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

[csodjd]

Hawaiian Airlines rolls out drive-through COVID-19 testing in LA and San Francisco

Hawaiian will offer drive-through COVID-19 testing near LAX and SFO by Oct. 15, when Hawaii will allow visitors who test negative to skip quarantine.

news.yahoo.com

Hawaiian Airlines is getting in on the deal.

Hawaiian Airlines passengers who avail themselves of the offer can use drive-through services at Worksite Labs locations near LAX and SFO. They can opt to pay $90 to get their results within 36 hours or $150 for same-day results. Its Droplet Digital PCR shallow nasal swab tests meet Hawaii's testing requirements.

It was obvious that with United making their announcement that ALL of the airlines flying to Hawaii would have to do so also. Expect AA to announce something soon.

 

[wilma]

Hawaiian Airlines rolls out drive-through COVID-19 testing in LA and San Francisco

Hawaiian will offer drive-through COVID-19 testing near LAX and SFO by Oct. 15, when Hawaii will allow visitors who test negative to skip quarantine.

news.yahoo.com

Hawaiian Airlines is getting in on the deal.

Hawaiian Airlines passengers who avail themselves of the offer can use drive-through services at Worksite Labs locations near LAX and SFO. They can opt to pay $90 to get their results within 36 hours or $150 for same-day results. Its Droplet Digital PCR shallow nasal swab tests meet Hawaii's testing requirements.

Now we need Alaska airlines to join in.

 

[MULTIZ321]

Here's Why Rapid Testing For Hawaii Flights Might Just SaveTravel.

Here’s Why Rapid Testing For Hawaii Flights Might Just Save Travel

United Airlines announced it would begin offering rapid COVID-19 testing for passengers traveling to Hawaii. If the scheme works and can be rolled out globally, it could mark a watershed moment for travel in the era of COVID-19. Here's why.

www.forbes.com

.


Richard

 

[klpca]

It was obvious that with United making their announcement that ALL of the airlines flying to Hawaii would have to do so also. Expect AA to announce something soon.

Of course we leave out of San Diego so we still have to scramble. Or drive all the way to LA. Nah, I just cant do it, lol.

 

[JanT]

We're waiting to see if/when American announces. I would suspect DFW will be a testing point since that is their main hub. And of course, we didn't route through DFW but we're 5 hours driving distance from there so if they offer it at DFW we'll make the drive to/from to get our test done rather than take a gamble our results won't get back in time via regular testing method. Plus, that would prevent a major problem should we test positive - we'd just cancel our 5 week trip. Not sure how that would play out with all the ACs we used but we did take the insurance so hopefully it would all pan out. Are you on United or Hawaiian?

Of course we leave out of San Diego so we still have to scramble. Or drive all the way to LA. Nah, I just cant do it, lol.

 

[klpca]

We're waiting to see if/when American announces. I would suspect DFW will be a testing point since that is their main hub. And of course, we didn't route through DFW but we're 5 hours driving distance from there so if they offer it at DFW we'll make the drive to/from to get our test done rather than take a gamble our results won't get back in time via regular testing method. Plus, that would prevent a major problem should we test positive - we'd just cancel our 5 week trip. Not sure how that would play out with all the ACs we used but we did take the insurance so hopefully it would all pan out. Are you on United or Hawaiian?

Hawaiian.

Btw I booked our tickets soon after I used the AC's for the trip. When I booked I had quite a few choices of flights. I chose SAN-HNL-LIH. (Kauai on the first week and I am not sure what we are going to do if interisland travel doesn't open up, lol. See below). There was another flight that was routing through Maui but we would have landed later in the afternoon so I went with the earlier flight that connected in Honolulu. On Tues I received an email saying that our flights were changed. Now our SAN-HNL flight was later *plus* we had a 3 hour layover and didn't get into Lihue until 3:30. I went to rebook on the flight going through Maui and that option is no longer there. I don't know if the flight was full or canceled, but there weren't any other options. I'm not at all happy about a 3 hour layover in Honolulu. It's the last place I want to be - inside of a building during a pandemic. I haven't figured that out yet, but we may just sit on a bench outside. I think that now that things are actually happening, Hawaiian Airlines is consolidating their flights to maximize their passenger load (fair enough). Also I was concerned about our seat assignments on the new flight from Honolulu to Lihue and they are leaving seats open for social distancing. Middles are open and according to the person on the chat, only one person can be on the side of the plane with the two seat configuration.

