Australian (Open) Tennis and COVID-19

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
10,044
Solutions
1
Points
740
Oh dear, you’ve misread or misunderstood again. I wasn’t questioning the policy of doing things as or “if required” ( bolded not). Just asking whether ordinary people could get the ‘shedding’ clarification. The answer seems to be no.

i don’t think I could have made that any clearer. Where exactly did you perceive that I thought the “if required” qualification was unreasonable?

Again, if you take a bit more care to read carefully the points of view being put forward, you might find less cause to get wound up.

Oh, just to be crystal - no and no 😉


I have already posted examples of ordinary Victorians having been investigated for viral shedding, and as such what has actually occurred is clearly not going sway you thinking.

So the answer is yes in Victoria. Not sure why you think it is no.

Also note that preflight testing for "ordinary" international arrivals has only just been introduced. So prior to the AO there were no such viral shedding of pre-arrival flight testing cases to investigate.
 
Last edited:
AMX001595_Travel-Insider_1100x260

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
10,044
Solutions
1
Points
740
The question is has anyone tried?

I guess primarily relevant for those who are denied boarding in foreign country due to pre-departure positive test (let's not get into state border closures) - and then I guess the question is does the lab itself identify "weak positives" to the passenger being tested (and thus could be shedding) or just that given a result that they tested positive. In the case of the AO, AO itself had an interest in working with labs and understanding what was going on, but is anyone going to step in and perform that role for "ordinary" people?

Prior to the recent National Cabinet decision people who flew in would have been generally tested after they arrived, and not before. So people had no need to try to have something done for a positive test result for a test that was not required or done. People who had CV 19 in the past, or who even were active cases just jumped on the plane and arrived.



With the AO that they will have anticipated that some players would get tested and have positive results, but which may be viral shedding cases. So they built this into their protocols developed back in 2020 to bring in the AO participants. So they built in preflight testing, something which when the protocol was developed the National Cabinet did not require.

In terms of pre-flight tests so far identified who this occurred for only one person (Tennys) was allowed to still fly in. The others including Murray were all considered to have active cases and were refused permission to fly. They were also refused permission to arrive later.

With the charter flights too there were also special arrangements in place such as reduced passengers loads, and ongoing daily testing on arrival for 14 days.


It is probably worth noting that the National Cabinet has only just brought in pre-flight testing as a requirement. Whereas the AO always had it as part of their protocol.


If you move forward to now after the new requirements for international arrivals then you will have the problem of who did the test, and did they also check and record the viral loads, CT count etc.
 
Last edited:
Now with contactless delivery, shop online to get drinks delivered to your door or pick up in-store in 30 minutes. Lowest Liquor Price Guarantee. Biggest Range.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
17,920
Solutions
2
Points
2,800
Qantas
Platinum
I have already posted examples of ordinary Victorians having been investigated for viral shedding, and as such what has actually occurred is clearly not going sway you thinking.

The examples you posted were, as I noted, of "subsequent reviews", and were sprinkled with hedgers such as "if required", "have been reviewed to see if they were old cases just shedding", (note: old cases) and the like, not the 'live, near-immediate' review that the tennis players received, Plus the other goal-post-shifters such as querying if I thought 'if required' was reasonable or not. Not one example of an ordinary resident having a positive case reviewed almost immediately after presentation of a positive case, with a view to determining 'viral shedding' or not. Hence my not being swayed. :) .

Anyway, per my last conclusion, the answer is clearly no, and I'm sure everyone is as bored with the topic as I am. Shame it took so many posts to determine the case.
 

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
10,044
Solutions
1
Points
740
Not one example of an ordinary resident having a positive case reviewed almost immediately after presentation of a positive case, with a view to determining 'viral shedding' or not. Hence my not being swayed. :) .
LOL. Well as you have written it, not one AO case has been either.

No ones does a PCR swab, get a result immediately and then if the result has the criteria of a viral-shedding case gets an immediate determination.

I am beginning to believe that you are yet to grasp what goes on with such reviews.

Virtually every case, if not every case, was reviewed quickly. It is not an immediate yes/no process. The review process is begun once the PCR test results have flagged that it may be a viral shedding case, and Vic DHHs/CQV seems to knock them all off with a day or two of the test result. I do remember one took longer, but that was the one where they ended saying that they could not rule out that it was a reinfection and so to act on the cautious side they classified it as a reinfection.

