<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Some parts of this seem easy, other harder. My "easy" part is if
Craig, Ivona and others are OK with the 1 day relaxation, then I'm
fine with the same 1 day relaxation for my two students. With
this, Meg is there for full MOB and the 2 students only miss one
day.</p>
<p>I agree outdoor recreation is trickier. I'm generally OK with
this, but had a concern earlier about not waiting 5 days. The
thought was based upon the assumption that if we do not allow
recreation until after the day 5 test results, than someone who is
positive on day 5 would be identified as someone who picked up
COVID during travel, which we know is largely out of a travelers
individual control. If we do pick up one or more positives on day
5 after starting outdoor recreation on day 1, then we will not
know if COVID was picked up during travel, or someone was not
complying with recreation the rules. I do NOT expect
non-compliance, but it would be a bad way to start EXPORTS, if a
few real or false positives come in early on, and the group is
second guessing how it happened. This is a social comment, not a
medical one.</p>
<p>Again, I'll go with the flow on the outdoor recreation. We have
not decided to do this or not in Vigo, as it has not come up as a
major issue. FYI, we do have a 15 min one way walk to our two
COVID tests in Vigo, so joking already about our 2 exercise
moments, and more seriously about how to stagger tests to avoid a
large group dynamic as we head to our tests.</p>
<p>Any change on the double bubble issue? Allow few to go between
ships but only during off hours with clear corridors and control?<br>
</p>
<p>Later, Ken<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021/04/06 2:02 PM, Craig M. Lee via
Exports_project_office wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F6212D3B-8C2C-4CC8-9853-63BA011EB244@uw.edu">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi All,
We received answers from Guy last night (please review attached email).
Given the data from NOC, I think we could, in good conscience, allow a 1, or perhaps 2, day shortening of the quarantine for late arrivals. One day is more conservative, two days is the most we could accommodate and still stay within UK guidelines. I think we could justify either, but we need to make it clear to everyone that this is a contingency measure, not a change in policy. Ivona and I favor a 1-day relaxation (which would let Meg exit quarantine with the rest of the science team, and the great students one day later). We can keep the 2-day relaxation in our back pocket, in the event the others suffer from travel delays.
Outdoor recreation is trickier. My understanding is that outdoor recreation would not be in violation of UK policy, so it’s really up to us what we will or will not allow. Guy expresses some concern, but I view it as being very safe. *provided* that everyone complies with social distancing and avoids shops, pubs, restaurants (even just picking up food to go), etc.
If we feel confident in peoples’ ability to comply with rules, then it seems like we just need to set a policy for outdoor exercise. It probably does not have to be terribly prescriptive. Something like:
- Outdoor exercise is permitted, but must be done solo (no gathering in groups)
- Avoid crowded areas and remain at least 2 m from other people
- Visits to shops, restaurants, pubs, recreation facilities etc are prohibited. This includes outdoor facilities like food carts and pick-up of to-go orders.
Then we just decide whether we let people outside immediately, or only after the 5-day LFT. The main reason to wait for the 5-day test is if the UK is worried about us bringing infection in, which does not appear to be the case. I propose that we use something like the protocol above and allow immediate outdoor access, but would like to hear from others. I’d also like to run whatever we adopt by Guy before finalizing.
Thanks,
Craig
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Craig M. Lee
University of Washington
Applied Physics Laboratory
1013 NE 40th St.
Seattle, WA 98105-6698
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:craiglee@uw.edu">craiglee@uw.edu</a>
(206) 685-7656
(206) 543-6785 (fax)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://iop.apl.washington.edu">http://iop.apl.washington.edu</a>
-------------------------------------------------------
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Exports_project_office mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Exports_project_office@espo.nasa.gov">Exports_project_office@espo.nasa.gov</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://espo.nasa.gov/lists/listinfo/exports_project_office">https://espo.nasa.gov/lists/listinfo/exports_project_office</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ken Buesseler
Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cafethorium.whoi.edu">http://cafethorium.whoi.edu</a> @Cafe_Thorium
Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.whoi.edu/CMER">http://www.whoi.edu/CMER</a> @whoi_cmer
508-289-2309
</pre>
</body>
</html>