Truthfully I am pretty relaxed about this entire trip. It may happen. It may not. I may have to try to get the second week changed to Kauai if the interisland travel doesn't reopen. Or I may have to cancel the second week. We may not be able to get tested in time and the whole thing may be off. One thing is for sure, anyone planning on going to Hawaii now needs to be pretty relaxed and go with the flow. Nothing is going to be normal. It's like playing Wheel of Fortune and who knows where we will end up on the travel wheel.

 

[dannybaker]

We canceled all five weeks to Hawaii, for end of November through December . Just to many variables involved . We will hang out at home this year.

 

[kckaren21]

klpca said:"Truthfully I am pretty relaxed about this entire trip. It may happen. It may not. I may have to try to get the second week changed to Kauai if the interisland travel doesn't reopen. Or I may have to cancel the second week. We may not be able to get tested in time and the whole thing may be off. One thing is for sure, anyone planning on going to Hawaii now needs to be pretty relaxed and go with the flow. Nothing is going to be normal. It's like playing Wheel of Fortune and who knows where we will end up on the travel wheel. "

We are going to Kauai first, too, then 2 other islands. My fingers are crossed that interisland travel doesn't get cancelled while we are there. I'm staying hopeful, but making sure plans are able to be canceled...

 

[10spro]

Now we need Alaska airlines to join in.

I'm booked on Alaska to OGG 11/21. Hoping they get it together by then.

 

[cman]

Hawaiian Airlines to offer drive-thru COVID-19 testing in mainland labs exclusively for its guests

Hawaiian Airlines plans to offer drive-through COVID-19 tests in select U.S. mainland gateways that will allow travelers to bypass the state’s 14-day quarantine.

www.staradvertiser.com

 

[critterchick]

I noticed that the HA announcement refers to facilities that are “near” LAX and SFO. I wonder how near? I should think that AA and AS would cooperate on testing at LAX since the AA flights to Hawaii depart from T5 and AS from T6. The distances between them aren’t that great and the passenger loads aren’t huge.

 

[csodjd]

I noticed that the HA announcement refers to facilities that are “near” LAX and SFO. I wonder how near? I should think that AA and AS would cooperate on testing at LAX since the AA flights to Hawaii depart from T5 and AS from T6. The distances between them aren’t that great and the passenger loads aren’t huge.

If you go to their website you'll learn that the testing entity is a company that brings a testing facility to a workplace and operates it there. So, a Google, or Apple, or a studio, or other large employer that wants/needs rapid and large scale employee testing (sports team, college, etc.) can hire them and they bring a lab to you. So, it isn't clear exactly how that will work with HA and the website doesn't explain (yet). But best guess is they will set up a drive up facility somewhere off the airport grounds (to avoid the costs and red tape of dealing with an airport) but close by.

Business - Worksite Labs

Decentralized Lab Testing for the Future Our unique model and full-service labs embody speed, efficiency, and reliability, empowering patients with greater control over their health and well-being. Find Out How Decentralized Lab Testing for the Future Our unique model and full-service labs...

www.worksitelabs.com

 

[Tamaradarann]

If you go to their website you'll learn that the testing entity is a company that brings a testing facility to a workplace and operates it there. So, a Google, or Apple, or a studio, or other large employer that wants/needs rapid and large scale employee testing (sports team, college, etc.) can hire them and they bring a lab to you. So, it isn't clear exactly how that will work with HA and the website doesn't explain (yet). But best guess is they will set up a drive up facility somewhere off the airport grounds (to avoid the costs and red tape of dealing with an airport) but close by.

