Hawaii re-opened to mainland flights with certain restrictions, however, change is coming to secondary COVID-19 testing. If Hawaii residents weren’t revolting before, some will be grabbing pitchforks now.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Third Change to COVID-19 Testing
The islands originally required no special adjustments to visitors. As the coronavirus crisis lagged on, the islands instituted a mandatory 14-day quarantine. The effect on tourism was dramatic but effective as the islands were able to keep very low infection rates. Rapid testing and PCR tests became more widely available and the option to avoid quarantine by producing a negative test result and agreeing to follow protocol was put in place. The airlines even jumped in to help. The quarantine option was never removed.
A third change for the island of Hawaii is in-store. The outgoing mayor has rescinded the mandate to test 100% of all new arrivals in favor of testing 20% throughout the day. The island’s policy was the most stringent in the state and will remain so after the change. Through three weeks of the program, 11 travelers had tested positive through the program.
The state didn’t disclose how many were tested through the period, nor its share of the $75,000/day cost to run the program which it splits with the federal government. The area around the airport for testing had run into difficulties in managing the space.
The 100% testing program averaged nearly $130,000 per case cost.
Many Have Expressed Concern
In a post two weeks ago that resulted in a comment section explosion, residents of the Hawaiian Islands (not to be confused with indigenous Hawaiians or Islanders by ethnicity) expressed their disgust at tourists traveling to the islands during the pandemic. As pointed out in that post, lack of medical resources and geographic isolation is a real and valid concern for the people of Hawaii.
The new mayor is making a bold move and one that he feels is necessary. Following negative tests from mainland arrivals, adding a second test specifically paid for and conducted by federal funds and those of the people of the Big Island of Hawaii following their arrival may be unnecessary. As commenters pointed out last week, tests can be taken many days prior to the negative result arriving 72 hours prior to flying to the islands. One study demonstrates that odds are incredibly rare of contracting on the airplane itself.
The US is experiencing the highest confirmed COVID-19 case count in the last week. It’s certainly possible that a traveler could take a test more than a week before their arrival and become infected. It’s less likely that they will be infected when they land than if no testing had taken place at all, which was still an option if arriving guests commit to a 14-day quarantine. This is exemplified in the very small numbers of positive tests upon arrival, but while the number is larger than zero, it’s difficult to quantify the threat.
An Uncomfortable Choice
As many communities face around the country and around the world, there is a choice to be made that is uncomfortable. That choice is between doing everything possible to keep the virus as low as possible and as many people as safe as possible and re-opening businesses to avoid financial ruin.
Some may say that there are safe ways to re-open with universal masks. Residents of France and Germany may argue that despite best efforts, the countries are again in lockdown with rising cases and growing concern. Sweden had a model of no lockdown, no forced mask policy, and experienced a variety of results, some that supported each side of the argument.
Business owners and employees or, now potentially, former business owners and former employees may argue that mortality has dropped with better protocol, procedures, but without a return to normal life, there may not be much left once the crisis has ended.
Both sides are taking the most dramatic points of the argument to make their case. If the 2020 election has taught us anything, it’s that the sun will still come out the day after the results have been decided and it’s not likely to be as bad as either side suggests.
Conclusion
Every life is invaluable. Current mortality rates portend a 20% chance that one of the 11 arrivals who tested positive once they landed will die as a result of the disease. It also creates a chance to encounter others that may become infected. But historical mortality is unlikely to be representative of the current survival rate and government support may be on the way for financially distressed Americans. Still, the island of Hawaii has a duty both to protect its citizenry and those who visit from peril. But the state also has a duty to protect the economy of the community as well. At its base level, the 20% adjustment seems like a sensible approach.
What do you think? Is the island of Hawaii’s model better at 100% or under the revised 20% model? Should it be in place at all?
Will you show your math on the 20%.
@John L – With pleasure.
11 people have tested positive using this protocol, COVID-19 patients have a 2.4% historical mortality rate (though it’s declining precipitously now.) If you have 100 people infected with COVID-19, 2.4 of them would (historically) die. Therefore, if you have 11 then there is about a 20% chance that one of them will die. Right?
