Travel to Brazil?

[Latbear4blk]

Pointe is re opening "soon", according to its social media.

[tassojunior]

2 hours ago, pauleiro said:

The rule used by Europe to put countries in the list of authorized countries  is "less than 16 new cases of covid-19 per 100.000 citizens in the last 14 days". They plan to revisit the list regularly. 

In many countries, bars, restaurants and beaches are not crowded at all. Nightclubs are closed in most European countries, even in Ibiza ! Sex saunas are open but almost noone is going there. Some pics of overpopulated places (such as beaches in UK eg Bournemouth last week end or Fete de la Musique in France) were visible on internet, but it is not the general situation at all. 

That's good news if places in Europe are not as crowded as pics we see. I think nightclubs and bars are open almost everywhere and pics I see from friends on social media show them very crowded I guess if tourist crowds resumed as normal in places like Venice and Barcelona it would be a nightmare. But I still think Europe is due for a big uptick from opening almost everything suddenly, and I don't see Merkel's reliance solely on new positives vs old since some places have 1000 tests, some have a million. India is on the list to come in although it has the biggest surge going (but very few tests). 

I hope Paris is doing well. If they stay inside this may be the first August in a long time people stay home. (Maybe it's the tourists they were avoiding and not the south calling.)

Also, let's see if Denmark and Norway really allow Swedes in. My personal opinion is while originally travel bans made sense (and we got them too late), now they have minimal use since the virus is everywhere. Quick tests and screening on passengers works almost as well.  

Edited June 30, 2020 by tassojunior

[Lucky]

This morning I randomly chose a note pad and was happy to see that it came from the Windsor Miramar hotel in Rio. We had such a nice stay there back when.

[Riobard]

Suggestion: move the EU travel to Europe sub forum? I’m gonna try. 

[Riobard]

Brazil today:

Number of people in a random grouping to reach 50% likelihood of 1 undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 contagious infection: 26; to reach 90% likelihood of same: 85 ... the calculation includes an exponent, the probability of no infections [to the power of the number of events], so deviates from linear proportionality.

You cannot achieve 100% probability of 1 infection based on this equation. You can approach it, say 99.9%, and round up. If you are less risk averse (eg, you think it’s pussy-minded at less than a theoretically guaranteed minimum of one case in your “bubble”) and want to know, for example, the group number for that level of chance of infection present, it is 258 people. 

I have not broken out state or metro RJ, but I assume a lesser number of individuals is needed to reach the three arbitrary probability thresholds I have selected, assuming regional trends surpass national. Obviously this also holds true for the near future based on national tallies increasing.

These calculations can extend to many scenarios, including a flight out of Brazil where the exponent N events is the number of passengers as opposed to the quantity of bodies in a brothel. On the plane, the imputed risk of minimal viral hosting/shedding posing transmission vectoring among 200 occupants is 99.53%. Naturally you may want to adjust for the differential in environmental enclosed space, risk of “pinch points”, and air filtration and replacement, etc, etc, blah, blah. 

[Riobard]

Addendum: Rio de Janeiro state is trending twice as high as the national figures, at 17.2% new case tallies with a population share of about 8.1%. Therefore, my calculations above are very conservative. If anybody wants to give me a number of state-representative people in a gathering (and any multiple of presumed prevalence different from my estimate: 10-fold the official count), I can likely do a new risk calculation. 

[belkinDC]

2 hours ago, Riobard said:

On the plane, the imputed risk of minimal viral hosting/shedding posing transmission vectoring among 200 occupants is 99.53%. Naturally you may want to adjust for the differential in environmental enclosed space, risk of “pinch points”, and air filtration and replacement, etc, etc, blah, blah. 

What do you mean by “minimal” - a 99.53% low risk?

[Riobard]

36 minutes ago, belkinDC said:

What do you mean by “minimal” - a 99.53% low risk?

I used the word ‘minimal’ to refer to at least one infected passenger because, other than residual presence of virus on surfaces, a minimum of one contagious passenger on any flight is the primary reason for full cleaning as well as all in-flight precautions. 

