Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

What is the answer?

I wish they said where they were coming from and if their PCR tests are actually valid and how long before they travelled they had the test.

Yes I would also like to know how they get here positive
.

Just because you tested negative yesterday it doesn't mean you will be negative the next day or the day after. You could feasibly be negative in the morning but positive in the afternoon.

Yes there may well be some iffy paperwork out there but a test only means you were negative at that time.

Send them back!!!!

You can get false positives and false negatives too.

13roman58 wrote: ↑

Fri 19 Feb 2021 1:26 pm

Send them back!!!!

The only sensible answer.

Even more sensible; don't bring them in!

Agree but in principle that is unworkable! Like your MOT, the PCR negative is only valid when the test was taken, even if it only takes an hour to provide the certificate, it could well be false upon issue as the person tested may have become positive in that time.

If the holder of the PCR negative certificate then wishes to travel to another country then they should provide proof of financial means to enable them to pay for the quarantine expenses at there destination and to take a “rapid” test upon arrival!

Additional testing every week for the fist three weeks would also help as only the stupid travellers would step off the /boat and go straight into a crowded venue where they put themselves at greater risk!

In the end it is all about money and the cost of becoming positive should be made high enough to stop people thinking that it will not happen to them!

Apparently there is a roaring trade in fraudulent Negative certificates in UK. Someone will always make money out of a tragedy.

benjaminbutton wrote: ↑

Fri 19 Feb 2021 2:40 pm

Apparently there is a roaring trade in fraudulent Negative certificates in UK.

No surprise there.

With these certificates are they country specific as in is one issued by America different to one issued in Germany or are they standardised?
If they aren’t standardised how on earth can they be checked with any degree of confidence at the airport?
Someone might get a feel for a genuine certificate from the U.K. say because he has seen a few but not have a clue what a genuine certificate from Austria or Australia looks like.

It seems that a lot of countries are now requiring PCR tests to have a QR code on them as are most airlines - that should solve one problem!

faro wrote: ↑

Fri 19 Feb 2021 12:15 pm

Yes I would also like to know how they get here positive
.

mite be catchin on the plane ride ere

Hair Cut wrote: ↑

Fri 19 Feb 2021 1:35 pm

13roman58 wrote: ↑

Fri 19 Feb 2021 1:26 pm

Send them back!!!!

The only sensible answer.

Disagree. That is not the answer.

A lot of countries insist on a PCR test before travel. Many will want to travel and will do the right thing and get/pay for a PCR test within the laid down timeframe before travelling. They are following the rules for entry and if the test is negative then there is no reason why they should not travel. If on arrival they then test positive that is not their fault.... they have followed the rules. Sending people back is not an option as they are positive and cannot now travel. To travel you need a PCR test and maybe even then the country you arrive in may have some form of quarantine in place.

If they do test positive on arrival then the only option is quarantine.

If they do test positive on arrival then the only option is quarantine.

... and humane, considerate treatment - we are talking about human beings here!

Keithcaley wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 10:24 am

If they do test positive on arrival then the only option is quarantine.

... and humane, considerate treatment - we are talking about human beings here!

That goes without saying.

Perhaps if they test negative on arrival then quarantine is only a few days followed by a second test and if again negative then quarantine ends.

For those that test positive on arrival then they do the full period of quarantine.

WHO consider the period between catching and proving positive can be anywhere between 1 and 21 days. What do you consider to be "a few days" in that case? Keeping in mind that they will be sat next to you on the aircraft for 6 hours!

waddo wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 2:47 pm

WHO consider the period between catching and proving positive can be anywhere between 1 and 21 days. What do you consider to be "a few days" in that case? Keeping in mind that they will be sat next to you on the aircraft for 6 hours!

Ok... Then the only solution is quarantine.

One thing is certain, countries cannot remain closed forever. There will be a balance of risk and the politicians will decide.

waddo wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 2:47 pm

WHO consider the period between catching and proving positive can be anywhere between 1 and 21 days. What do you consider to be "a few days" in that case? Keeping in mind that they will be sat next to you on the aircraft for 6 hours!

Can you post a source for that 21 day period.

UK, WHO & all other countries that have published guidelines are agreed on 14 days but I'm happy to be updated.

"...One thing is certain, countries cannot remain closed forever. There will be a balance of risk and the politicians will decide."
...And being politicians, will not accept responsibility if their decision(s) turns out to be wrong....

