Predict when cruising will start again post-Coronavirus

[Vader1111]

3 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

The same one who said schools are safe the morning of 2 outbreaks in schools around Australia. He doesn't get everything right, and has changed his opinions several times already as the situation changes. I see no reason why he cannot change his mind again and lessen restrictions quicker than stated.

There are good reasons why he thinks schools are safe.  There are no reported cases of children aged <10 transmitting the virus, anywhere around the world.  They can catch it, but they don't pass it on.

 

There are several mathematical models which have shown that having schools open or closed makes no difference to the rate of transmission, so we're better off having our children educated properly.  This is because the rate of transmission from children to children is much lower than adult to children or children to adult, so they're better off in a low transmission environment like the classroom than they are elsewhere.

[By The Bay]

11 minutes ago, Vader1111 said:

There are no reported cases of children aged <10 transmitting the virus, anywhere around the world.  They can catch it, but they don't pass it on.

 

the rate of transmission from children to children is much lower than adult to children or children to adult, so they're better off in a low transmission environment like the classroom than they are elsewhere.

I am confused by your statements. First you say children don't pass it on. Then you say it is much lower. What are you trying to imply?

[Vader1111]

14 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

I am confused by your statements. First you say children don't pass it on. Then you say it is much lower. What are you trying to imply?

Children aged <10 do not pass it on.

Children aged >10 can, but with a much lower transmission rate

 

Apologies for not being clearer.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Vader1111

[By The Bay]

5 minutes ago, Vader1111 said:

Children aged <10 do not pass it on.

Children aged >10 can, but with a much lower transmission rate

 

Apologies for not being clearer.

That is very interesting and something I did not know. Were did you find this information?

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, Vader1111 said:

The football team is being allowed in because they're from NZ.  They wouldn't be allowed in if they were from Indonesia or the Philippines.  The ARU hasn't even bothered applying for exemptions for the teams from South Africa, Japan or Argentina, which is what would be required to get Super Rugby back up and running.

 

Comparing cruise ship crews with US military personnel is a "comparative example", but one which is completely irrelevant.  One is (rightly or wrongly) seen as essential, the other is the very definition of non-essential.

 

It's not because they're from NZ, as people from NZ aren't generally allowed in.

 

They've made an exception based on both the perceived value and the perceived risk. That same thing can be done here.

 

And, no US military personnel are not seen as essential to the operation of Australia. Just as with above, it was evaluated and an exception made. There is no general permission for US troops to visit Australia as they wish.

[By The Bay]

27 minutes ago, Vader1111 said:

Children aged <10 do not pass it on.

Children aged >10 can, but with a much lower transmission rate

 

Apologies for not being clearer.

That is very interesting and something I did not know. Were did you find this information?

 

I did a search and found two references about transmission in children. The first from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. Source  "The role that children play in transmission and amplification of COVID-19 remains largely unknown "

 

From The Lancet: "The most important finding to come from the present analysis is the clear evidence that children are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but frequently do not have notable disease, raising the possibility that children could be facilitators of viral transmission. If children are important in viral transmission and amplification, social and public health policies (eg, avoiding interaction with elderly people) could be established to slow transmission and protect vulnerable populations. There is an urgent need to for further investigation of the role children have in the chain of transmission."

 

Therefore it is ongoing and still much to learn about the role of children in the transmission of COVID-19.

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, Vader1111 said:

And that was based on the number of CV-19 cases we had in Australia at the time, and the risk that these behaviours posed at the time.

 

While Australia & NZ have CV-19 on the run, the same is far from true in many other countries around the world - most notably in Europe and the USA.  They're not going to open the borders until the disease is brought under control world-wide, whether through the use of anti-virals, vaccines, or the virus just going away.  There are no projections for Australia re-opening the borders in 2020, and even 2021 has some doubt.

 

That's because there are no projections on that, full stop, and he did say that. So any comment on that is purely speculative.

[By The Bay]

31 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

That is very interesting and something I did not know. Were did you find this information?

Further searching turned up this.

 

"Some news outlets reported that children cannot transmit COVID-19, based on a recently published review of 78 previous COVID-19 studies.

 

One of the researchers issued a statement clarifying that children “almost certainly do transmit COVID-19.”

 

The World Health Organisation has also cautioned against claims that children cannot transmit COVID-19, reminding the public that there is a lot scientists still don’t know about the disease."

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, Vader1111 said:

There are good reasons why he thinks schools are safe.  There are no reported cases of children aged <10 transmitting the virus, anywhere around the world.  They can catch it, but they don't pass it on.

 

There are several mathematical models which have shown that having schools open or closed makes no difference to the rate of transmission, so we're better off having our children educated properly.  This is because the rate of transmission from children to children is much lower than adult to children or children to adult, so they're better off in a low transmission environment like the classroom than they are elsewhere.

 

Not sure there are good reasons - just subjective reasons. And that's fine, but don't oversell it.

 

Equal reasons against it are safety concerns for the children attending catching it, and also the recent spate of inflammatory symptoms similar to Kawasaki syndrome; basically there's still a lot unknown. 

 

And just as some are now criticising the cruise industry for operating even though there was uncertainty and it was compliant with government requirements, the same could be said here.

[pully8]

Re the ports opening, does anyone know how the ships carrying cargo are managed and their crews?

Do they stay on board or not?

Many areas are not discussed much in the media.

Just on another issue, cruising has had bad reports well documented, however outbreaks at airports not so much.

Adelaide airport Qantas cluster of covid-19 happened luckily no one seriously ill as far as has been reported. 

[Pushka]

47 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

That is very interesting and something I did not know. Were did you find this information?

It is the same information being used in SA and which has kept schools open. 

[Pushka]

6 minutes ago, pully8 said:

Adelaide airport Qantas cluster of covid-19 happened luckily no one seriously ill as far as has been reported

My next door neighbour was caught up in this. Her brother was one of the handlers who developed Covid as a baggage handler. He was very ill for about 2 weeks with extreme fever and  headache. His friend ended up in hospital. Neighbour also works for Qantas and was one of the 750 stood down and isolated. She was tested too and was negative. 

[Pushka]

24 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

And, no US military personnel are not seen as essential to the operation of Australia. Just as with above, it was evaluated and an exception made. There is no general permission for US troops to visit Australia as they wish.

It has been a long standing agreement over many years and not a spontaneous ‘wish’ thing. 

[By The Bay]

6 minutes ago, pully8 said:

Re the ports opening, does anyone know how the ships carrying cargo are managed and their crews?

Do they stay on board or not?

 

There was a TV report on our local NBN channel in Newcastle about the coal ships visiting. Port Waratah Coal Services is meeting the ships and providing them with gift packs. The crew are not allowed off the ship. See NBN

[By The Bay]

8 minutes ago, Pushka said:

It is the same information being used in SA and which has kept schools open. 

And were is this information?

[Vader1111]

1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

 

It's not because they're from NZ, as people from NZ aren't generally allowed in.

 

They've made an exception based on both the perceived value and the perceived risk. That same thing can be done here.

 

And, no US military personnel are not seen as essential to the operation of Australia. Just as with above, it was evaluated and an exception made. There is no general permission for US troops to visit Australia as they wish.

Yes... but the perceived value of cruising is zero, and the perceived risk is very high.

[Pushka]

52 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

And were is this information?

Where it needs to be. With the expert epidemiologists and immunologists. Head of Swiss Infectious diseases. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Pushka

[OzKiwiJJ]

If cruising doesn't happen over next summer it will be very interesting to see if any of the major ports recognise the value of cruising. Certainly the small ports will feel the pinch, sadly.

[Vader1111]

41 minutes ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

If cruising doesn't happen over next summer it will be very interesting to see if any of the major ports recognise the value of cruising. Certainly the small ports will feel the pinch, sadly.

They certainly recognise the economic value that it offers, even now.

 

They recognise the health benefits of not having CV-19 even more.  The South Pacific island nations have very limited health resources, and they're desperate to keep CV-19 out of their countries - even more so than Aus & NZ.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Actually I don't think the major ports do really recognise the value of cruising, especially those that aren't embarkation ports. Some of them discount it saying passengers don't spend enough ashore although the changes in Mt Maunganui over the past three years (significantly more cafes and restaurants) was quite noticeable.

 

The South Pacific is a separate situation and I agree that cruise ships shouldn't go there until Covid-19 is tamed one way or another. I was actually thinking of the smaller Australian and NZ ports like Eden, Kangaroo Island, Broome, Burnie, Busselton, Albany etc.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

This growth in Mt Maunganui reflects the boom in residential that has , and is taking place , in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty .
The port and surrounding areas have benefited from the cruise industry due to the constant and regular calling of ships .

The ports that miss out are those who have to face the costs of a visit and then have only 1 or 2 calls in a season .

[Iainmac]

The money made by shoreside business is just one part of the benefit ports make from cruise ships.

The port companies charge mainly on the number of passengers.  Smaller cruise ships can pay around $30,000 and the big ones much more.  With popular ports getting thirty plus cruise ship visits in a season this amounts to millions in their books.  It is also a good income for smaller ports with only a handful of cruise ship visits.

[OzKiwiJJ]

8 minutes ago, Kiwi Kruzer said:

This growth in Mt Maunganui reflects the boom in residential that has , and is taking place , in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty .
The port and surrounding areas have benefited from the cruise industry due to the constant and regular calling of ships .

The ports that miss out are those who have to face the costs of a visit and then have only 1 or 2 calls in a season .

Tauranga and the Mount have been growing steadily for years though. We have a very good friend who lives there so regularly visited the region. However the change in the Mount from Feb 2017 to March 2019 was quite surprising especially as there had been little change in previous years.

[OzKiwiJJ]

4 minutes ago, Iainmac said:

The money made by shoreside business is just one part of the benefit ports make from cruise ships.

The port companies charge mainly on the number of passengers.  Smaller cruise ships can pay around $30,000 and the big ones much more.  With popular ports getting thirty plus cruise ship visits in a season this amounts to millions in their books.  It is also a good income for smaller ports with only a handful of cruise ship visits.

Exactly and that is often overlooked by the cruise ship decriers.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

22 minutes ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

Tauranga and the Mount have been growing steadily for years though. We have a very good friend who lives there so regularly visited the region. However the change in the Mount from Feb 2017 to March 2019 was quite surprising especially as there had been little change in previous years.

Yes .It has grown a lot since then and the added bonus of cruise ships is the icing on the cake.