Just phenomenal prices on Qantas to the US of A.
Wait, it's FlightScout, I think I'm meant to say "I just scouted these" ;)
Quite a few dates in US summer, depending on route.
Airline: Qantas
To: San Francisco/Los Angeles
Price: $700s
Alliance: OneWorld
FF: Qantas Frequent Flyer
Evidence: https://imgur.com/a/ifDVAgv
Some dates other airlines are cheaper too, but I'm focusing on the Qantas deal here.
To mask the smell of faeces?
No, it's because you're gonna meet some gentle people there…
Like hell you will jv.
Que coles- down down prices are down music 🍺🍺
What price booking direct with Qantas?
Insert mandatory '14 day Christmas Island' comment here.
Serious question for regular travellers/holiday makers, would you guys just book (or tempted to go) due to uncertainity of the outbreak?
Keen to hear second opinions
very risky/tricky to travel. situation is changing almost everyday. I would avoid travel for 2-3 months and see hows the situation is. my work place has compulsory quarantine policy for 14 days if your travel to any infected countries. ie china, etc.
Is USA/Australia included in this? They both have corona..
HR said today china, italy,hong kong, japan is in the list. but they will assess individually.
very risky/tricky to travel
This is complete and utter nonsense.
1) The infection rate in the US and in Australia are largely similar. In fact, it's actually a bit lower in the US. So you're no worse off in the US than you would be here in AU.
2) The current number of cases in the US is around 250. So the probability that any person you meet will have the virus is 250/250 million, or 0.0001%. Given that the mortality rate for most healthy adults is around 0.2%, the probability that you contract and die from the virus is 0.0000002%. This is in the same ballpark as winning a lottery.
Did you know that in Australia in 2018, 3,102 people died from the flu, 3,046 people died of suicide, 2,952 people died of accidental falls? This virus has only killed 3,042 people as of today in China, a country that has more than 40 times the population we do and a much worse healthcare system. Even if we assume similar death rates in Australia, around 75 people will die.
If you're travelling to the US, you're much more likely to die of a mass shooting, a traffic accident, or your plane falling out of the sky than the coronavirus. So yes "very risky to travel".
Stop spreading misinformation and lies and causing mass hysteria and panic.
US has said they are running low on test kits so there numbers aren't completely accurate and the situation is changing everyday (for the worse). My mates company in Seattle with 500 plus employees had been asked by public health authority to close the office for 2 weeks starting today (their Thursday) so all employees will work from home. Are they just panicking for nothing? maybe, but the risky/tricky to travel statement is accurate.
Are they just panicking for nothing? maybe, but the risky/tricky to travel statement is accurate.
Oh please, give me a break. In a country where there were 11,078 gun-related homicides per year, you're worried about getting the coronavirus? Your mate's company should worry about their employees getting shot, not their employees dying from coronavirus.
Can't you at least see how incoherent your argument is? You're saying that it's perfectly fine to accept a larger risk (from getting shot), but somehow it's "risky" to be exposed to a smaller risk (the coronavirus). This is completely illogical and you're simply just drumming up the sort of lunacy we're seeing right now.
I should also point out that your post is completely typical of the thousands of uninformed posts and opinions I see online every day. Just stories about this person and that person, anecdotes and liberal uses of the words "risk", "panic" and various things closing down without a single number or piece of real evidence.
@p1 ama: If someone feels its okay to travel in this environment, then they should go for it. This is a great bargain.
I feel this isn't the best time to travel mainly because of quarantine fears and the inconvenience of getting stuck in another country if things turn sour.
I also agree that the virus isn't lethal to majority of the population but since there is no vaccine and the China lock down and ship quarantine stories have made people wary of travelling.
@titan0r: So you basically agree with what I'm saying:
1) That the biggest issues are not the virus itself, but quarantine fears and inconvenience of being stuck.
2) The virus isn't lethal compared to the other threats that we face on a daily basis.
So the idea that it's somehow risky to travel is just not true. Even as you're talking about quarantine fears, how likely is it for you to not be able to return to Australia from the US? The US is probably the absolute last place Australia would issue a travel ban for.
Either way, I didn't neg-vote you, just wanted to point out that over-stating the risks and fear-mongering actually leads to worse outcomes and irrational behaviour.
@titan0r: Titan0r, that's a very measured response.
I think that p1 ama must not have children because my greatest fear at the moment while I am overseas is for them. A school in Sydney has closed down and others are likely to do the same if things go the way they are elsewhere. I'm looking forward to getting back in case I'm needed. It's not just the risk overseas, it's also our responsibilities and duties back at home.
Titan0r, that's a very measured response.
It's not a measured response. It's an illogical response.
I think that p1 ama must not have children because my greatest fear at the moment while I am overseas is for them.
I have children.
