Corona virus and entry to Sydney

[possum52]

10 minutes ago, MMDown Under said:

CDC and US State Department say Americans should avoid cruise ships because of corona virus.  

I wonder what the Australian Government will advise in Smart Traveller, following this advice from the US.

This from Smart Traveller as of yesterday -

'Australians, particularly those with underlying health concerns should reconsider taking an overseas cruise at this time due to COVID-19. If in doubt, consult a medical professional before travelling.

 

International cruises

Coronavirus and international cruises

The cruise industry has put strong measures in place for the health and safety of passengers.  All passengers and crew are screened before they board. Cruise lines will deny boarding to anyone who has visited or transited the most affected countries (China, including Hong Kong and Macau, Iran, South Korea and the most affected municipalities in Italy) in the 14 days before embarkation. Some itineraries have changed. Expect more, and check with your cruise operator.

 

Australians, particularly those with underlying health concerns should reconsider taking an overseas cruise at this time due to COVID-19. If in doubt, consult a medical professional before travelling.

 

There have been instances of cruise ships being put into quarantine, countries preventing disembarkation of ships or denying entry to ports. The itineraries of a number of cruise ships have changed. Disruptions to cruise ship itineraries due to COVID-19 can have significant consequences for travellers. The situation is fluid and you can expect further disruptions.

 

Repatriation from cruise ships affected by COVID-19 should not be relied upon as an option.

 

If, despite our advice, you proceed with your cruise and you're concerned about the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on your plans, check with your travel agent or cruise company and read and subscribe to our travel advisories for your destinations, including transit locations.

See also the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) Australasia's policies to prevent the spread of the virus, which all CLIA ocean member cruise lines are required to implement.

On 9 March 2020, the US State Department issued a bulletin advising US citizens, particularly those with underlying health conditions, not to travel by cruise ship. It advises that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has noted an increased risk of infection of COVID-19 in a cruise ship environment. The CDC notes that older adults and travelers with underlying health issues should avoid situations that put them at increased risk for more severe disease. This entails avoiding crowded places, avoiding non-essential travel such as long plane trips, and especially avoiding embarking on cruise ships.

 

Be prepared for possible changes to itineraries. If you take medication, ensure you have enough with you for any delays.

 

The below has been sent to all Australians on cruise ships in the Asia-Pacific region. The advice remains current.

 

Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) Australasia has adopted an enhanced CLIA member health policy which all CLIA ocean member cruise lines are required to follow to address the coronavirus.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working closely with the cruise line industry.

If you have any health concerns, including access to your medication, speak to your cruise ship in the first instance.

If required, you can contact DFAT’s Consular Emergency Centre on 1300 555 135 from Australia or on +61 6261 3305 from overseas.

The Australian Department of Health is providing regular updates on the coronavirus. 

For information on returning to Australia, please see the Australian Border Force website.

For information on your cruise destinations, including transit destinations, see the travel advice for your destinations and subscribe for updates.'

 

Leigh

Edited March 9, 2020 by possum52

[MMDown Under]

The American Government advice to not cruise, due to corona virus, is stronger than the Australian Government advice..  

This might be why cruise lines are now relaxing their cancellation policies.  

Edited March 9, 2020 by MMDown Under

[MMDown Under]

Deleted.

Edited March 10, 2020 by MMDown Under

[NSWP]

4 hours ago, MMDown Under said:

The American Government advice to not cruise, due to corona virus, is stronger than the Australian Government advice..  

This might be why cruise lines are now relaxing their cancellation policies.  

We are taking this too lightly, the Australian Govt should demand all pax are tested before disembarkation, however long it takes.  Some feel it is an extreme measure, but in my view necessary.

[MicCanberra]

3 hours ago, NSWP said:

We are taking this too lightly, the Australian Govt should demand all pax are tested before disembarkation, however long it takes.  Some feel it is an extreme measure, but in my view necessary.

I agree, perhaps it is time for the cruise industry to try and improve it's image.

[banzaii]

4 hours ago, NSWP said:

We are taking this too lightly, the Australian Govt should demand all pax are tested before disembarkation, however long it takes.  Some feel it is an extreme measure, but in my view necessary.

This is no more likely than testing every traveller at every (air)port each day. 

 

Not even every patient with flu-like symptoms who presents to a healthcare provider will be tested.  The labs would be over-run and backed up on day one.