Hedge-Fund, I would love to, having read it on the WHO website very recently. Unfortunately it seems WHO are having web site problems and a lot of their documents are currently unavailable, so they say. All I can find now is the original (Jul 2020) guidance that states incubation period of 5 to 6 days or as long as 14 days. I will keep checking and happy to admit if I am wrong!

jofra, agreed and being politicians if they don’t like the advice they are given it is simple for them to get rid of the advisor and replace them with an advisor that will assist their political objectives! Hope this is not shades of things to come.

waddo wrote: ↑

Sun 21 Feb 2021 5:48 am

jofra, agreed and being politicians if they don’t like the advice they are given it is simple for them to get rid of the advisor and replace them with an advisor that will assist their political objectives! Hope this is not shades of things to come.

I'd like to think even the most anti Johnson and Trump person would think they would take an action which would kill their citizens unnecessarily?
Even if you are ultra cynical enough to believe that, do bear in mind that older people generally vote Conservative or Republican so they would have been killing off their own potential voters.

The problem with advisors is opinions are like a@%#holes everyone has got one. Plus you can get too much information. Intelligence agencies get tens of thousands of bits of information to filter and it is only after the event that they know which bits of information they should have filtered. If you look at 9/11 all the clues were there but those clues were mixed in with thousands of other clues and no one has the time and resources to chase down and prepare for every scenario.
Also if you are a bit of a doomsday prophet you can never really be wrong.
"If we hadn't have locked down it would have happened."
Or
"I only said it was a possible scenario."

I could easily say don't get on a plane because they can crash. Now statistically the odds on that are miniscule but if I did predict that I can assure you that I will be front of the queue giving my reasoning the next time we did have a plane crash. I would also be able to capture the moral high ground against anyone pointing out that these are extremely rare events. "So, you don't care about those 300 people who died then?"

There seems to be a view that a lockdown was a risk free solution at no cost.
People will inaccurately point out that the austerity program cost 120,000 lives but then go very quiet on that when pushing for a lockdown which could economically ruin a country.
They will point out the cost in lives by a reduction in the day to day services of the NHS but ignore that to prioritise covid over those same day to day services will cost lives.
They will point out the cost of mental health issues and the associated suicide rate but ignore the fact that a lockdown will exasperate those issues.

Hedge-fund wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 9:09 pm

waddo wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 2:47 pm

WHO consider the period between catching and proving positive can be anywhere between 1 and 21 days. What do you consider to be "a few days" in that case? Keeping in mind that they will be sat next to you on the aircraft for 6 hours!

Can you post a source for that 21 day period.

UK, WHO & all other countries that have published guidelines are agreed on 14 days but I'm happy to be updated.

Google Isle of man covid. Quite interesting the person did quarantine and then became ill
I feel people must be more responsible but we live in a blame and sue society. Some have made money out of covid others have lost everything including their lives. If we had a crystal ball I do wonder how different it would be. But even if there was no movement of people you would still have to deal with the human who would not do as advised

snd1966 wrote: ↑

Sun 21 Feb 2021 12:43 pm

Hedge-fund wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 9:09 pm

waddo wrote: ↑

Sat 20 Feb 2021 2:47 pm

WHO consider the period between catching and proving positive can be anywhere between 1 and 21 days. What do you consider to be "a few days" in that case? Keeping in mind that they will be sat next to you on the aircraft for 6 hours!

Can you post a source for that 21 day period.

UK, WHO & all other countries that have published guidelines are agreed on 14 days but I'm happy to be updated.

Google Isle of man covid. Quite interesting the person did quarantine and then became ill
I feel people must be more responsible but we live in a blame and sue society. Some have made money out of covid others have lost everything including their lives. If we had a crystal ball I do wonder how different it would be. But even if there was no movement of people you would still have to deal with the human who would not do as advised

I googled it and it gives me a 2 day old story of a man visiting 17 places. Not sure of relevence here?

What I'm looking for is peer reviewed official advice that quarantine should be 21 days not the worldwide gold standard of 14.

Isle of man. It was an article stating the island had stopped anyone coming in without quarantine since March 2020 but even with all that was in place after 7 months of no cases they had to enter a second lockdown due to an outbreak earlier this year It was quoted in the article they would increase quarantine to 21 days as recommended by ....

Try Google “quarantine 21 days”.

Several (mostly Far East) countries/cities imposed 21 day quarantines.