mtofell

Is that $25 just the actual test cost or does that include all the administration as well (people to give the test, extra security to funnel people in/out of the testing area, etc.)

LIH Prem

The numbers bandied about by the health department is that 1% of arriving passengers are positive. Those people who are asymptomatic can and will spread the virus through the community. About half of the clusters on Maui are tourism/travel related. So for every 100 passengers arriving with a negative pre-test, 1 will turn out to be infected. On a day with 3000 arrivals, 30 could be asymptomatic positive.

There's a report daily on the cases and clusters on Maui Now, so if you are truly interested in the effects of covid/tourism on the county, you can read that daily rather than just making assumptions.

There's a new story from Maui Now, basically you self-swab under observation after arrival, wait a few minutes for your result, and if it's positive, you get called back for a rapid PCR test. So false positives on the initial antigen test are really not going to impact your day by more than a few minutes for the 2nd Rapid test. However, if you are found to be positive or you refuse the 2nd test, you will have to go into quarantine for 10 days.

And don't forget, if you are fully vaccinated you get to skip the entire thing.

https://mauinow.com/2021/05/04/maui-...hului-airport/

-David

1KChinito

An excellent reason to be fully vaccinated for everyone's safety.

scottinaz

I am not sure how you count but according to the state of Hawaii the number of cases related to non resident travelers for April in Maui county was 8 out of a total of 509 cases for the entire month. For March it was 10 out of a total of 701. So while non zero it is pretty clear that outbreaks in Maui county are not related to non resident travelers which is what this post arrival screening is targeting.
You can see that data at: Disease Outbreak Control Division | COVID-19 | Hawaii COVID-19 Data

If the state believes you don't need a secondary test if you are fully vaccinated then why do they require the 72 hour test since I would imagine the proof required would be the same. The whole thing seems like theatre to me.

hawaii-bound

The numbers do not reflect asymptomatic travelers who tested negative before arrival and then became positive. That is the main reason for performing a second test on arrival. The numbers that you are quoting only represent those non-residents who became ill and then tested positive once in the state. I believe LIH Prem has a better analysis since the state reported numbers do not show the entire story. Big Island has been doing the 2nd test and the positivity rate speaks for itself since they were catching most of the infections on the front end before it became an medical issue.

scottinaz

But the numbers also do not include residents that tested negative and then became positive so the same logic would apply to all who test positive. Testing is just a sample and you trust the sample is representative, if it is not then it is useless. So what is clear from the data is that if you are in Maui you are much much more likely to contract Covid from a resident than from a tourist. If you believe more testing is warranted then randomly testing residents would be much better at finding asymptomatic cases and limiting community spread but residents would likely object so they target tourists that have no choice. Again it seems like theatre.

hawaii-bound

Hawaii residents are counted in the states numbers if they are infected after returning from the mainland which is accomplished through contact tracing for anyone they have been in contact with, hence the community spread numbers, visitors are not counted at all if they are asymptomatic and spreading the virus and then return home. The only time a visitor is in the state data is when they do get sick and then get tested. The reason for the Maui testing is to find out where the spread is originating. Hawaii County for non-resident/resident was about 50/50 due to testing everyone who arrived from the mainland (both visitors and residents). When given a choice, most residents will agree to a secondary test but visitors who are here on vacation do not want to jeopardize their vacation, so would opt out. The program that used a test that was optional, did not go very well.

I will defer to the knowledge of Weatherboy as he seems to receive the inside information on these statistics and how they are compiled.

LIH Prem

Moi?

I guess you meant the county health department.

From the daily reports published on mauinow.com, which you can read for yourself: (data reported below is for Maui County)

"The cluster report [ as of Apr 29 ] indicates that there are 148 [ active ] cases identified in the travel/lodging/tourism sector, including 109 associated with the primary setting and 39 that are outside of the primary setting. These 148 cases are from nine different clusters. This represents a 3.8 percent decrease in cases (down six) from last week’s cluster report when 154 cases were identified in this sector."

https://mauinow.com/2021/05/05/may-5...state-1-death/

-David

Weatherboy

With numbers up, it doesn't appear there's any material drop in reservations.