I have 5 people in myfamily going to the Big Island of Hawaii Dec 20th I looked at the partners and Walgreens and Quest is listed I see no locations listed in Fresno for Walgreens and Quest cant guarantee result within 72 hours It makes testing so difficult for what should be a a happy Christmas
I tried reading this and honestly have no idea what I read.
One’s own life is almost, but not quite invaluable to that person. To everyone else (ie: society) life has a price. Courts, governments, the military, and businesses calculate the value of a life every day. When anyone makes statement that life is invaluable, it shows extreme naivety or ignorance of the the actions occurring around him or her every day.
LOL me too.
I agree with Jason. The guy that wrote this is no writer. He could of wrote in pigeon and it would of been clearer. He is not clear on much of anything. Did anyone proof read this before sending it out?
*could have, not could “of”
Can someone help me interpret this phrase? “Current mortality rates portend a 20% chance that one of the 11 arrivals who tested positive once they landed will die as a result of the disease.”
I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the English language, but what *I think* this statement means does not align at all with reality. So it must be my reading comprehension.
To address the rest the article, the state/island of Hawaii has the right to isolate themselves however they please, but they should also isolate themselves from federal funds. Our taxes don’t pay for Argentinean relief to compensate for their closed-door policy, so why should they pay for Hawaii’s? Taking American money while shutting out Americans is the height of hypocrisy.
I stand corrected after looking up several statistics. The death rate is indeed about 1 per 55 positive diagnoses. I stand by my assertions in the last paragraph however.
EVERYTHING you said in your article is [redacted by admin] and a lie. Your a [redacted by admin] moron and so is Hawaii. The recovery rate for COVID is 99.3% . My wife and I were planning to go to Hawaii and had to change three times and now we have decided to cancel so we will take our $10,000 that we would have spend and spend it in Mexico. YOUR ECONOMY DEPENDS UPON TOURISM! You are throwing your country away based on a bunch of b*******. I have no sympathy for you except the fact that you’ll become a welfare state and my tax dollars will have to bail you out period so f*** you and your stupid state!
We won’t tolerate such language. Feel free to rephrase your comments using less “colorful” words.
In regards to the basis of your claims, you are factually incorrect. The recovery rate is 99.3% for some groups, but historical mortality is 2.4% on the whole. It’s higher for some groups as well. That said, mortality is coming down in a material way and may demonstrate that efforts of mitigation are working as is treatment. It also may show that we were only testing the worst cases before and that in actuality many if not most people have or had the virus and it was nothing more than a cold in their experience. It will take millions of tests and a continued low mortality rate to adjust the numbers.
I am very happy for you and your wife’s trip to Mexico. I don’t live in Hawaii, but if you read the linked previous article, you’d see that in that instance I was highlighting that the island perhaps should be more welcoming. Maybe click some of those blue hyperlinks before you pound your keyboard with assumptions.
As I understand the mortality rate Mr. Stewart quotes is that 20% of the 11 passengers will die from Covid 19. But the actual numbers for total US rates are much lower. Total numbers are closer to .02% overall. Not 20%. Also currently daily numbers with the latest treatments for Covid 19 are even lower. I think that Mr Stewart’s conversation about “at what cost for a human life” is extremely valid. But actual numbers should be used in that conversation.
@Dan J – I commented on this elsewhere. I am taking historical mortality (2.4% this week) and applying that to the number of infected (11.) If out of 100 people, 2.4 would die historically, then in a group 10% of that size, one person would have a 20-24% chance of dying. Right?
You are math challenged. 2% morality of 100 people would be 2. Of 10 people would be .2 in other words, hypothetically, 1/5 of 1 person will die out of 10. But even that is not reality. If all the people are over 90then maybe 2. If all are under 60, then 0.0
@Sir Richard – So… 1/5th would be 20% of a whole, right? So if you had 11 people instead of 100, then it would be a 20% chance that one person dies from COVID-19.
I just want to know if we can take a family vacation this summer to Hawaii or not. And if so, what exactly are the requirements? A negative xovid test prior to arrival? A negative test once we’re on island? Or quarantine and for how many days?
They change all the time and I recommend reaching out to a travel agent for the latest (Gabby is really good – https://bit.ly/30weCgz) The current protocol for travel to the Hawaiian islands generally is either 1) a negative COVID-19 result within 72 hours of arrival or 2) 14-day quarantine upon arrival. If travelling to the Big Island (Hawaii) they add a further test on arrival which was of 100% of arrivals but now will be lowered to 20% of arrivals to identify those who tested positive since their negative test result.