Business - Worksite Labs

Decentralized Lab Testing for the Future Our unique model and full-service labs embody speed, efficiency, and reliability, empowering patients with greater control over their health and well-being. Find Out How Decentralized Lab Testing for the Future Our unique model and full-service labs...

www.worksitelabs.com

csodjd, I would like your educated and experienced thoughts on this: I just heard from some friends in New York that medical people that they know are saying that the coronavirus has now weakened so that symptoms are much less severe. Therefore, while as we know it is still spreading at a high rate around the world they are saying that the version that is spreading now has weakened. They said that those that are dying each day have a version that was much worst from before the weakening. My thinking is that perhaps the actual virus that is circulating here is NY has weakened since it was caught here early and started to spread here so early that the virus was passed from person to person mnay times and weakened. What do you think?

 

[csodjd]

csodjd, I would like your educated and experienced thoughts on this: I just heard from some friends in New York that medical people that they know are saying that the coronavirus has now weakened so that symptoms are much less severe. Therefore, while as we know it is still spreading at a high rate around the world they are saying that the version that is spreading now has weakened. They said that those that are dying each day have a version that was much worst from before the weakening. My thinking is that perhaps the actual virus that is circulating here is NY has weakened since it was caught here early and started to spread here so early that the virus was passed from person to person mnay times and weakened. What do you think?

I know there's been some discussion of genetic mutations that may have increased its spread/infectious capability, but lessened the severity of the illness. I think the proof will be in the data, hospitalization rates, ICU rates, etc. Those don't lag THAT far behind new cases, so it won't be hard to see. But there are confounding factors, the largest being the (younger) age of those being infected right now, and perhaps next being the experience and tools now available to the treating doctors to prevent more serious and fatal disease. I've not seen anything published that demonstrates reduced virulence after accounting for those factors.

Here are two recent articles that say just that.

Coronavirus mutations: what we've learned so far

Some mutations have no effect, while others could impact transmissibility.

www.livescience.com

Professor Vincent Marechal: What we know about France’s Covid-19 cases

France has seen a sharp rise in the number of coronavirus infections in recent days. But the surge has not been matched by a rise in severe cases admitted to hospital, as has been the case in other countries.…

www.rfi.fr

Hawaii, being a relatively small "lab," is actually a good measure. We can watch cases and patients in the ICU. https://www.hawaiidata.org/covid19 If the number of new cases stays steady ~100/day, but the number in the ICU gradually drops (it's recently dropped, but that's likely from the drop in cases from ~250-300 to ~100) that would evidence a less virulent disease.

That said, there is a natural selection for less deadly forms of a virus, since a dead host doesn't spread as much virus as does a live one. So you'd expect "evolution" to favor a mutated form that produces a less severe disease as it creates more opportunity to spread (called attenuation).

That said, if you're at risk, you don't want COVID, or the flu. Either and both can be fatal to a person that's got co-morbidities such as COPD, diabetes, compromised immunity (as most people 75+ years of age have), etc.

 

[Tamaradarann]

I know there's been some discussion of genetic mutations that may have increased its spread/infectious capability, but lessened the severity of the illness. I think the proof will be in the data, hospitalization rates, ICU rates, etc. Those don't lag THAT far behind new cases, so it won't be hard to see. But there are confounding factors, the largest being the (younger) age of those being infected right now, and perhaps next being the experience and tools now available to the treating doctors to prevent more serious and fatal disease. I've not seen anything published that demonstrates reduced virulence after accounting for those factors.

Here are two recent articles that say just that.

Coronavirus mutations: what we've learned so far

Some mutations have no effect, while others could impact transmissibility.

www.livescience.com

Professor Vincent Marechal: What we know about France’s Covid-19 cases

France has seen a sharp rise in the number of coronavirus infections in recent days. But the surge has not been matched by a rise in severe cases admitted to hospital, as has been the case in other countries.…

www.rfi.fr

Hawaii, being a relatively small "lab," is actually a good measure. We can watch cases and patients in the ICU. https://www.hawaiidata.org/covid19 If the number of new cases stays steady ~100/day, but the number in the ICU gradually drops (it's recently dropped, but that's likely from the drop in cases from ~250-300 to ~100) that would evidence a less virulent disease.

