Covid-19 infection on a liveaboard at the Maldives

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

You're just pulling these numbers out of the air

No I am not. How many percent of the population is currently actively infected? Around 10%? So assuming that you surely get infected, you need to meet 10 people and likely one will carry the virus - this is 10%. It does not take into consideration that you might avoid getting infected by preventional measures.

So let's say there are 100 people to get on the flight. The accuracy of the PCR test is above 90%. Out of the 100 passengers there are probably 10 to be infected. With 90% accuracy out of these 10 there will be only 1 not being detected. So out of the tested 100 passengers there is less than 1 probably sick. (1%) And this still does not account on the fact that you need to be in the proximity of that one infected person to get potentially sick.

Ro for Covid-19 is 2.2-5.6. So one infected person will cause 2.2-5.6 secondary infections in total.

More questions?

 

[ontdiver]

Before we blame the CDC experts, let's remember....

Quite frankly, each of us own our little share of the blame.

 

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

Definition of outing | Dictionary.com

outing
[ ou-ting ]
See synonyms for outing on Thesaurus.com
noun
a pleasure trip, excursion, picnic, or the like: the annual outing for the senior class.

Seems still to be a brief (less than a day) excursion, not a multiple day international travel.
Besides this, the probability to get infected on an airplane and later on the liveaboard is multitudes lower than in any European or North American city.
So if the chance to get sick is smaller, the chance to infect others is also lower.

Prove me wrong with any reliable statistics.

 

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

As is often the case, we find ourselves down in the weeds dissecting statistics and language.

While a LOB is possibly the best place to dive, it is also probably the worst place to get sick.

IMHO, the single most important issue is whether recreational travel - against the backdrop of a deadly pandemic - can truly be justified.

If you could explain me first what additional risk the LOB poses for everyone else (staying at home), please?
In my opinion moving from a region with many infections to a place where people got screened would also lower my chances to get infected, don't you agree?

 

[doctormike]

Seems still to be a brief (less than a day) excursion, not a multiple day international travel.

Huh. So a brief excursion out of the house is associated with enough of a risk of viral transmission that it is not recommended by the guidelines you shared.

But for some reason, if you spend a week traveling out of the house, go to the airport, wait there indoors with thousands of other people, fly in a contained space with other people for many hours, and spend a week sleeping in a small room with other people from around the world on a liveaboard, that is associated with LESS of a risk of viral transmission.

Because your guidelines only recommended against "outings", presumably because their brief nature is associated with high risk. The more extensively and longer you travel, the LESS the transmission risk. Because it's no longer an "outing".

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Joneill]

Seems still to be a brief (less than a day) excursion, not a multiple day international travel.
Besides this, the probability to get infected on an airplane and later on the liveaboard is multitudes lower than in any European or North American city.
So if the chance to get sick is smaller, the chance to infect others is also lower.

Prove me wrong with any reliable statistics.

But the probability of getting infected on an airplane or a liveaboard is multitudes higher than if you put the vacation plans on hold for a bit and stayed safe in your home area.

The probability of potentially introducing a new strain to your destination is also multitudes higher.

 

[Joneill]

If you could explain me first what additional risk the LOB poses for everyone else (staying at home), please?
In my opinion moving from a region with many infections to a place where people got screened would also lower my chances to get infected, don't you agree?

Unless you are being unsafe in your home area, traveling to a new place via air absolutely increases your chances of getting infected - suggesting otherwise is downright silly.

 

[Darnold9999]

So now back to us Europeans: when we are travelling to a country with considerably lower infection rates the effect is the same. The chance for an individual to get infected is lower than at home.
Actually we are posing a risk to the communities we are visiting, because statistically the chance of being a virus carrier is bigger.

Exactly - the reason so many are suggesting that the responsible choice is to stay home. If you travel you increase the risk of the virus spreading to the place you are visiting. One person - minimal risk. One million people - statistical certainty. Some countries believe that the risk is low enough and the benefit to their population is high enough to justify letting people travel and add to the death toll. This is particularly true in places where the social safety net does not exist so that if people do not come the same number or more people will die because they can't make a living. A balance of risk reward that is extremely difficult to calculate for a society - and impossible for us as individuals. Personally I am not travelling anywhere until I am vaccinated and the place that I am going allows tourists. i.e. I am not travelling on a business visa or some other loophole. That way I am at minimal risk and the government of the places that I am visiting has decided that the risk of me coming is outweighed by the reward.

 

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

Huh. So a brief excursion out of the house is associated with enough of a risk of viral transmission that it is not recommended by the guidelines you shared.

But for some reason, if you spend a week traveling out of the house, go to the airport, wait there indoors with thousands of other people, fly in a contained space with other people for many hours, and spend a week sleeping in a small room with other people from around the world on a liveaboard, that is associated with LESS of a risk of viral transmission.

Because your guidelines only recommended against "outings", presumably because their brief nature is associated with high risk. The more extensively and longer you travel, the LESS the transmission risk. Because it's no longer an "outing".

Is that what you are saying?

Let us get things right! I do a PCR test so with a negative result the chance for me being infectious is smaller than average. This applies to most other travellers as well. I drive to the airport in my car meeting no one on the way. Inside the airport only travellers are allowed and most of them already belong to the screened group. I keep distance, everyone wears their masks and cleans hands regularly. On the plane there is a very good ventilation system that filters 99% of all infectious particles out of the air. As I explained earlier the statistical chance to get sick on an airplane is considerably low. At the Maldives the infection rates are considerably lower than in Europe so the chance to get sick is much lower. All people arriving to the LOB are screened, I am not sharing a cabin with any stranger (why should I?).

The "outings" are associated with socializing, avoidance of masks and social distancing.
When I go shopping everybody is touching the goods other people would probably buy, some people are too entitled to wear a mask.
Public transportation is plain and simply a mess. Nobody enforces distancing, wearing of masks and disinfection.

So yes, staying at home poses a bigger risk of getting sick and infecting more people around me.

On the other hand, travelling harms nobody else (just eventually me).
The chance to get infected abroad is simply smaller.

 

[Oliver Ohlendorf]

Exactly - the reason so many are suggesting that the responsible choice is to stay home. If you travel you increase the risk of the virus spreading to the place you are visiting. One person - minimal risk. One million people - statistical certainty. Some countries believe that the risk is low enough and the benefit to their population is high enough to justify letting people travel and add to the death toll. This is particularly true in places where the social safety net does not exist so that if people do not come the same number or more people will die because they can't make a living. A balance of risk reward that is extremely difficult to calculate for a society - and impossible for us as individuals. Personally I am not travelling anywhere until I am vaccinated and the place that I am going allows tourists. i.e. I am not travelling on a business visa or some other loophole. That way I am at minimal risk and the government of the places that I am visiting has decided that the risk of me coming is outweighed by the reward.

The Maldives have been allowing tourists since September 2020. No "loophole" necessary. They require a negative PCR test and if you have a look at their statistics, it seems to work. Their infection numbers are around 50 new cases per day. Their death numbers are extremely low. They are receiving about 10.000 visitors/week, increasing. For them it is easy to separate visitors from local communities, since most tourists arrive to resort islands or LOB's.

So where is the problem?