4 ms·

I don't see how they can justify keeping these people trapped on ships while plenty of business and leisure travellers jet back and forth around the world. I'd

I don't see how they can justify keeping these people trapped on ships while plenty of business and leisure travellers jet back and forth around the world. I'd understand if we were actually enforcing a real quarantine with closed borders, but we're not. What makes these maritime workers such a greater risk? Is it just that they're not wealthy citizens of western nations?

msandford 6y ago
I think the huge risk is that it takes days or weeks to travel between ports thus giving the virus time to incubate and show itself unlike flyers. We can't have people who mostly aren't a threat causing problems! Seriously these people present less of a threat than jet travel but they are decidedly blue collar. Maybe that's the distinction?
- lambda_obrien 6y ago
  It's even easier than that: quarantine any ship that has made port in the last 2 weeks and the crew was allowed to disembark and let any ship with no sign of disease where the crew has been onboard for 2 weeks to disembark. Then, the crews can disembark at least every 2 weeks, and it's pretty simple to verify whether a ship has allowed it's crew to disembark; check their port logs.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    Change that to forty days and you’ve got the literal, original meaning of the word “quarantine.”
petertodd 6y ago
It's simple: they can't. Anywhere with non-trivial amounts of community transmission would have negligible additional risk by allowing those workers to enter, especially if symptoms are screened. A handful of new cases is a drop in a very big bucket. That's been true over almost the whole world for months, because covid has spread to pretty much the entire world. These workers have been imprisoned because of politics, not science.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> plenty of business and leisure travellers jet back and forth around the world. Not any more, the last few weeks have seen several countries completely prevent people setting off for leisure travel, closing their borders not just to entry but to exit. Australia did it already early last year. The argument is that those travelers will return at some point and bring new COVID strains back, but I’m uncomfortable with countries banning their own citizens from freely leaving, that sounds like old Eastern Bloc restrictions (which were also ostensibly about protecting the common welfare), and it could be that some leisure travelers, if they could only leave, would be gone indefinitely and therefore would not necessarily be coming back during the lifetime of the current epidemic.
- s_Hogg 6y ago
  Australian here. Our rules allow you to leave if you've got a reason to be gone longer than 3 months. My sister lives overseas and has come back twice and been allowed to leave each time (at great expense). The rule is specifically about leisure travellers and business trips that could be done with zoom. If you've got a funeral to go to you get an exemption as well, for example.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > Our rules allow you to leave if you've got a reason to be gone longer than 3 months. What happens if an Aussie simply says "There are some countries out there that are relatively unconcerned with COVID right now, I would rather be traveling them for the indefinite future instead of staying home"? Would the state still prevent him or her from leaving?
    - s_Hogg 6y ago
      Sounds like leisure travel, I think would be your answer.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        So yes, as I said in my original post, preventing people from freely leaving their country for leisure travel is troubling.

msandford 6y ago

I think the huge risk is that it takes days or weeks to travel between ports thus giving the virus time to incubate and show itself unlike flyers. We can't have people who mostly aren't a threat causing problems! Seriously these people present less of a threat than jet travel but they are decidedly blue collar. Maybe that's the distinction?

lambda_obrien 6y ago
It's even easier than that: quarantine any ship that has made port in the last 2 weeks and the crew was allowed to disembark and let any ship with no sign of disease where the crew has been onboard for 2 weeks to disembark. Then, the crews can disembark at least every 2 weeks, and it's pretty simple to verify whether a ship has allowed it's crew to disembark; check their port logs.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Change that to forty days and you’ve got the literal, original meaning of the word “quarantine.”

petertodd 6y ago

It's simple: they can't. Anywhere with non-trivial amounts of community transmission would have negligible additional risk by allowing those workers to enter, especially if symptoms are screened. A handful of new cases is a drop in a very big bucket. That's been true over almost the whole world for months, because covid has spread to pretty much the entire world. These workers have been imprisoned because of politics, not science.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> plenty of business and leisure travellers jet back and forth around the world. Not any more, the last few weeks have seen several countries completely prevent people setting off for leisure travel, closing their borders not just to entry but to exit. Australia did it already early last year. The argument is that those travelers will return at some point and bring new COVID strains back, but I’m uncomfortable with countries banning their own citizens from freely leaving, that sounds like old Eastern Bloc restrictions (which were also ostensibly about protecting the common welfare), and it could be that some leisure travelers, if they could only leave, would be gone indefinitely and therefore would not necessarily be coming back during the lifetime of the current epidemic.

s_Hogg 6y ago
Australian here. Our rules allow you to leave if you've got a reason to be gone longer than 3 months. My sister lives overseas and has come back twice and been allowed to leave each time (at great expense). The rule is specifically about leisure travellers and business trips that could be done with zoom. If you've got a funeral to go to you get an exemption as well, for example.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > Our rules allow you to leave if you've got a reason to be gone longer than 3 months. What happens if an Aussie simply says "There are some countries out there that are relatively unconcerned with COVID right now, I would rather be traveling them for the indefinite future instead of staying home"? Would the state still prevent him or her from leaving?
  - s_Hogg 6y ago
    Sounds like leisure travel, I think would be your answer.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      So yes, as I said in my original post, preventing people from freely leaving their country for leisure travel is troubling.