That said, there is a natural selection for less deadly forms of a virus, since a dead host doesn't spread as much virus as does a live one. So you'd expect "evolution" to favor a mutated form that produces a less severe disease as it creates more opportunity to spread (called attenuation).

That said, if you're at risk, you don't want COVID, or the flu. Either and both can be fatal to a person that's got co-morbidities such as COPD, diabetes, compromised immunity (as most people 75+ years of age have), etc.

Thanks for your thoguhts and the articles which certianly convinced me that we are doing the right thing trying to avoid getting the virus as much as possible. These friends are in the 50's so they are not in the high risk group like we are as far as age. The medical people that they know are still working so they most probably are younger also. They started to get me thinking that we should change our Fall 2021 plans back to January 2021 again. However, It is a nice wishful thinking that the virus is now less severe. I think that I will wish for an effective safe vaccine as soon as it can be developed, tested, and tried on a few million people before we feel safe to get the vacine and move forward.

 

[ljmiii]

I just heard from some friends in New York that medical people that they know are saying that the coronavirus has now weakened so that symptoms are much less severe...

This has not been seen by my friends who work in NYC hospitals. What has happened is that we know a lot more about treatment than we did in March and April.

More generally, COVID-19 has certainly mutated but there is no real evidence that the mutations make the virus more or less deadly, more or less transmissible, and/or more or less likely to be resistant to antibodies that resulted from previous exposure. Anecdotal stories about all of these changes exist (in both directions)...but nothing you can hang your hat on.

The $64B question is how long and how strongly resistance to COVID-19 from antibodies (whether gained through exposure or vaccine) lasts.

 

[csodjd]

This has not been seen by my friends who work in NYC hospitals. What has happened is that we know a lot more about treatment than we did in March and April.

More generally, COVID-19 has certainly mutated but there is no real evidence that the mutations make the virus more or less deadly, more or less transmissible, and/or more or less likely to be resistant to antibodies that resulted from previous exposure. Anecdotal stories about all of these changes exist (in both directions)...but nothing you can hang your hat on.

The $64B question is how long and how strongly resistance to COVID-19 from antibodies (whether gained through exposure or vaccine) lasts.

On of the (many) reasons it takes a long time for a vaccine to get to the market is because they want and need that question answered BEFORE they start injecting people, and the only way to know is to monitor people over a period of several years, both for side effects and efficacy. A vaccine is largely worthless if it is effective for only 60 days, and even more so if you don't KNOW how long it is effective for. That creates long-term INCREASED, not decreased risk of infection due to the false sense of security it creates.

There is little (no) doubt that a COVID vaccine will be approved before it is known how long it lasts.

 

[Tamaradarann]

On of the (many) reasons it takes a long time for a vaccine to get to the market is because they want and need that question answered BEFORE they start injecting people, and the only way to know is to monitor people over a period of several years, both for side effects and efficacy. A vaccine is largely worthless if it is effective for only 60 days, and even more so if you don't KNOW how long it is effective for. That creates long-term INCREASED, not decreased risk of infection due to the false sense of security it creates.

There is little (no) doubt that a COVID vaccine will be approved before it is known how long it lasts.

That last statement is why I stated that I am wishing for a vaccine that is safe, TESTED, AND TRIED on a few Million People before we will feel safe to get it and move on. Perhaps those that are pushing for the vacine to be approved without appropriate testing should be the guinea pigs that the vacine with be tried and tested on to see if it is safe and how long it is effective for.

I just heard that the first priority is to give it to the first responders and health care workers and then to the elderly who are most vulnerable which makes sense if it has already been appropriate tested. Since as you suggest it won't be appropriately tested, perhaps the group that I suggested above should be before them.

