Topic: Falklands cruise holiday refusal over the top, says expert

The Falkland Islands authorities have come under criticism from a leading health expert after they refused to allow cruise holiday passengers onto the island, following an outbreak of norovirus.

According to reports from The Associated Press, holidaymakers aboard the Star Princess were forced to cancel their trips after being refused entry to the Argentinean territory.

Port officials cited concerns that the outbreak could potentially put a strain on its medical resources, with around 74 passengers reportedly ill with the norovirus.

However, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine infectious diseases expert Norman Noah has hit out at the decision.

He argued that the norovirus usually passes within a few days and was unlikely to cause any overload of hospitals.

"If you're suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea, you probably won't be sightseeing. Chances are you'll be staying in your cabin by yourself," he said.

The comments come after an expert from the US-based Centre for Disease Control and Prevention warned that December to February is the peak seasonfornorovirus illness.

Were the Falklands authorities wrong? What would you have suggested?

I thought the Falklands was a British Overseas Territory, not Argentinean?

This is the report what is conveniently missing is one word that makes the result completely different, What is it should read is OFF! OF Argentina.


Passengers and medical experts have criticised the Falkland Islands for refusing to allow a cruise ship with an outbreak of stomach flu to dock.

Tourists on the Star Princess told The Associated Press they were forced to cancel long-planned trips when officials in the disputed British territory off Argentina refused them entry on Saturday, saying an outbreak could strain its medical resources.

About 74 passengers and crew among the more than 3,500 people on board were reported ill with norovirus, 20 of them with symptoms like vomiting and diarrhoea.

Norman Noah, an infectious diseases expert at London's School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, described the Falklands' decision as ''over the top''.

He has previously investigated norovirus outbreaks and says the illness normally passes within a couple of days and is unlikely to overwhelm hospitals.

I would have been sorely disappointed.
I would imagine that for many who had booked excursions, a visit there would have been a long held wish.
Anyone who was really suffering would not have wanted to go ashore anyway.
Most of the excursions and want to visit sites would have been in the outdoors anyway, so not too much contact with the locals either.

Up to the officials on the island.

I'm sure the passengers wouldn't have put a strain on the resources, but the islanders catching the virus off them? Who knows.

Could it be that the ship was Argentinian? They have recently banned Falklands ships from Argentinian ports.

QUOTE:

Could it be that the ship was Argentinian? They have recently banned Falklands ships from Argentinian ports.

The Ship was the Star Princess a Amercan cruise line.

QUOTE:

Up to the officials on the island.

I'm sure the passengers wouldn't have put a strain on the resources, but the islanders catching the virus off them? Who knows.

I think the reason may be more political rather than medical. As unpleasant and all that Norovirus is, it is relatively a mild viral infection with relatvely swift recovery and no detrimental sequelae.

It is not up to the officials on the Island - there are international rules and conventions that govern international travel. The international convention is to follow WHO guidelines when it comes to matters relating to human health (OIE guidelines for animal health and Codex Alimentarius relating to food). The WHO have never issues bans on travel with persons suffering from NoV. The official acted outside international convention. For officials to act they must be authorised by the competent authority and only act within national rules which are based on international conventions.

It cannot be simply said that its up to the officials - if this was the case we could have anarchy in trade, commerce etc. with countries shutting borders etc just because the offical was having a bad day or because Argentina beat England in the World Cup.

As regards the islanders catching the virus - minimal risk.

QUOTE:

I think the reason may be more political rather than medical. As unpleasant and all that Norovirus is, it is relatively a mild viral infection with relatvely swift recovery and no detrimental sequelae.

It is not up to the officials on the Island - there are international rules and conventions that govern international travel. The international convention is to follow WHO guidelines when it comes to matters relating to human health (OIE guidelines for animal health and Codex Alimentarius relating to food). The WHO have never issues bans on travel with persons suffering from NoV. The official acted outside international convention. For officials to act they must be authorised by the competent authority and only act within national rules which are based on international conventions.

It cannot be simply said that its up to the officials - if this was the case we could have anarchy in trade, commerce etc. with countries shutting borders etc just because the offical was having a bad day or because Argentina beat England in the World Cup.

As regards the islanders catching the virus - minimal risk.

As I said.
Who knows.
Rules is rules...and then some.

Yes Mrs M and then some, I found the islanders to be completely down to earth people, they of course would also lose a lot of revenue, having to cancel all those tours, plus the souvenir trade etc, however it was done you can bet your life that decision wasn't taken lightly. CG