There is no significant time difference between the Vic residents and the AO cohort where you see a report of a viral shedding case is suspect, but then has to be investigated and the expert committee rule. This was the same as with the Vic cases.

Note that Tennys too was not tested at the airport and given permission to fly immediately, or almost immediately It took 3days.

He had his PCR 3 days prior and then went through the protocol to be given clearance to fly. Indeed he almost missed his flight as the permission to fly did not come through till just after the original departure time.

Plus Tennys had already self-disclosed that he had tested positive in November.


"Every person arriving from overseas to participate in the Australian Open is required to take a coronavirus (COVID-19) test 72 hours before departing," a spokesman for CQV said in a statement.

"For people who have previously tested positive and have since recovered, it is common to shed viral fragments for some time – which can trigger another positive result.

Any person who returns a positive test result has their medical and case history reviewed by a team of public health experts. Only those who are determined to be recovered and no longer infectious will be allowed to travel to Australia."

Victoria's Police and Emergency Services Minister Lisa Neville said that "no one who is COVID positive for the first time – or still could be infectious – will be allowed in for the [Australian Open]".

"Anyone wanting to travel to the AO who has previously tested positive to COVID-19 is required to provide additional and highly detailed medical information as proof they are a recovered case and no longer infectious or a risk to the community," a TA statement read.

"In the case of Tennys Sandgren, who has self-disclosed that he previously tested positive in late November, his medical file had to be up reviewed by Victorian health authorities. Upon completion of that review he was cleared to fly."


 
Last edited:

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
11,821
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
@RooFlyer , @lovetravellingoz you are both presenting cases and going back and forth a lot - but isn't it really the case that what happens to "ordinary" Australians shedding in the context of boarding an international flight coming to Australia from overseas is yet to be dealt with? Do we know what the government policies are? The requirement to present a negative test result to be able to board a flight has only been in place now for less than 3 days, so isn't a bit early to conclude that such cases would be treated the same as or different to the Tennys Sandgren case?

The way the language is worded though is quite clear that a negative test must be presented to the airline. There is no language to suggest that a weak positive would have it's serology reviewed for antibodies and sign of past infection.
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
17,920
Solutions
2
Points
2,800
Qantas
Platinum
No ones does a PCR swab, get a result immediately and then if the result has the criteria of a viral-shedding case gets an immediate determination.

I am beginning to believe that you are yet to grasp what goes on with such reviews.
Another mis-read or mis-understanding ( and I think I’m being generous there). Did I say “immediate “? No. I said “almost immediate”. Is that so hard to understand? ( Or maybe I need to bold stuff or it put in red bold!)

And another red herring in going through all that stuff about process. Never questioned, never doubted. Only asking about the comparison between the tennis players and ordinary Victorians re shedding determinations. In so many posts, hundreds of lines, you still have not been able to show a case where an ordinary resident has been treated the same as the tennis players with respect to getting a “shedding” determination “almost immediately” 😉 after presenting with a positive COVID test. Save us the red herrings please; it’s OK not to be able to do it. Relax.
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
17,920
Solutions
2
Points
2,800
Qantas
Platinum
@RooFlyer , @lovetravellingoz you are both presenting cases and going back and forth a lot - but isn't it really the case that what happens to "ordinary" Australians shedding in the context of boarding an international flight coming to Australia from overseas is yet to be dealt with? Do we know what the government policies are?
That’s certainly a more meaningful question, but there can’t be a meaningful answer because of the different policies between the states.

Tasmania has always had a ‘negative test before boarding’ rule, although we’ve only been taking internationals for a month or two. I’m unaware of any policy Re shedding determinations. I think it’s hard and fast positive/ negative.

Don’t rely on my correspondent to get a straight answer about Victoria and shedding 😊😉, except for tennis players.
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
11,821
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
That’s certainly a more meaningful question, but there can’t be a meaningful answer because of the different policies between the states.

Oh boy, I suffered under the delusion that the federal government had the power to determine who could and could not enter Australia, and impose fines on airlines who transported passengers to Australia who don't meet those entry requirements. It seems that is going out the window now too!
 

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
10,044
Solutions
1
Points
740
@RooFlyer , @lovetravellingoz you are both presenting cases and going back and forth a lot - but isn't it really the case that what happens to "ordinary" Australians shedding in the context of boarding an international flight coming to Australia from overseas is yet to be dealt with? Do we know what the government policies are? The requirement to present a negative test result to be able to board a flight has only been in place now for less than 3 days, so isn't a bit early to conclude that such cases would be treated the same as or different to the Tennys Sandgren case?

The way the language is worded though is quite clear that a negative test must be presented to the airline. There is no language to suggest that a weak positive would have it's serology reviewed for antibodies and sign of past infection.

Yes. The National Cabinet has only just brought in pre-flight testing as a requirement for returning travellers and we are yet to see all the detail on this. Co-incidentally this was just prior to the AO flights where this protocol was adopted last year as part of what needed to be done for AO participants.

There has already been problems flagged such as the ability to get a PCR test done at the required time in some overseas countries.
 

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
10,044
Solutions
1
Points
740
Oh boy, I suffered under the delusion that the federal government had the power to determine who could and could not enter Australia, and impose fines on airlines who transported passengers to Australia who don't meet those entry requirements. It seems that is going out the window now too!


They do.

For international arrivals what needs to be done with international travellers is the same and common guidelines are followed. Though the State and Territory's enact it at present apart from Howard Springs. There have been special rules too for the repatriation charter flights, as opposed from the rules for normal commercial flights.

But there are exceptions such as the Fruit Pickers, Embassy Staff, and individuals that can mount suitable cases to get exemptions to privately quarantine (ie Film related). Specially exemptions may be granted too. For example young children. Again the local health organisations overseas and grants these. So the Federal Gov is clearly happy to have others do things if they pick up the tab for it as long as there is community benefit. So it would not surprise if a few moguls manage to exploit the system, ie Mirranda Kerr and husband.

For the AO what was done was above and beyond at the time it was agreed to at the time it was planned for the average international traveller and the Federal Government was part of the process. However the National Cabinet has now also adopted the preflight testing that was brought in for the AO as they wanted to be struct with the AO arrivals. Practices as daily testing was not adopted though.
 

Anna

Established Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
2,539
Points
720
Anyway, about the tennis. The players in Adelaide haven't had great weather over the last 3 days, Sat and Sun blistering hot and then Monday brought bushfire smoke over the city, humidity equal to Singapore and a torrential downpour for most of the afternoon. I didn't spend 5 hours outside on any of those days, by choice!
 

Pushka

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
25,478
Solutions
4
Points
3,035
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Red
Anyway, about the tennis. The players in Adelaide haven't had great weather over the last 3 days, Sat and Sun blistering hot and then Monday brought bushfire smoke over the city, humidity equal to Singapore and a torrential downpour for most of the afternoon. I didn't spend 5 hours outside on any of those days, by choice!
Just preparing them for Melbourne weather aren't they? I'd say it's been ideal preparation on that basis.
 

Anna

Established Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
2,539
Points
720
Breaking news 😂 I just saw Serena's daughter come on to the hotel balcony, closely followed by a nanny, and they had a quick chat with some reporters down on the street (radio, I would guess, as they had big furry microphones but only tiny cameras). Today Alexis* will be playing with her LOL dolls. You read it here first 😂

This morning when I was at the gym I saw Rafa practising, with about 8-9 other guys. Finally seeing Rafa is the highlight of my day so far. My week, even.

Then on my walk I went down a side street past the hotel and was able to chat to a guy on his first floor balcony who told me he is on Thiem's team.

And finally I saw a SA Pathology car arrive at the hotel, presumably to do the covid tests.

Now I'm having a sit down after all that excitement 😜

*The reporters were calling her Alexis. Someone else told me her name is Olympia. I have no idea what it is.
 
Last edited:

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
11,821
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
humidity equal to Singapore and a torrential downpour for most of the afternoon. I didn't spend 5 hours outside on any of those days, by choice!

This is perhaps why I don't find the "lack of fresh air" in hotel quarantine too much of a problem (particularly the 2 weeks I did in HQ in SIN) , I wouldn't open the window for very long anyway. There is no such thing as "fresh air" in Singapore, other than the cool refreshing breeze you get when you step into an over-air conditioned shopping centre or hotel lobby :p 🤣
 

Pushka

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
25,478
Solutions
4
Points
3,035
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Red
This is perhaps why I don't find the "lack of fresh air" in hotel quarantine too much of a problem (particularly the 2 weeks I did in HQ in SIN) , I wouldn't open the window for very long anyway. There is no such thing as "fresh air" in Singapore, other than the cool refreshing breeze you get when you step into an over-air conditioned shopping centre or hotel lobby :p 🤣
That makes a lot of sense.
 
Top