It’s also ok to share a hotel room with someone you have travelled with, right?
Yes it is. Consult this:
Q: What is the “self-initiated epidemic prevention” period?
A: During the seven-day period, individuals can stay in a hotel or at home, as long as they follow the “one-person-per-room” rule (staying in an individual room with its own separate bathroom) and avoid contact with other people in the same residence.
People who travel together can spend the period in the same living space together. To avoid crowdedness in a hotel room, the government suggests that a maximum of two people in a room is ideal.
Upon arrival, each traveler will be given four free rapid test kits, with the first one to be used on the day of the arrival, or the following day, which is the first day of the seven-day “self-initiated epidemic prevention” period.
Arrivals must follow self-initiated epidemic prevention protocols for seven full days of the week. For example, if an individual arrived at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, their self-initiated epidemic prevention period would not end until after midnight on Wednesday the following week.
Source: https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202210130006
Guy
1 Like
Parents travelling with their own kids are not being encouraged to visit Taiwan 
Or, they want them to play musical rooms at their hotel, where no more than two in any room at any one time is observed at all times.
Ridiculous.
1 Like
I just wanted to check something with those of you on the ground in Taipei.
The Airbnb that my wife and I are intending to stay in is only available from the second night of our stay. Is it ok to stay in a hotel for one night and then move into our Airbnb for the following two weeks? In other words, can we move accommodation during the initial 7 day period?
Grateful for some clarity!
You can stay wherever you want.
I have not seen any indication that moving around from one place to another during the 0+7 period is prohibited. The condition however is that you test negative on Day 0 or Day 1. If you test positive, you should be isolating and not moving around.
Guy
Thank you, both.
1 Like
My Australian client stayed at two different hotels during the 7 days.
That cant be true. parents would be allowed to stay with children. I think taiwan has gotten over the paranoid side of covid idiocy of past years by now.
Right? 
I would gather, since the poster posted this:
That covidiocy is still rampant.
1 Like
Being ideal and being a mandate isnt the same though, much different than the previous panic. Seems like you can have more than two if the gov worded it that way.
I cant imagine splitting up families, especially children.
It’s outrageous. I would never allow it in my case. The fact that it was even a “suggestion” just shows that the people in charge are still behaving like absolute clowns.
2 Likes
Again, to play devils advocate…or just to be unbias, did they suggest that? if they said 2 is ideal they are not actually saying people cant have families. and that wording probably has more to do with friends, guests etc not to have large gatherings. To be fair the wording was both pretty vague and not limiting, but also didn’t seem to be from the horses mouth 
The paranoid panic police as well as the anti everything crowd should really pull it in and collect in the center with clear minds 
Yes, they did.
“People who travel together can spend the period in the same living space together. To avoid crowdedness in a hotel room, the government suggests that a maximum of two people in a room is ideal.”
That’s your interpretation, but the govts wording certainly doesn’t exclude parents and children from that scenario.
Whom are you referring to here, and what constitutes someone who is “anti-everything”? What do you mean by “anti-everything?” 
Genuine questions.
There’s no science behind these stupid rules. None. Are you saying that someone who points out the ridiculous petty, pedantic and completely unscientific “suggestions” that emanate from the CECC is now to be labelled ‘anti-everything’?
Personally, I’m pro-science, and pro sensible and logical responses to covid that are based on sound science. Not based on big pharma marketing or irrational fear. I’ve not seen any scientifically sound covid ‘pandemic prevention measure’ so far.
I’m open to being convinced scientifically, of the soundness of any particular measure that has been mandated, imposed, or suggested as an ideal, but none has been forthcoming.
These stupid and complicated “quarantine” guidelines or whatever bs they are calling them these days, simply proves to me that these people continue to be absolute tools.
My point is this part of your quote:
the government suggests that a maximum of two people in a room is ideal.
suggests, not mandates. that’s what I am referring to. to the polar opposite sides if this whole covid fuckery that tend to things out of context would be better served to slow down tad, step back and look at the wording. of course this is an english translation reposted so it might be wrong from the core. my only point is they are suggesting it. not forcing families to separate, which one could only assume more than 2 per room is allowed. they just prefer people not to do it unless necessary (which a family would obviously qualify for.