Based on current Brazil infection rates, the probability of at least one passenger on a departing flight with 200 passengers is 99.53%, almost guaranteed. This is predicated on ‘under the radar’ boarding, that is,  undetected on fever-screening (because true estimates are proportional to asymptomatic / non-febrile presentation), as well as circumvention of nasal-pharyngeal testing or recent confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 negative status. 

The bottom line: if you travel to Brazil you will be returning on a flight housing a likely contagious passenger. In contrast, a flight containing an equal number of passengers out of Montreal, based on epidemiology 2 weeks ago, posed a risk of 67.5% that minimally one flyer has this coronavirus, but that is now less due to a steady decline in local prevalence. 

I prefer this approach in calculating probability because absolute community infection percentages of total populations are very low. People naturally ignore percentages close to 0% or 100% when weighing risk because a difference between .1% and .01% or a difference between 99.9% and 99.99% is considered negligible. A gradient of 0-100, albeit impossible to reach either extreme, is more realistic and is responsive to seemingly small overall population changes that actually yield bigger differences on that gradient in terms of a minimum of one hazardous event.

Similarly, occupants in a brothel don’t really need to factor the probability of crossing paths with at least one fellow national (even if they have data about relevant tourism patterns). However, walking through a cloud of infected human aerosol particulates may impel one to seek awareness of the likelihood any of that phenomenon at all exists. I provided those probabilities earlier.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

Correction: People naturally ignore percentages close to 0% when weighing risk or ignore percentages close to 100% for non-risk. This human trait applies to both loss and gain.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

Since I would be fairly hazmat-grade on a current big-head directed medium-distance flight, staying window-seated and isolated, I am a poor candidate for success in a small-head directed trade venue where the risks are comparable. 

[Riobard]

I think this media article breaks down and critiques fairly well the incipient research on natural (viz exposure) immunity viability and durability mentioned by @Latbear4blk here or in another thread. Sobering. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/asymptomatic-covid-19-1.5629172

[Riobard]

I think @Solooking mentioned the immunity theme as well. 

[davet]

On 6/30/2020 at 4:42 PM, Riobard said:

Similarly, occupants in a brothel don’t really need to factor the probability of crossing paths with at least one fellow national (even if they have data about relevant tourism patterns).

Can you clarify this comment? I like the number of random people approach to statistic. Since any major Brazilian sauna on a good night has 100-200 people, and even post-reopening are likely to have more than 26 people, then, yes, there is likely to be at least one infected person present.

However, since the attendees at a brothel-sauna swap spit rampantly with 1 to 10 or more others, how does one not assume that everyone present is at least seriously exposed if not infected?

[Riobard]

Yes, can clarify. I meant that something as innocuous as fellow tourist presence from same country could be calculated on minimum ‘N of 1’ basis of probability, assuming tourism data available, but it and countless other variables unrelated to disease would not be at all front of mind. In contrast, there are sufficient pandemic  data to guide calculations of exposure for any number of people in any gathering. 

You took the CoV probability further in relation to our favourite venues, based on behavioural patterns that would inflate risk in comparison to airplane, gym, church, etc. And you are correct ... the transmission reproduction number would increase within that microcosm even if at the baseline date of reopening the case rate equaled the general population prevalence. After a time, even the exclusively voyeuristic at higher exposure risk than elsewhere. Add to that the expediency of transactions for economic survival and the greater cohabitation levels among age groups. Petri dish. You get it or you don’t impacts you get it or you don’t. 

[Riobard]

Antibody study results recently released suggest a true SARS-CoV-2 incidence to date that is 5-6 times higher than reported figures. This would also suggest an alteration in fatality from about 6% to between 1% and 1.5%. 

