The FACT that Coronavirus infected hospital staff was the original wake up call for me. I was taught by physiologists at Monash that this indicates above average infectivity because healthcare workers take more precautions then the average.

‘We had the same problem with SARS - sick healthcare staff.

You have the right to not perform work that you consider to be unsafe. Take it up with your OHS. Legislation and processes exist to work through these issues.It may not come out the way you like though. They've got some heavies on their side. You have just got your opinion.

It hasn't even spread over one entire country yet.

This virus is most certainly not an airborne one. If it was, we would be in a lot of trouble.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12307276

"A Chinese official has confirmed a scary new fact about the deadly coronavirus: it is airborne."

Well yeah, that’s pretty normal for this class of virus. Typical media scare tactics for more clicks, they’ve conveniently left out information regarding how long the virus can survive outside the host (possibly hours, certainly not days). Still nothing to see here in my opinion.

Stick shift, hope you are right. Research I read says 24hr+ survival on stainless steel at 20C.

However this is internet chatter. You need to talk to a real doctor, not a GP, for a definitive answer. They may have different ideas.

I have. They do.

Hope they’re right :ok:

Cambodia admits a ship from which an allegedly infected person then flies to Malaysia - no quarantine/isolation beforehand despite numerous other countries previously denying that ship access for valid concerns. Now, why would Cambodia do that? The cynic in me finds it hard not to consider the massive amounts of money China is pouring into Cambodia (and elsewhere) a factor in their decision - and that's even before considering the possibility of there being some "brown paper bags" in the mix.
So, as per news reports, one infected passenger flies to Malaysia and some 1000 others off that ship fly to many destinations out of Phnom Penh.
Some countries are implementing harsh but justified conditions to protect people - and then others ...............................

I find this extraordinary,6 people on the 747 from Haneda to Darwin have tested positive and the crew aren’t even in home quarantine. Irresponsible behaviour from Qantas.

Qantas have likely followed the guidelines of the Chief Medical Officer of the land. You know the head doctor who knows about this stuff as a professional (as opposed to a pilot or CC with an opinion - or agendas).

The guidelines say that if the crews are wearing appropriate PPE, there is no need to self quarantine even if some pax are positive.

They weren’t wearing PPE, next.

Are you saying that the cabin crew didn’t wear wear PPE?

That’s pretty obviously what dragon is saying.
His opinion seems to be a good one.
I couldn’t quite figure out what your opinion was, can you enlighten us CS?

My opinion is that if QF follow the medical advice and procedures of the CMO then they have not been irresponsible.

My second comment was clarifying the scope of the word ”crew”.

You do understand that medical personnel who are acutely aware of proper personal protection protocols are being infected nonetheless, right? And that some are dying?

There has to be an airlock between the general public and the infected individuals, and those who have been in close contact with them. Wishful thinking isn’t enough.

Now in Queensland, your boss would take a pretty good look into matters - as they are facing 20 years in the slammer. P.S. not just "the boss".

On 23 October 2017, industrial manslaughter provisions in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act), Electrical Safety Act 2002 (ES Act), and Safety in Recreational Water Activities Act 2011 (SRWA Act) commenced.

These provisions make it an offence for a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), or a senior officer, to negligently cause the death of a worker. In particular, the offence applies if:

• a worker dies, or is injured and later dies, in the course of carrying out work for the business or undertaking (including during a work break); and
• the PCBU’s, or senior officer’s, conduct cause the death of the worker (i.e. the action or inaction of the PCBU, or senior officer, substantially contributes to the death); and
• the PCBU, or senior officer, is negligent about causing the death of the worker (i.e. the person’s action or inaction departs so far from the standard of care required).

Where a PCBU, or senior officer, commits industrial manslaughter, a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for an individual, or $10M for a body corporate, applies.

Who is a PCBU?

For the purposes of the industrial manslaughter offence, a PCBU has the same meaning as applies under section 5 of the WHS Act or section 21 of the ES Act. For example, a PCBU can be a sole trader, a partnership, company, unincorporated association or government department.

Who is a senior officer?

A senior officer is:

• an executive officer of a corporation (i.e. a person who is concerned with, or takes part in, the corporation’s management); or
• for a non-corporation, the holder of an executive position who makes, or takes part in making, decisions affecting all, or a substantial part, of a PCBU’s functions.

The use of the term ‘senior officer’ for the industrial manslaughter offence is intended to capture individuals of the highest levels in an organisation (those who can create and influence safety management and culture at their workplace). The rationale for capturing these higher level officers is to ensure health and safety is managed as a cultural priority within organisations and to guarantee that safety standards are managed and supported from the top down.

Examples of senior officers may include:

• a director or secretary of a corporation
• Chief Executive Officers
• Chief Financial Officers or Chief Operations Officers
• General Counsel
• General Managers
• officeholders in a unincorporated association (i.e. a club president).

In determining whether you are a senior officer for the purposes of the industrial manslaughter offence, you should have regard to:

• your position in the company (i.e. are you in senior management?)
• your ability to take part in decisions which affect the company (i.e. can you decide how money will be spent or the strategic direction the company will take?)
• your ability to influence how resources are used and what procedures are necessary (i.e. do you have the ability to make decisions about how work health and safety will be managed?)
• your ability to make decisions (i.e. is your decision making subject to a further approval process or are you the final decision-maker?)
• your reporting structure (i.e. do you report directly to a board?)
• what is the extent of your domain? (i.e. do you head the largest division and is that division a core part of the business?)
• who are your direct reports (i.e. do you have oversight of high level general managers?).

These and other similar factors would be part of the consideration for determining whether you are a senior officer.

So, because 'it it written', it's a just and safe policy, and that our Leaders know best?
Has history proven that to be such a great idea?
Have a scroll back to some of the Q 'In The News', and 'AIPA Communications'. In particular, re-read Jan 30 AIPA Special Insights - Coronavirus Update.
Just for fun, here are some quotes from that gem.
"For the information of crew, the World Health Organisation and Australian Health authorities do not suggest there is any reason to cancel mainland China flights."
"The virus is not easily transmitted from person to person; unlike SARS."

That’s a good point Buttscratcher. People in authority are no different from us line pilots, they say what they think is most likely at the time and sometimes they are wrong. I certainly wouldn’t be acting purely on what others say. I’ll weigh it up and take it into account then make up my own mind.