[MicCanberra]

Fever clinics are being set up to keep the sick people with Covid -19 symptoms away from people with other sickness.

[cruisine21]

I’ve read that since this Smart Traveller warning is in place you are not covered by travel insurance if you go ahead  and travel

[floridababa]

Is that for US citizens also?

[NSWP]

2 hours ago, floridababa said:

Is that for US citizens also?

I suggest you check with the US Government Travel Advice mob - Homeland Security?   and/or your insurance provider.

[mr walker]

5 hours ago, cruisine21 said:

I’ve read that since this Smart Traveller warning is in place you are not covered by travel insurance if you go ahead  and travel

Advice from our travel insurance broker (insurer is Chubb) this afternoon, referring to the option to cancel:

Exclusion 3. D) – “any change of plans which are …a disinclination on the part of the Covered Person or of any other person to undertake the Journey…”. Chubb’s attitude (and other Travel Insurers) is that if the Government has issued a “Do not travel” warning to a country or region, this disinclination to travel exclusion does not apply. However, all other reduced severity warnings are considered “go at your own risk” and will not be covered as it would be considered a disinclination to travel.

So, coming from the opposite position ie looking to cancel is that the travel advice warning is not strong enough to get a refund. And yet your post suggests the warning is sufficient to nullify the coverage if travel is still taken??

[mr walker]

Update from above from broker this morning:

"As the WHO has now declared the Coronavirus as a pandemic, this will remove any doubt regarding the cancellation coverage." 

So it seems we are clear to cancel & have any loss reimbursed by TI.

 

What I have no answer from them is on what coverage we have, if any, if we elect to travel in spite of the declaration of pandemic.

[banzaii]

Thanks Mr Walker for your coverage of TI issues.

 

And a reminder to all to check your own policies and seek clarification if you are in doubt.

[mr walker]

We have decided we will cancel our 30-Mar cruise based principally on the lack of clarity from the Travel Insurer on where we stand with our insurance post the WHO pandemic declaration. A 58 page PDS using terms like 'disinclination' & no firm policies given - not good enough.

 

 

[The_Big_M]

"Disinclination" seems pretty straightforward?

 

It's just saying if you've only made your own decision to cancel instead of being forced not to by e.g. flight cancellation or government "Do not travel" statements.

[Chiliburn]

3 hours ago, mr walker said:

We have decided we will cancel our 30-Mar cruise based principally on the lack of clarity from the Travel Insurer on where we stand with our insurance post the WHO pandemic declaration. A 58 page PDS using terms like 'disinclination' & no firm policies given - not good enough.

 

 

From what I understand ,once it’s pandemic all travel insurance is null and void.

If you got mugged in the hotel bar and lost your favourite bottle opener .

 It’s your problem 

[cruisine21]

2 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

From what I understand ,once it’s pandemic all travel insurance is null and void.

 

 

I wonder if there is any possibility of getting a refund for the policy if that is the case?

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

From what I understand ,once it’s pandemic all travel insurance is null and void.

If you got mugged in the hotel bar and lost your favourite bottle opener .

 It’s your problem 

 

Some travel insurance puts an exclusion on that. Of course it only applies to incidents relating to that in that case e.g. medical treatment for the pandemic would not be covered, but luggage delays, or if you have to go to hospital because you tumble down the stairs would still be covered. Thhe policy itself is still valid, just not for items due to that.

[The_Big_M]

5 hours ago, cruisine21 said:

 

I wonder if there is any possibility of getting a refund for the policy if that is the case?

 

No, it's just the same as any other exclusion. All policies have exclusions.

[mr walker]

17 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

"Disinclination" seems pretty straightforward?

 

It's just saying if you've only made your own decision to cancel instead of being forced not to by e.g. flight cancellation or government "Do not travel" statements.

The use of the term is not in my view "straightforward" & is perhaps designed to confuse the issue. See below what the definition is, at least in the real world, not the world of legalspeak

The concept should be if you CHOOSE not to travel, as that is the critical issue. Inclination or not, are not actions, but thoughts.

There has been a push in recent years for 'plain English' wording in a variety of policies, and it's time this was extended to Travel Insurance.

In any case, we were disinclined to travel, and chose not to. The thought process is irrelevant to the legal process, just the action process. So the fact we CHOSE not to travel is all that matters. Did we breach the terms by being disinclined & thus our thought process actually voided our policy?

