Covid-19 infection on a liveaboard at the Maldives

[uncfnp]

Exactly, and this is something that I was following closely. Initially, a history of a positive test didn't get you out of further testing requirements, which meant that either we were wasting resources testing recovered people, or we were going to unnecessarily bar non-infectious people from travel and elective surgery, potentially for months after their infection. As more and more people recovered, that meant that there were going to be millions of people in that category. So that's now part of the decision tree.

I remember struggling to convince the medical board of our ambulatory surgery center to drop the negative test requirement for people who had documented positive PCR tests more than 20 days old. It took a while, even though that was what the hospital was doing!

Our first covid positive employee in our offices got it from her husband and the owners required a negative test not only from her but her immediate family. It took her almost a month to get back to work.

 

[doctormike]

I think it is mentioned somewhere in the diary that even with positive tests the people are considered not to be contagious after the 14 days quarantine. Thank you for pointing out that this seems correct than.
I personally did not know this.

So we can assume that in the majority of cases people would not infect others after 14 days past their first positive test?

Yeah, CDC says 10 days, unless very sick, then up to 20 days. And of course, immunocompromised people need individualized decision making, further testing, etc....

 

[Divin'Papaw]

I’m pretty surprised to hear anyone is running liveaboards again. Seems like a super high risk environment given the tight quarters and living together for 5-7 days.

 

[doctormike]

I also want to point out one other thing to the "I know the risk and I'm accepting it" crowd. Even forgetting about the public health aspects of that, you really DON'T know the risk. No one does. People think that they got it and they recovered - hooray, no big deal.

HPV, another virus, is responsible for a lot of head and neck cancer, and cervical cancer, decades after "recovery". Same with Hep B / C and liver cancer. So let me know if 30 years if you know the risk. Me, I'm going to do whatever I can to avoid it now.

 

[Colliam7]

I am glad that the OP posted the link. I sincerely hope that it will cause more people to consider the potential consequences of their actions.

One point that came through to me in reading the article - It is well and good to do 'research' - before planning to travel - on what has been reality, right up to the day of travel, for instance. But, competent planning in a time of a global pandemic must take into consideration, 'What happens if that reality abruptly changes?' The risks are real, to the traveler, AND to others that the traveler might come into contact with. Part of the changing reality that must be considered is that there are NO guarantees of availability of a support system to make unexpected consequences any easier to handle. I want to think that was part of the point being made in the linked article - and it is a point that should not be overlooked!

It is worth noting that, according to the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs (https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/CDP-PL-2018-3c.pdf), the Maldives fell into the category of a 'Least Developed Country' until it 'graduated' in 2011. That is not a criticism of the Maldives in any way, it is a statement of factual background, that should help a potential traveler understand some of the risks, beyond simple infection rates. And, although Maldives has 'graduated' from the 'Least Developed' category, and made commendable economic progress compared to the past, according to a UN analysis as recent as 2018, 'the Maldives also displays some economic fragilities', and 'Maldives remains highly vulnerable'. One only needs to look at the tremendous impact of the pandemic on developed countries to understand what the consequences are for a far more economically constrained country.

Having noted that background, I also admit that I can understand the less-than-sympathetic reactions of some posters in this thread. It is a natural response in many ways. I do not criticize a person choosing to travel, as long as they hold no expectations of anything resembling an organized support system if reality changes. Is it possible that the less-than-sympathetic users are venting just a bit of frustration, that what was described in the article really did not need to happen to begin with?

 

[Joneill]

No comments to such a reply.

Why not - he stated a very simple truth that many don’t seem to want to accept. If you choose to travel, you do so at risk at present.

I do hope stories like this educate folks on the risk they are taking for themselves and others - so thanks for posting!

 

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

I’m pretty surprised to hear anyone is running liveaboards again. Seems like a super high risk environment given the tight quarters and living together for 5-7 days.

Surprised? Have you never visited liveaboard.com during the last year? Or eventually the Aggressor homepage?
There are TONS of liveaboards currently operating worldwide. And this has been the case since July-August last year.

 

[Divin'Papaw]

Surprised? Have you never visited liveaboard.com during the last year? Or eventually the Aggressor homepage?
There are TONS of liveaboards currently operating worldwide. And this has been the case since July-August last year.

Nope. I don’t do liveaboards. I’m still surprised. Seems incredibly foolish.

 

[scubadada]

Surprised? Have you never visited liveaboard.com during the last year? Or eventually the Aggressor homepage?
There are TONS of liveaboards currently operating worldwide. And this has been the case since July-August last year.

And this this is a really good idea? Economic pressure is one thing, good judgement is another. Much of this has to do with whether the host country has allowed access yet.

 

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

I am glad that the OP posted the link. I sincerely hope that it will cause more people to consider the potential consequences of their actions.

One point that came through to me in reading the article - It is well and good to do 'research' - before planning to travel - on what has been reality, right up to the day of travel, for instance. But, competent planning in a time of a global pandemic must take into consideration, 'What happens if that reality abruptly changes?' The risks are real, to the traveler, AND to others that the traveler might come into contact with. Part of the changing reality that must be considered is that there are NO guarantees of availability of a support system to make unexpected consequences any easier to handle. I want to think that was part of the point being made in the linked article - and it is a point that should not be overlooked!

It is worth noting that, according to the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs (https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/CDP-PL-2018-3c.pdf), the Maldives fell into the category of a 'Least Developed Country' until it 'graduated' in 2011. That is not a criticism of the Maldives in any way, it is a statement of factual background, that should help a potential traveler understand some of the risks, beyond simple infection rates. And, although Maldives has 'graduated' from the 'Least Developed' category, and made commendable economic progress compared to the past, according to a UN analysis as recent as 2018, 'the Maldives also displays some economic fragilities', and 'Maldives remains highly vulnerable'. One only needs to look at the tremendous impact of the pandemic on developed countries to understand what the consequences are for a far more economically constrained country.

Having noted that background, I also admit that I can understand the less-than-sympathetic reactions of some posters in this thread. It is a natural response in many ways. I do not criticize a person choosing to travel, as long as they hold no expectations of anything resembling an organized support system if reality changes. Is it possible that the less-than-sympathetic users are venting just a bit of frustration, that what was described in the article really did not need to happen to begin with?

While I find your response interesting and very well formulated I have to say that the main reason for my post was to bring this information to more people. Period. Everyone can use it for their own purposes.

But I still do not think this is the right place to share someone's private opinion on travelling abroad and to "vent frustration" about other people who decide(d) to do so.
It is clearly a false claim that international travel increases the infection numbers. In fact in most developed countries the infection rates are higher than in the countries we are travelling to. This is partly caused by the many entitĺed people who deny Covid-19 in the same vivid way some scubaboard members are trying to lecture others here, while in many "developing countries" most people just follow basic preventive measures.

As you are talking about the Maldives as a developing country, based on some internet research you do not seem to have been there recently. I still believe that while the Maldivian Ministry of Tourism is inviting travelers to visit their country they SHOULD also be prepared with measures for handling Covid-19 quarantine cases (as they have done until now).