The rest of your post is meaningless. Again, anecdotes, appeals to emotion, soppy stories, "ohhhh the childrennn", not one single number, not one single fact.
It's good to have a discussion about the effects of the virus. There are much deeper effects than just getting the virus that we can talk about. However, at least begin with some facts, not emotional responses.
Also, I think it's great you care about your kids. I hope you never go to the US, where the chances of being shot and killed are greater than dying from the virus. I also hope you don't drive, because the risks of dying in a car accident are also greater than dying from the virus. If you also advocate these positions, then I think you're too risk averse, but I respect your intellectual consistency. If you're not advocating these positions, then you're either dishonest or misinformed.
If it's the former, I hope you stop drumming up drama and contributing to a worldwide panic. If it's the latter, I hope you become more informed.
Let me be clear - this is not a question of whether getting the virus is good or bad, we can all agree it is bad. This is a question about whether aversion to things we usually do, having a wayward perception of risk and causing other issues due to that is a good idea.
If your traveling to a third world country definitely don't go, you don't want to be in among all the chaos when it gets worse. The virus won't be as damaging as the panic. Panic will be a bigger threat to you.
Thanks for your inputs. Not planning to go in the next 2-3 months but instead some time end of the year. Yes we dont have a crystal ball, just considering taking the opportunity while tourism industry (airlines n hotels) having a downturn
Interesting topic below in regards to travel insurance would cover this kind of case or not
I wouldn't worry about travelling at the end of the year.
By that stage, the world would have figured out what to do. Either the containment works and the cases slowly resolve themselves, or the containment doesn't work and we just accept that it'll go around just like the flu. Regardless of either of these situations, we won't have the nonsense we do now with various travel restrictions, things closing down and quarantining everywhere.
In terms of the actual news cycle, I predict this will last around another 2 - 3 weeks of first page coverage before the media moves on. It's exactly the same as how the bushfires were covered. Back-to-back, wall-to-wall coverage until the media got bored of it, then (as the fires were still burning, mind you) the media just moved on.
The main reason why we are concerned is not necessarily because the virus itself is very deadly but because we didn't really have a good understanding of the effects of the virus. Every day, it appears as if the spread is getting worse, but the actual complications arising from the virus are not as severe as initially thought. At some stage, a decision will have to be made about what is worse for the general population, allowing the virus to potentially spread or the harms of the various quarantining procedures we currently have. We're already starting to feel the economic impacts of containment, e.g. I know people who have lost their jobs.
Doesn't p1 ama seem argumentative?
Ok, I'll join the other side of the debate.
"Risk" is not just chance of dying. Sickness or potential financial loss from 2 week enforced quarantine are still risks. Consequence is not as great as death but it is still a risk and a much more likely outcome so it is understandable that some might see it as risky.
You quote a bunch of numbers but your math is seriously flawed.
250 cases out of 250 million population only gives you a 1 in a million chance of getting it IF you only meet one other person. Catch the train a lot, go to places with lots of people (ie be a tourist) you could easily come into close contact with 1,000 people so your risk is 1000 times greater.
You quote 0.2% chance of death, I have seen that number reported but that was based on an assumption of thousands more undiagnosed cases. On current USA data, (now 17 deaths on 300 cases) that equates to over 5% death rate.
So you would be 25 times more likely to die.
Suddenly your 1 in 500,000,000 becomes 1 in 20,000 chance of death which is not as easily acceptable.
San Francisco Bay area (population 7.1 million) has 49 cases which is worse than the USA as a whole so if your travel is confined to San Francisco chance of encountering someone having it is even greater than the USA as a whole.
Yes I know there are flaws in my argument above but my point is that numbers are just numbers.
You also seem to be against containment (due to the impact on the economy), but containment is what is currently keeping the death rate low. If China hadn't gone hard into lockdown to prevent spread there, there would be millions more infected and thousands more deaths.
There is no vaccine and no immunity so the key to prevent it spreading is isolation. It won't stop it spreading but keeping the number of severely sick people and those needing respirators below the number of hospital beds/respirators available will help keep it manageable
Even if only 0.2% of those infected die, if we just let it go and everyone in Australia got it that would be 50,000 deaths, not just 75 deaths.
Any recommendation to travel insurance that still covers Corona? we are travelling to the US next month and it's not on the list.
The only insurance I've found is Seven Corners but looking for more recommendations or reviews https://www.sevencorners.com/
Any recommendation to travel insurance that still covers Corona?
They don't…
I couldn't find any that covered my trip to Japan, let alone Corona.
I believe cover more has an option of ‘cancel for any reason’ but you only get a percentage, I think 75% back, and it costs more . But in THAI climate would be a good idea.
Im thinking about this too, what such keywords to see/check on their PDS, e.g pandemic, outbreak, natural disaster? Or I just wasting my time to search as there will be no travel insurance covers this?
Was this not sub $700 a week ago?
If you're going,
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair…