Quarantine

[35B]

Melbourne is being attributed to the use of a nebuliser https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02...roplets-covid-19-can-hitch-a-ride-on/13140554

Their use is banned in quarantine hotels, but it seems the 'guests' don't know this and nobody checked.

This does of course raise the question of how to accomodate somebody who both needs to travel and needs to use a nebuliser.

Given the Australian policy, I think the answer would be that they don't travel.

But pubs can fully stock on food only for it to be all wasted at a moments notice? People can make plans for weddings or events but never be totally sure it will be fine to go ahead?

It's not a way to live. Having a mature attitude to death and learning to live alongside the virus - as we do with many other risks in life - is the only way.

In the long term, I agree. But that requires the risk posed by the virus to get down to a level that is compatible with being able to live normally.

 

[Yew]

Given the Australian policy, I think the answer would be that they don't travel.

In the long term, I agree. But that requires the risk posed by the virus to get down to a level that is compatible with being able to live normally.

It already is. Not being able to live normally poses a significantly greater risk to me.

 

[packermac]

How long do we think it'll be before Boris is forced to cancel the G7 summit on Cornwall? Can't really have an in person summit of world leaders & thousands of their staffers all bypassing our mandatory 10 day self isolation period.

I would have thought you could, even the Australian's seem happy to allow the Tennis to continue during a lockdown, and the French waived rules for the six nations.
It depends on what each country feels is important. G7 does anything ever really get done there? I guess it will depend if "Sloth Joe" feels it safe to travel from the USA.

 

[35B]

It already is. Not being able to live normally poses a significantly greater risk to me.

I was talking about society as a whole, not particular individuals. The best news I've seen recently is that the estimate of "R" is now below 1 - a sign that the range of measures are between them having an impact. What struck me from the story as I saw it was that this is the first time it's been that low since July.

 

[Yew]

I was talking about society as a whole, not particular individuals. The best news I've seen recently is that the estimate of "R" is now below 1 - a sign that the range of measures are between them having an impact. What struck me from the story as I saw it was that this is the first time it's been that low since July.

So it's reckless for me to go out and put others at risk, but fine if the risk is reversed?

I was talking about society as a whole, not particular individuals. The best news I've seen recently is that the estimate of "R" is now below 1 - a sign that the range of measures are between them having an impact. What struck me from the story as I saw it was that this is the first time it's been that low since July.

Surely that was a given, based on the case numbers dropping like a stone over the last month?

 

[Dent]

In the long term, I agree. But that requires the risk posed by the virus to get down to a level that is compatible with being able to live normally.

How do you objectively define "a level that is compatible with being able to live normally"? That sounds like yet another vague undefined concept which can lead to moving goalposts, certainly not a SMART objective.

 

[35B]

How do you objectively define "a level that is compatible with being able to live normally"? That sounds like yet another vague undefined concept which can lead to moving goalposts, certainly not a SMART objective.

As a layman, I'm not completely sure how I'd express it. But a good start would be that the risk of an individual suffering serious consequences from Covid while leading a normal life is no greater than their risk of suffering similarly serious consequences from catching another similarly serious and transmissible disease.

So it's reckless for me to go out and put others at risk, but fine if the risk is reversed?

I'm using the utilitarian test - greatest good of the greatest number - combined with an acceptance that there is a particular moral and psychological cost to large numbers of deaths within a population. By definition, that test means that it's not about you or me specifically, but about the balance across society; it must, again by definition, leave some outside that normal range disadvantaged. There is room for legitimate difference over how "greatest good of greatest number", and the associated cost/benefit equation is defined; it is neither surprising nor of concern that two random individuals might draw that line in very different places.

 

[Yew]

As a layman, I'm not completely sure how I'd express it. But a good start would be that the risk of an individual suffering serious consequences from Covid while leading a normal life is no greater than their risk of suffering similarly serious consequences from catching another similarly serious and transmissible disease.

I'm using the utilitarian test - greatest good of the greatest number - combined with an acceptance that there is a particular moral and psychological cost to large numbers of deaths within a population. By definition, that test means that it's not about you or me specifically, but about the balance across society; it must, again by definition, leave some outside that normal range disadvantaged. There is room for legitimate difference over how "greatest good of greatest number", and the associated cost/benefit equation is defined; it is neither surprising nor of concern that two random individuals might draw that line in very different places.

The greatest good for the greatest number? I cannot see how our current choices of lockdowns can possibly be considered that. The harms caused vastly outweigh the benefits.

 

[Dent]

As a layman, I'm not completely sure how I'd express it. But a good start would be that the risk of an individual suffering serious consequences from Covid while leading a normal life is no greater than their risk of suffering similarly serious consequences from catching another similarly serious and transmissible disease.

That's all rather vague and not at all SMART.

Also, if you assume that this hypothetical disease is similarly serious and transmissible, wouldn't the risk also be similar by your own hypothesis? This means that your arbitrary condition is automatically met by definition, and tests nothing.

 

[35B]

That's all rather vague and not at all SMART.

Also, if you assume that this hypothetical disease is similarly serious and transmissible, wouldn't the risk also be similar by your own hypothesis? This means that your arbitrary condition is automatically met by definition, and tests nothing.

I said that I'm a layman, so was attempting a definition.

As for the "hypothetical disease", I was assuming that data exists for the risk, pre-Covid, that an individual would have of catching a disease that has x% odds of hospitalising and y% odds of killing me. The test I propose is that adding Covid to the list of diseases I could catch doing my daily business will not add to the chances of a random individual incurring that fate, having excluded conditions that are not transmissible or where transmission requires close contact. It would doubtless need to be defined a tad more precisely than I have the vocabulary for to allow for the differences in risk that will exist based on other factors like age, but is offered as a starter for 10.

 

[Dent]

As for the "hypothetical disease", I was assuming that data exists for the risk, pre-Covid, that an individual would have of catching a disease that has x% odds of hospitalising and y% odds of killing me. The test I propose is that adding Covid to the list of diseases I could catch doing my daily business will not add to the chances of a random individual incurring that fate, having excluded conditions that are not transmissible or where transmission requires close contact. It would doubtless need to be defined a tad more precisely than I have the vocabulary for to allow for the differences in risk that will exist based on other factors like age, but is offered as a starter for 10.

Surely by definition adding the (tiny and shrinking) risk of coming to harm from COVID to the previously existing risks will always add something to the chances of a random individual incurring that fate, so your test in unachievable.

A SMART objective is:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic and
Time-bound

Your test is not any of these things.

 

[35B]

Surely by definition adding the (tiny and shrinking) risk of coming to harm from COVID to the previously existing risks will always add something to the chances of a random individual incurring that fate, so your test in unachievable.

A SMART objective is:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic and
Time-bound

Your test is not any of these things.

Ok - so it was a starter for 10, and given the additive risk you rightly highlight, would need an overall increased risk tolerance. But rather than telling me all the reasons why mine couldn't work, what would you suggest? Not least, because the idea of some measurable test is necessary to limit the ability of those who do only focus on Covid risk to keep insisting on any level of restriction to remove all possibility of illness.

 

[brad465]

I don't believe in quarantine being effective for us, certainly not 12 months on from when it may have been, but this is just incompetence and a half:

Covid: 'No guidance' for immigration officials on hotel quarantine

Officials still do not know how the system will work, days before it is due to launch, a union says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Immigration officials have not received guidance on how England's hotel quarantine system will work, less than three days before it is due to launch, a union says.

The Immigration Services Union said officials still did not know what levels of checks they should be conducting on travellers.

From Monday arrivals from 33 countries will have to quarantine in hotels.

The Home Office has been approached for comment.

The requirement to quarantine in a hotel applies to British and Irish citizens and UK residents arriving in England from so-called "red-list" countries - including Portugal, Brazil and South Africa - which are deemed high risk due to emerging new virus variants. It will cost £1,750 for an individual.

In Scotland, residents arriving from any country by air will have to isolate in hotels.

 

[johnnychips]

I don't believe in quarantine being effective for us, certainly not 12 months on from when it may have been, but this is just incompetence and a half:

Covid: 'No guidance' for immigration officials on hotel quarantine

Officials still do not know how the system will work, days before it is due to launch, a union says.

www.bbc.co.uk

It was just sensationalist policy designed to give a bone to the Karens and anti-immigrant section of our wonderful population, and may have worked judging by the green-ink brigade writing to the letters page of ‘Metro’ the other day, many of whom didn’t think it was strict enough. They will now have moved onto something else that annoys them and not notice the policy isn’t actually being implemented.

 

[joncombe]

It was just sensationalist policy designed to give a bone to the Karens and anti-immigrant section of our wonderful population, and may have worked judging by the green-ink brigade writing to the letters page of ‘Metro’ the other day, many of whom didn’t think it was strict enough. They will now have moved onto something else that annoys them and not notice the policy isn’t actually being implemented.

It wasn't strict enough. Sigh. I mean I actually think, apart from the issue of a criminal record of course, 10 days in prison would be better than 10 days in enforced quarantine. At least you would be allowed to go outside into the yard in prison, so more freedom then being kept entirely in your cell (sorry, hotel room), you still get all meals and you wouldn't get a £1750 bill for the privilege.

 

[johnnychips]

It wasn't strict enough. Sigh. I mean I actually think, apart from the issue of a criminal record of course, 10 days in prison would be better than 10 days in enforced quarantine. At least you would be allowed to go outside into the yard in prison, so more freedom then being kept entirely in your cell (sorry, hotel room), you still get all meals and you wouldn't get a £1750 bill for the privilege.

Yes, I think somebody noted on another part of the forum that if you arrived and smacked an immigration officer hard enough you would get your quarantine and tests for free. I am not advocating this.

 

[Bikeman78]

How do you objectively define "a level that is compatible with being able to live normally"? That sounds like yet another vague undefined concept which can lead to moving goalposts, certainly not a SMART objective.

If Wales Online is to be believed, Mark Drakeford is already trying to define last summer as normal.

 

[brad465]

New Zealand is now seeing Auckland go into a 3 day lockdown due to 3 community cases being identified, which should cast further shadows over the sustainability of "zero-Covid":

Covid: New Zealand Auckland lockdown ordered

The move comes after three new local cases of Covid-19 were reported in Auckland.

www.bbc.co.uk

New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has ordered the country's biggest city Auckland to go into lockdown after the discovery of three new local cases of Covid-19.

The measures will last three days and require residents to stay at home.

Ms Ardern said the country was going "hard and early" after the cases were identified.

New Zealand has won widespread praise for its handling of the pandemic, going months without community transmission.

The country closed its borders entirely to almost all non-citizens or residents early on in the pandemic, aiming to eliminate the virus.

New Zealand, with a population of five million, has recorded just over 2,300 cases of Covid and 25 deaths.

The measures in Auckland require its 1.7m residents to stay at home except for essential shopping and work. Schools and non-essential shops will close.

Ms Ardern said three days should allow the government to get more information and get more testing done, and would also help determine if there was any community transmission.

 

[Bantamzen]

So both of the poster child countries of the locktivists seem to have a problem with the virus continually coming back? Quelle surprise....

 

[kristiang85]

They say the source is unknown too, which provably means the people involved didn't travel?

 

[SJN]

[Withdrawn] Managed quarantine: what to expect

www.gov.uk

That’s a link to the quarantine rules in hotels. Not allowed to leave room at all! No exercise. Smokers can’t smoke.

 

[3rd rail land]

[Withdrawn] Managed quarantine: what to expect

www.gov.uk

That’s a link to the quarantine rules in hotels. Not allowed to leave room at all! No exercise. Smokers can’t smoke.

I thought you were allowed to leave the hotel under security supervision, for exercise purposes, bit it seems even that is not allowed. Been locked up in a hotel room, presumably at the cheaper end of the scale so not a 4/5* place, sounds truly horrific.
Is there a way of finding out how many of these quarantine rooms have been booked? It would be quite interesting to find out. I can't imagine anyone would willingly go through this in order to visit the UK!

 

[takno]

I thought you were allowed to leave the hotel under security supervision, for exercise purposes, bit it seems even that is not allowed. Been locked up in a hotel room, presumably at the cheaper end of the scale so not a 4/5* place, sounds truly horrific.
Is there a way of finding out how many of these quarantine rooms have been booked? It would be quite interesting to find out. I can't imagine anyone would willingly go through this in order to visit the UK!

I'm looking forward to finding out how much the Scottish government has spent on block-booking rooms which inevitably won't then get used

 

[Watershed]

I thought you were allowed to leave the hotel under security supervision, for exercise purposes, bit it seems even that is not allowed. Been locked up in a hotel room, presumably at the cheaper end of the scale so not a 4/5* place, sounds truly horrific.
Is there a way of finding out how many of these quarantine rooms have been booked? It would be quite interesting to find out. I can't imagine anyone would willingly go through this in order to visit the UK!

Exercise is allowed but only at the discretion of the Secretary of State (or his appointed minions, i.e. the security guards, in this case).

It has been revealed that the hotels are receiving less than half the £1750 cost of the prison stay quarantine, just £75 per night in fact. Therefore one must assume that £1000 goes towards security, testing and the 5 minute coach journey to the hotel. Wonderful.

 

[kristiang85]

If I was coming to the UK from a red country, it would be far cheaper (and more fun) to change my flight to another place not on the list and hang there for a couple of weeks before coming back.

Certainly a lot of the countries on the list have lower rates than the UK, so I can imagine movement being pretty easy to other places. And one of the benefits of the current situation is that airlines are really flexible.

I fully intend to travel later this year, but i will be taking my work laptop with me so I can be as flexible as possible! But definitely it seems to be a year for one or two long trips rather than lots of shorter trips.

 

[3rd rail land]

I'm looking forward to finding out how much the Scottish government has spent on block-booking rooms which inevitably won't then get used

What's the logic in doing that? Why not make the traveler pay up front? Presumably the Scottish government was planning on recouping the cost from the traveler when they use one of these hotel rooms? It's not as if hotels are full to capacity or even close to that right now!

 

[Yew]

I'm fairly sure the Council of Europe have a resolution against requiring the traveller to pay for their own quarantine.

 

[island]

I thought you were allowed to leave the hotel under security supervision, for exercise purposes, bit it seems even that is not allowed. Been locked up in a hotel room, presumably at the cheaper end of the scale so not a 4/5* place, sounds truly horrific.
Is there a way of finding out how many of these quarantine rooms have been booked? It would be quite interesting to find out. I can't imagine anyone would willingly go through this in order to visit the UK!

The regulations allow those in managed self-isolation to go out for exercise, to attend a funeral, or to visit a friend, household member, or close family member, but only with permission from security and subject to whatever requirements they impose.

 

[Watershed]

I'm fairly sure the Council of Europe have a resolution against requiring the traveller to pay for their own quarantine.

It's against the International Health Regulations, and possibly also other laws. Not that breaking international law in a specific and limited way would be anything new for the government

 

[island]

I'm fairly sure the Council of Europe have a resolution against requiring the traveller to pay for their own quarantine.

I think so, either them or the WHO. However, such resolutions don’t have direct effect and do not give a right of action to passengers.