[Riobard]

However, while 3.8% antibody-positive nationally, big differences regionally: North 8.0, Northeast 5.1, Southeast 1.1, Central West 0.9, South 0.4 

Also, 90% of those tested reported having had at least one signature symptom at some point prior. Though May/June testing is within their flu season I wonder if there was a self-selection bias, wherein those who had been unwell were more likely to enter the antibody assessment cohort, having been missed earlier in antigen testing that would have indicated infection. This might affect the true exposure incidence because I thought there has been much speculation about asymptomatic cases loading into true incidence, yielding more than was found in the Brazil research. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

The presence of antibodies is at a percentage in the Southeast not much greater compared to the infection case tally in Rio de Janeiro state. That doesn’t add up. It would be my first question posed to the investigators. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Riobard

[Primeone385]

Well with the fact that Trump wont do anything to fix the COVID-19 issue. It seems that we will have to wait till next President  comes along. I hope he gets voted out, but who knows. With his base hating everything and almost everyone that isn’t what is deemed “there America.” He has to be a one term president.

 

[Latbear4blk]

I was misinformed, I had learned about the temporary extension of the ban until today; but did not know that meanwhile they approve an extension of the ban until de end of July. No one can go to Brazil until August, if the ban is not renew even longer.

http://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-n-340-de-30-de-junho-de-2020-264247695

 

[Riobard]

Air Canada resumes Toronto - São Paulo in a few weeks. Only Canadians can fly back but have an equal chance with the general population to contract CoV while visiting, maybe even greater if proportionately less community precautions compared to the average local. The probability of at least one contagious passenger when leaving Canada is 16.4%; when returning is 99.3% ... it is a very large aircraft, 268 + 30. I corrected the Canadian prevalence by a factor of X4.0 and the Brazilian prevalence by a factor of X5.33, according to research on true estimates. 

The respective passenger risk estimates for USA and Brazil are obviously more similar to each other although USA is trending down in new incidence while Brazil continues to trend up, so one can expect Brazil:USA probability ratio to increase. All of this of course assumes passengers are representative of national case prevalence. 

At this point the 2-week quarantine for returning Canadians remains obligatory.

I do not know if Americans can transit through Pearson International remaining airside. I think it is possible. You would have to check with Canada Border Services. You can drive to Alaska as long as you not dawdle. I am not aware if Air Canada is ‘red-listing’ by passport; I doubt it. Anyway, this is just a word to the wise; I am not looking into it.

Canada’s tourism GDP is 6%. The travel and  tourist sectors are having a hell of a time getting the government to budge and try reciprocity even with countries whose infection management measures are showing better effectiveness. 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

How very sweet. Infelizmente it is not currently in the cards to play the role of Daddy. 

[Riobard]

Exposure risk per CoV-negative individual is increasing based on incidence rolling averages. It is 50% chance of contagion and viral acquisition for contact with 43 locals, 25% chance for contact with 17 locals, and 10% for contact with 6 locals. Obviously alters with regional prevalence.

If you are in Brazil for 2 weeks, there is a very high probability of being infected if you are randomly in the personal contagion radius of just a handful of locals per day whose current infection status is unknown. But I am sure your airlines are advising you of these realities prior to clicking ‘confirm purchase’. 

It is highly recommended to quarantine after returning home, even if not legally obligatory. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

My father was open-minded and unconditionally loving but I still think I would have shocked him to death honouring his special day wearing sexy briefs and a gay pageant sash. Not that I could nearly have pulled that off (no analogy intended). Filter is everything ... just sayin’. LOL

Edited August 10, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

In another month the exposure risk will be considerably greater than the calculations I just posted. Brazil’s logarithmic graph of new incidence is the steepest in the world.

There is even a high probability of at least one infected person in sequestered business class departing from Brazil, assuming the passenger collective is representative of local CoV prevalence. I doubt that this information is being disseminated to airline crew, particularly if they layover rather than turnaround. They otherwise apply onboard universal precautions but may not be aware of the enormous risk out and about in the community. 

[Image below not log-depicted but shows the speed of increments of 1 million]

Edited August 10, 2020 by Riobard