzzle for me in all of this is that we've been hearing from the Hawaii government that they can't do testing on arrival because they don't have the capacity. Now that test-on-departure is going ahead they want to do test-on-arrival as well.

This is incredibly frustrating for anyone who wants to plan a trip. I don't think those in charge realize the economic hara-kiri they are facing.

 

[eyedude]

I had a trip to Kauai 12/5 and Maui 12/12. When they dropped the 14 day quarantine on 10/15, I was optimistic that the trip could possibly happen. When I started hearing chatter about a second test I had to rethink my plans. I kept waiting to see what would happen and now that I am 60 days out I had to make a decision. I decided to deposit my Waiohai week into II and trade for another week on Maui for 12/5. There were just too many uncertainties with going to Kauai and then switching islands to Maui. Even if the mayor of Maui is able to implement the need for a second test, I will still be able to enjoy the majority of my vacation without quarantine. I do not think they will implement a second test because they do not have the capacity, but I just needed to remove some of the variables and moving parts. If they implement a 14 day quarantine, we obviously will not go. This will be our 25 year anniversary so it is extra special...we are hoping for the best.

 

[echino]

Any test has some rate of false positives. If it's just one person getting tested, the probability of getting a false positive is low. But let's say it's a family of 5 traveling, then the probability of at least 1 of 5 getting a false positive increases significantly. Now the whole trip has to be cancelled last minute.

What happens if there is a second test requirement 3 days after arrival? It means at least 3 days in quarantine, maybe more, while waiting for the results, which is already a no go for the majority of tourists. In addition, the second test increases the probability of a false positive even more.

Hawaii will not get tourists in any numbers meaningful for the economy if they implement the second test requirement.

 

[csodjd]

Any test has some rate of false positives. If it's just one person getting tested, the probability of getting a false positive is low. But let's say it's a family of 5 traveling, then the probability of at least 1 of 5 getting a false positive increases significantly. Now the whole trip has to be cancelled last minute.

What happens if there is a second test requirement 3 days after arrival? It means at least 3 days in quarantine, maybe more, while waiting for the results, which is already a no go for the majority of tourists. In addition, the second test increases the probability of a false positive even more.

Hawaii will not get tourists in any numbers meaningful for the economy if they implement the second test requirement.

The challenge of all testing, as Trump’s situation so clearly shows, is that there is a window between becoming infected and testing positive. If you are exposed on Monday, you will almost certainly test negative on Tuesday, and be contagious by Wednesday or Thursday, and may not show symptoms until about Saturday or so. The test doesn’t show positive until the virus gets into your cells, starts replicating, and you start shedding the virus. We don’t know if Trump was tested daily, but he very well may have and they just came up negative until Thursday night because that’s how long it takes, on average, to show up.

As we plan to go to Hawaii in January our plan is to self-quarantine/isolate for 3-4 days before testing to help ensure that the test will be accurate by showing positive IF one of us was infected, because, while we want the negative test so we can go to Hawaii, we want it even more to ensure we don’t get sick after arriving in Hawaii.

Where the testing IS helpful is in identifying the asymptomatic patient that’s had the infection already for a period of time.

 

[klpca]

The challenge of all testing, as Trump’s situation so clearly shows, is that there is a window between becoming infected and testing positive. If you are exposed on Monday, you will almost certainly test negative on Tuesday, and be contagious by Wednesday or Thursday, and may not show symptoms until about Saturday or so. The test doesn’t show positive until the virus gets into your cells, starts replicating, and you start shedding the virus. We don’t know if Trump was tested daily, but he very well may have and they just came up negative until Thursday night because that’s how long it takes, on average, to show up.

As we plan to go to Hawaii in January our plan is to self-quarantine/isolate for 3-4 days before testing to help ensure that the test will be accurate by showing positive IF one of us was infected, because, while we want the negative test so we can go to Hawaii, we want it even more to ensure we don’t get sick after arriving in Hawaii.

Where the testing IS helpful is in identifying the asymptomatic patient that’s had the infection already for a period of time.

Our plan is a 14 day home quarantine. But we're not going if there's any chance that we will have to quarantine in Hawaii so our decision hinges on the requirement for a second test.

 

[TSPam]

Just to let people know.....we traveled to Kauai on Friday from the mainland. At the time we didn’t know about needing two Different trips on the safe travels site. One from the mainland and the other from Honolulu to Lihue. A helpful arrivals checker fixed the QR code, showed us how to make the second one, and checked that our phone rang when he called us.
BUT, when we got to Lihue they made us fill out a Kauai arrival paper form and wouldn’t look at our QR code or do anything with it. We are quarantining at the Marriott’s Waiohai beach club and as required they didn’t give us keys and they have their staff bring us our food and packages.
The problem is that when we go to do our daily check ins on the safe travels site it says that the trip has not been entered into the the system because the QR code was not registered at the airport. Sigh.
I will try to call someone tomorrow. We are here for 4 weeks and are good with quarantining. It is beautiful here and we will work most days anyway. Then after two weeks we will do some tourist stuff.
We are moving to the big island and are just hoping that by the time we are here for 4 weeks and then spend two weeks at Ko Olina the big island will have a better idea of what kind of inter island quarantine we will have to do. At the moment you must quarantine in a hotel or a 180 day or longer rental. We have a hotel booked but 2 weeks in a hotel room does not sound like fun and there are less rentals then usual....

 

[Tamaradarann]

Any test has some rate of false positives. If it's just one person getting tested, the probability of getting a false positive is low. But let's say it's a family of 5 traveling, then the probability of at least 1 of 5 getting a false positive increases significantly. Now the whole trip has to be cancelled last minute.

What happens if there is a second test requirement 3 days after arrival? It means at least 3 days in quarantine, maybe more, while waiting for the results, which is already a no go for the majority of tourists. In addition, the second test increases the probability of a false positive even more.

Hawaii will not get tourists in any numbers meaningful for the economy if they implement the second test requirement.

Some of what you said here echos what I posted yesterday about the concerns about a 2nd test on arrival. However, you point out something that I didn't think of and address, the false positives. You gave an example and stressed the implications for a family of five. What are the implications for ALL those that are on the plane if someone gets off the plane with a false positive?

 

[csodjd]

Some of what you said here echos what I posted yesterday about the concerns about a 2nd test on arrival. However, you point out something that I didn't think of and address, the false positives. You gave an example and stressed the implications for a family of five. What are the implications for ALL those that are on the plane if someone gets off the plane with a false positive?

False positives in the RNA/DNA tests are rare, especially in someone that's not had COVID. And, of course, they don't implicate any health concerns or concern of spread. So it's an inconvenience. Anyone getting a positive would be well advised to test a second time (like Trump did, for instance) to confirm, if they have no reason to believe it's accurate (i.e., no symptoms, no known exposure to a person with COVID, no "risky" behavior in the prior 1-2 weeks). Most false positives have come from people that were retesting post-COVID and some elements of viral genetic material were picked up, or with antigen tests that are not quite as accurate.

 

[HighAltitudeDude]

Hopefully we will know the final decision soon https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/h...debate-continues-decision-expected-this-week/

 

[DannyTS]

Regardless the reason, according to the New York Times the tests are too sensitive and they report 10 times more infected people than they should.

<In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said. >

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

www.nytimes.com