The Mayor said the ultimate cost to the county was $25/tested passenger. Which is a steal compared to Big Island testing, which was north of $100/passenger.

MCO Flyer

The Maui testing seems much simpler and easier than the Big Island testing (which seems to be ending May 10th) as Maui is using the NAAT rapid ID Now test for the follow up if the first Antigen test comes back positive so there’s no chance that someone would need to unnecessarily quarantine if the first test ends up being a false positive as the situation would be resolved within an ~hour. On the Big Island if the Antigen test comes back positive, they do a standard PCR test which has to be sent to a lab and it takes 24 hours for the results to come back. During those 24 hours, the “positive” traveler and anyone who was traveling with them (even they tested negative) gets treated as if they showed up with no pre-travel test and is forced to quarantine in an approved hotel at their own expense and is not able to stay in a vacation rental or rent a car until the PCR test comes back negative.

Weatherboy

Two different standards and jurisdictions. State doesn't have a way to verify the authenticity of vaccination records, so they're not exempting them through the state process. On a county/island level, with the statewide net in place, they're comfortable letting self-reported vaccinated through for now knowing they did test 72 hours prior. So it's a matter of mitigating risk. The purpose isn't to stop travel, it is to reduce cases in the islands.

DELee

This.

Just footstomping this. Again. And again. And again.

Oboy.

David

gaobest

this big island thing is ymmv. In April 2021, My friend had a positive first test; they traveled with their spouse and child. Of this 3-some, only one adult tested positive. They took the second test and then they all got their rental car, drove to their vacation rental, and quarantined for a day. The spouse and child went to a grocery chain inbetween airport and vacation rental.
a day later, my friend received their negative result on the second test.

agreed that boosting the system would be great and HOW would they do that in 2020 when tourism revenues practically disappear? And before 2020, which incentive did they have to make improvements when their system apparently functioned fine within the existing budget?
when 2020 forced students to stay home to learn remotely, one could ask why existing school systems didn’t have a better existing protocol for connectivity since that would have matched No Student Left Behind. Even now there are schools with virtual learning and zero help with connectivity for students without wifi.
likewise all the businesses and non-profit organizations who succumb to ransomware scams - ideally their systems security would be utterly perfect at every nanosecond.
I agree firmly that a better system would be great but few publicly-funded organizations can do what profitable organizations also fail to do.

DELee

Many have addressed this previously in this very forum - you define a plan and execute. The state has had to pay for National Guard and all number of emergency services during the pandemic. And, historically, folks from the outer islands have planned healthcare travel to Oahu and back to the Mainland because of this very problem. _IF_ the leadership of the state had wanted to ask for Federal funding, the HI congressional delegation could have moved accordingly.

However, none of that was done.

The residents and now returning tourists get to deal with the lack of action.

David

denver19

Marginal cost. You get the taxes with or without the test. The test costs money. The biggest question to me is: Is the best use of Maui's money, in the fight against COVID an arrival test at the airport? I think we all know the answer to that is "no".

The arrival test is crazyville. You are exempt with the vax from the arrival test, but not the departure test. The rapid test is ok on arrival, but not for departure. And if anybody thinks Mayor Victorino is "collecting data" you should listen to him speak. He doesn't know what "data" is and has no interest in collecting it. Something else is afoot: I think he is pandering to his base. (I live on Maui), and I think many locals were happy with the shut down, the lack of traffic, the open beaches, the general quiet. These are either government workers who did not lose their jobs, or rich relocated mainlanders who don't need to work, or lazy layabouts (of which we have our share) who live off government handouts. That is a lot of voters here on Maui, and the mayor is listening.

Im in business here. I am thrilled to have visitors back. And with a vax you can skip the second test. So c'mon over.

Oh, and one other thing: The notion that 1% of arrivals are infected is a number that isn't supported. It is a number being thrown being thrown around by a HNL Doc whose company is profiting "bigly" with this second test. At the BI, I think they had more like 1 in 1,000 that they caught with a second test. If 1% of the 4,000 or so arrivals were carriers, our number wouldn't be the 10 or so daily cases that it is currently.