 

[jabberwocky]

That last statement is why I stated that I am wishing for a vaccine that is safe, TESTED, AND TRIED on a few Million People before we will feel safe to get it and move on. Perhaps those that are pushing for the vacine to be approved without appropriate testing should be the guinea pigs that the vacine with be tried and tested on to see if it is safe and how long it is effective for.

I just heard that the first priority is to give it to the first responders and health care workers and then to the elderly who are most vulnerable which makes sense if it has already been appropriate tested. Since as you suggest it won't be appropriately tested, perhaps the group that I suggested above should be before them.

A few million people is probably overkill. We should have a pretty good idea of how effective it is at the present study levels (about 30k people). It won't tell us how long it last, but that can't be determined until time passes. If the alternative is to lock-down the world until we know it gives 2, 5, 10 years immunity, we're in trouble.

My question for you would be how long does it need to show effectiveness? By your standard you should never get the flu vaccine since we don't know if they will have selected the right strains and if it will be effective against those strains (and at that - for only one year).

If you've ever had the Yellow Fever vaccine a few years ago, you may have been told that it is only good for 10 years, after which time you need to get a booster. They recently changed that after evaluating long-term studies which said it confers life-long immunity, so now no booster is necessary. I think a similar principle should hold here. First determine does it provide some effective immunity. If so, it can be approved. Then we determine how long it is effective and give boosters if necessary.

 

[csodjd]

If you've ever had the Yellow Fever vaccine a few years ago, you may have been told that it is only good for 10 years, after which time you need to get a booster. They recently changed that after evaluating long-term studies which said it confers life-long immunity, so now no booster is necessary. I think a similar principle should hold here. First determine does it provide some effective immunity. If so, it can be approved. Then we determine how long it is effective and give boosters if necessary.

That's only true within reasonable parameters. If it only confers reliable immunity for 6 months, and it takes a year to vaccinate the world, then what? There's been a lot of conflicting data on immunity in those infected with the virus. I'm not sure we should expect a vaccine to provide MORE/longer immunity than the virus itself provides. This is a very complex interface between the artificial and the human immune response. And all that assumes some commonality -- that the immunity will last roughly the same across different people. Say you're taking an immunosuppresive for psoriasis, or IBS, or psoriatic arthritis. Will that diminish the response to a vaccine such that you have less longevity to the immunity? I could ask 1000 questions like that.

Again, this is why it takes a long time for a vaccine to come to market.

 

[Tamaradarann]

A few million people is probably overkill. We should have a pretty good idea of how effective it is at the present study levels (about 30k people). It won't tell us how long it last, but that can't be determined until time passes. If the alternative is to lock-down the world until we know it gives 2, 5, 10 years immunity, we're in trouble.

My question for you would be how long does it need to show effectiveness? By your standard you should never get the flu vaccine since we don't know if they will have selected the right strains and if it will be effective against those strains (and at that - for only one year).

If you've ever had the Yellow Fever vaccine a few years ago, you may have been told that it is only good for 10 years, after which time you need to get a booster. They recently changed that after evaluating long-term studies which said it confers life-long immunity, so now no booster is necessary. I think a similar principle should hold here. First determine does it provide some effective immunity. If so, it can be approved. Then we determine how long it is effective and give boosters if necessary.

I can only answer your question with our position on travelling plans right now. We have cancelled all of our 2020 plans. We still have plans for January 2021, which is our traditional vacation time to get to Honolulu. We will be cancelling those plans and developing a plan for fall of 2021. As 2021 develops we should have a much better idea about the development of a vaccine, its effectiveness, and perhaps some data on the how long that effectiveness is lasting. In the summer of 2021 we will revisit our plans and make the decision to go or not to go.

We will not be one of the first to get the vaccine since as cosdjd has said that when it becomes available it will not have been tested per the normal procedures. We will let others who are so high on rushing the virus to the market be the Guinea Pigs and do the testing for us.

 

[DannyTS]

Nobody says we should lower the guard down after the vaccination. One of the scopes of a vaccine is to reach herd immunity faster so by not getting it one would hurt others more than himself. Even if a vaccine is only 50% effective (and it will probably be more than that), it can help a lot in spreading the virus.