 

 

disinclination

[ˌdɪsɪnklɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n]

NOUN

1. a reluctance or lack of enthusiasm.

   "Lucy felt a strong disinclination to talk about her engagement"

   synonyms:

   reluctance · unwillingness · lack of enthusiasm · indisposition · slowness · hesitancy · hesitance · diffidence · loathness · aversion · dislike · distaste · objection · demur · resistance · opposition · recalcitrance · disrelish · nolition · sweerness

    

    

    

[Chiliburn]

5 minutes ago, mr walker said:

The use of the term is not in my view "straightforward" & is perhaps designed to confuse the issue. See below what the definition is, at least in the real world, not the world of legalspeak

The concept should be if you CHOOSE not to travel, as that is the critical issue. Inclination or not, are not actions, but thoughts.

There has been a push in recent years for 'plain English' wording in a variety of policies, and it's time this was extended to Travel Insurance.

In any case, we were disinclined to travel, and chose not to. The thought process is irrelevant to the legal process, just the action process. So the fact we CHOSE not to travel is all that matters. Did we breach the terms by being disinclined & thus our thought process actually voided our policy?

 

 

disinclination

[ˌdɪsɪnklɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n]

 

NOUN

1. a reluctance or lack of enthusiasm.

   "Lucy felt a strong disinclination to talk about her engagement"

   synonyms:

   reluctance · unwillingness · lack of enthusiasm · indisposition · slowness · hesitancy · hesitance · diffidence · loathness · aversion · dislike · distaste · objection · demur · resistance · opposition · recalcitrance · disrelish · nolition · sweerness

    

    

    

Insurance companies will try to worm out of everything they can.

 

So as of Monday no more than 500 people are supposed to congratulate.

what about a cruise?

[NSWP]

55 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

Insurance companies will try to worm out of everything they can.

 

So as of Monday no more than 500 people are supposed to congratulate.

what about a cruise?

   Just sell 499 tickets.

Edited March 14, 2020 by NSWP

[Chiliburn]

8 minutes ago, NSWP said:

   Just sell 499 tickets.

That’s about all the fares they are selling.LOL

I can understand why they are closing up shop.

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

The use of the term is not in my view "straightforward" & is perhaps designed to confuse the issue. See below what the definition is, at least in the real world, not the world of legalspeak

The concept should be if you CHOOSE not to travel, as that is the critical issue. Inclination or not, are not actions, but thoughts.

There has been a push in recent years for 'plain English' wording in a variety of policies, and it's time this was extended to Travel Insurance.

In any case, we were disinclined to travel, and chose not to. The thought process is irrelevant to the legal process, just the action process. So the fact we CHOSE not to travel is all that matters. Did we breach the terms by being disinclined & thus our thought process actually voided our policy?

 

 

disinclination

[ˌdɪsɪnklɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n]

 

NOUN

1. a reluctance or lack of enthusiasm.

   "Lucy felt a strong disinclination to talk about her engagement"

   synonyms:

   reluctance · unwillingness · lack of enthusiasm · indisposition · slowness · hesitancy · hesitance · diffidence · loathness · aversion · dislike · distaste · objection · demur · resistance · opposition · recalcitrance · disrelish · nolition · sweerness

    

    

    

 

I agree that it relates to a thought process rather than the outcome - but I think that's part of the reason. The thing is you could "choose" not to travel because a close family member had died for example i.e. you're not required not to travel but have chosen not to (for understandable reasons!). Typically that would be covered in many policies.

 

Disinclination to me is reasonable as it indicates more a personal preference rather than something external.

 

I don't think there is any simple short wording that could be used but these are two typical aims:

- firstly keep it as short as possible so that it's not overly confusing

- secondly have it sufficiently broad as if you list specific reasons invariably someone will use that to create loopholes and exploit it even if the intent was there.

 

[avalon007]

We left on Ovation on Feb 29 to NZ for 12 days & on boarding had to answer a set of questions as to whether we had been in the affected countries within 14 days - totally an honour system, no screening.

 

On return 2 days ago, all we had was a letter the night before from the ship saying if we had transited through any of the most at risk countries in the last 2 weeks (they gave a list) then to report for additional screening before disembarking. 

 

We disembarked & nothing at all was any different than normal, just had the usual customs check & then walked right out.

 

No known cases of the virus on board & very limited in NZ.