This is vastly different than before when all the panicking folks were actually trying to separate families. That was fucking wild. but it does seem to be different now, and calmer heads should prevail that those over the top folks have come to their senses now. or at least they arent leading the mandate narratives as much.
I am not saying you. but at the same time if science and law are to be taken directly we should all be noting “suggested” and “ideally” are not words that legally force families to separate. I am with you on the issue, but we need to shed the bias of previously retarded narratives and mandates and.move forward using what is actually on the table in the now It is pretty easy to find opinions in the extreme on either end of this topic. neither helps science nor logic.
edit. Sorry I also meant to say, most of the sources are from media. which have proven to be less than reliable over the past few years. So sources from the horses mouth are needed to be regarded as fact. If the government makes a statement that more than 2 people per room is not allowed, then I am in full agreement. but so far it has been.media, which equate to basically forum or Facebook opinions in today’s world. Unless they have references, which nearly all do not. Unless they are to other essentially meaningless media/opinion sources. Always sketchy when an articles refferences are themselves 
Umm…You don’t need to explain that to me I’m aware of the difference. Never have I claimed that this is legally enforceable. However, to follow the govts suggestion to the letter, that means precisely that - two parents cannot be in the same room as their kids during this period. This what the CECC state on their website:
“arriving travelers should stay at home or a residence of a friend or family member or a hotel room that meets the requirement of “one person per room” (with a private bathroom) in the self-initiated prevention period.”
Here’s more silliness in that regard, from the CECC’s press release:
“2. During the self-initiated prevention period, arriving travelers should avoid coming into contact with persons who have a high risk of developing severe COVID-19 (including elderly people 65 and older, children 6 and younger…”
It doesn’t say, “You’re own kids are fine, stay with them all in the same hotel room, just don’t get anywhere near Taiwanese kids at all during this period.”
There’s no science behind any of it. It’s plain covidiocy.
Of course, but they still clearly can’t let go of their attempts to control others based on nonsense science. Hence the continual “guidelines, suggestions and ideals.”
It’s the remnants of complete and utter lunacy. But it’s still an indication of continual poor mental health.
Edit: Interestingly, the words ‘suggest,’ ‘ideal’ are not on the CECC’s official statement. That was on the news report linked above by another poster. The CECC uses the word “should.” Legally enforceable? I suspect not. So why bother with any of it?
1 Like
Unless they ride unicycles, juggle, willingly accept cake facials or engage in similar highly specialized activities, your statement is an insult to my honorable profession.
2 Likes
My deepest apologies 
yes, pretty much. so none of this is separating families. I agree there is a lot to be desired, but literally the only 2 things I could see (thanks for the referrence by the way) as coming close to separating families are these 2:
E. Epidemic prevention rules to follow during the self-initiatedprevention period:
-
In principle, arriving travelers should stay at home or a residence of a friend or family member or a hotel room that meets the requirement of “one person per room” (with a private bathroom) in the self-initiated prevention period.
-
Arriving travelers cannot visit or stay with a hospitalized individual in a hospital. Non-urgent medical services or examinations should be postponed. Arriving travelers should avoid going to long-term care facilities.
the 2 possibilites are entering hospitals (I have experienced this first hand here both visiting a relative on his death bed and also needing medical care).
or hotels. the hotel one seems less logical. the hospital one seems logical as per being infected, and they made no mention of vaccine requirements in that release. whereas hospitals often do require 2 or 3 shots in reality.
1 Like
It is if one follows what the CECC state people should do.
We have an agreement 
What about this one?
" During the self-initiated prevention period, arriving travelers should avoid coming into contact with persons who have a high risk of developing severe COVID-19 (including elderly people 65 and older, children 6 and younger"
Does a tourist child 6 and under have a “high risk of developing severe COVID-19”? According to the CECC, they do. Are one’s own (tourist) kids exempt? Need to avoid them too? Or they are not “high risk” coz they’re…from overseas? The CECC doesn’t explicitly say.