Travelers, residents and vistors that can afford the price of an airline ticket & other expenses that adds up in traveling, then they can afford to pay for their own Covid 19 test. If not don’t travel… especially yo Hawaii
Based up this opinion we should ban all air flights , cars, swimming in the ocean, walking, and sex
Each one of these activities has some risk and if we can save one life by stopping every human activity it will be worth it!!! NOT
LEAVE THE DECISION TO PEOPLE AND INDIVIDUALLY DECIDE THEIR FATE.
It all comes down to if your bread is not buttered by tourists you don t want them there Covid or no Covid. Feel sorry for you business owners and workers in the tourist industry. I tried to come but if I am going to fly 13 hours and spend thousands of dollars to take 10 days off I want it to be fun not work. I can stay home and work.
The fear of this infection far exceeds the reality of this infection. The “20% chance of death” from getting a positive test is just plain false, but it explains why people would favor draconian lockdowns.
The reality is that although positive tests are increasing, deaths statistically aren’t, and the death rate is well under 1%.
The government has no money that it doesn’t take from its citizens; either now, or in the future by borrowing. There is no such thing as money without somebody working to create value.
Let’s live, and let’s fly.
@Barry J – First of all, I agree, let’s all live and let’s all fly.
Just to clarify the “20% chance” number. Historical mortality in the US is now 2.4% for COVID. If you have a group of 100 infected people, historical mortality stats say that 2.4 of them will die. Thus, if you have a group of 10-11 as Hawaii has had, there should be a 20% (ish) chance that one of them will die.
However, to your point and one I have made in other posts (maybe this one too, I can’t recall) the mortality rate has been falling precipitously and the disease is no longer as deadly. It could be due to early detection, mitigation factors, a weakening of the viral strain, increased testing (perhaps only the most severe cases were tested in the past skewing the mortality numbers) or better treatment protocol. I suspect many are playing a role, but regardless, over the last three weeks we have seen US mortality rates come down from 2.6% to 2.4% pretty evenly. That suggests to me that true mortality at this point is sub 1% and it takes a while to lower the overall numbers. It’s hard to take this week’s infections (let’s say 800,000) and this week’s deaths (let’s say 10,000) and surmise a new mortality rate because of the delay in processing. Those that tested positive this week were unlikely to have also perished this week.
You are mistating the rule and the math. The rule is that the test must be taken no more than 72 hours before flying, not just that results received with 72 hours. We just flew to Kauai last week. We took tests on Monday. Got results on Tuesday. Posted results with health questionnaire on Hawaii safe travels website on Wednesday. Flew 9ver on Thursday morning. All good.
2.4% of 11 is 0.264. And I went to public schools… and 11 people is way too small of a sample size to reach any valid conclusion. Are they 11 obese males over 90 with stage 4 cancer and a recent organ transplant? If so, then yes a few of them won’t live. Or are they 11 healthy, non obese people under 60? If the the morbidity rate is approximately 0.0%
@Sir Richard – Historical morbidity is not 0, and we don’t know the age of those that arrived and tested positive, nor their co-morbidities. That said, I want you to take a breath and ask yourself: if 0.264 – what is that as a percentage?
And, of course, the sample size is too small. It’s not a study. We must apply the mortality rate of the infection to the number of people that arrived and tested positive. Don’t blame your public school education.
“tests can be taken many days prior to the negative result arriving 72 hours prior to flying to the islands.”
72 hours is the test to arrival window. not result to arrival window.
maybe I have misunderstood your writing.
by the way, in the referenced earlier article you seem not to understand that there has been/is a way around testing. you may or may not be aware that before October 15th quarentine was avoidable with an exemption. that exemption was handled by the department of defense. military personnel and their families were exempt from quarantine. there were also people who lied to get there exemptions. the state did a fantastically bad job of following up with people on these exemptions. my contacts under this exemption were with repurposed travel industry folks from the tourism board, convention bureau, Roberts Hawaiian, etc. the state allowed the military to not be inconvenienced and also didn’t check up on people who were working the system. I’m sure you can understand why the response was so negative in feedback to the other article given that the state failed as did the human nature of travelers exploiting the loophole.