 

[csodjd]

Nobody says we should lower the guard down after the vaccination. One of the scopes of a vaccine is to reach herd immunity faster so by not getting it one would hurt others more than himself. Even if a vaccine is only 50% effective (and it will probably be more than that), it can help a lot in spreading the virus.

I think LOTS of people say our guard can be lowered once there is a vaccine. And you cannot obtain herd immunity from a 50 or even 60% effective vaccine, even with 100% of people receiving it, which will never happen. Even the phrase “herd immunity“ is misleading because it is not immunity at all. It just means enough people are immune that you’re not likely to catch it because it doesn’t spread well in a community. But you CAN catch it, so it’s not actually immunity.

My own feeling is that COVID is a new virus that’ll be around for a while. A new page in the infectious disease textbooks. Just as we have a flu vaccine, but people still get the flu, and some die, so too COVID. The keys are developing effective treatments and vaccines to reduce case counts and risk. If science can bring its numbers down to flu levels or below, we probably can consider that a success and move on with our lives Knowing you’re no more likely to catch, or die from, COVID than you are and have been from flu.

 

[DannyTS]

I think LOTS of people say our guard can be lowered once there is a vaccine. And you cannot obtain herd immunity from a 50 or even 60% effective vaccine, even with 100% of people receiving it, which will never happen. Even the phrase “herd immunity“ is misleading because it is not immunity at all. It just means enough people are immune that you’re not likely to catch it because it doesn’t spread well in a community. But you CAN catch it, so it’s not actually immunity.

My own feeling is that COVID is a new virus that’ll be around for a while. A new page in the infectious disease textbooks. Just as we have a flu vaccine, but people still get the flu, and some die, so too COVID. The keys are developing effective treatments and vaccines to reduce case counts and risk. If science can bring its numbers down to flu levels or below, we probably can consider that a success and move on with our lives Knowing you’re no more likely to catch, or die from, COVID than you are and have been from flu.

There is no reason why you should not get the vaccine AND keep the guard up if you are referring to your own case. Indeed studies show that people wearing masks maybe less careful because of a perceived sense of safety but that is not a reason to not wear a mask. It is like saying I am not going to wear a seatbelt because I would drive less carefully.
I have not heard one health care official (including Dr. Fauci) saying that people should avoid an approved vaccine. Dr Fauci said he would get it himself. If you are of the view that you should not be vaccinated it is your prerogative but, I am not sure TUG is the place to give that kind of advice to others.

 

[csodjd]

There is no reason why you should not get the vaccine AND keep the guard up if you are referring to your own case. Indeed studies show that people wearing masks maybe less careful because of a perceived sense of safety but that is not a reason to not wear a mask. It is like saying I am not going to wear a seatbelt because I would drive less carefully.
I have not heard one health care official (including Dr. Fauci) saying that people should avoid an approved vaccine. Dr Fauci said he would get it himself. If you are of the view that you should not be vaccinated it is your prerogative but, I am not sure TUG is the place to give that kind of advice to others.

You've profoundly misinterpreted my comments. I have no idea where you get the idea that I advise against a vaccine, or that I would not get one. Those are both wrong. I am saying it's not the end all to keeping one's "guard up" or with dealing with COVID. We have a vaccine for flu, but we have lots of flu, including in some that are vaccinated. I expect the same with COVID. But I'm all for a 50% or so reduction in risk -- once I know it is safe (benefits significantly outweigh risks) and have some idea of how long it will last (so it has meaningful value). Sadly, there are good indications we may not know either when a vaccine is first released. (Yesterday it was reported that the WH had blocked release of the FDA's new "tougher" standards on approving a vaccine, for instance.)

I'd urge you to read more carefully before attacking one for views not expressed in the post nor even reasonably inferred by it. (My statement, "The keys are developing effective treatments and vaccines to reduce case counts and risk," is not a statement even remotely susceptible to being an anti-vaccine statement.)