Quarantine

[35B]

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.

There is also a slight difference between the general principle, and the specific circumstances of someone choosing to travel somewhere of known risk, and then needing to get through the border.

 

[Watershed]

There is also a slight difference between the general principle, and the specific circumstances of someone choosing to travel somewhere of known risk, and then needing to get through the border.

There is no difference in law. By the same logic, imprisonment for any offence is voluntary, because you decide to commit the crime that puts you in prison. The IHRs are likely to be considered as part of any judicial review.

There are also a good number who will have travelled when there wasn't any suggestion of imprisonment upon return - or at least not for their destination.

 

[35B]

There is no difference in law. By the same logic, imprisonment for any offence is voluntary, because you decide to commit the crime that puts you in prison. The IHRs are likely to be considered as part of any judicial review.

There are also a good number who will have travelled when there wasn't any suggestion of imprisonment upon return - or at least not for their destination.

There will, and I've seen one case on the news where I have tremendous sympathy for the person involved given her specific circumstances. In general, though, my sympathy is scant; anyone travelling at the moment will have done so in full awareness that border requirements can change drastically, expensively, and at minimal notice, and have had far more forewarning of this change than of some of the other quarantine requirement changes.

As for judicial review, the power of a resolution by the Council of Europe or WHO is of minimal legal effect and, given the failure rate of judicial review attempts to date, I see little likelihood of the hotel quarantine requirements making a material difference to the odds of success of any further attempt at judicial review.

I would also suggest that the comparison with imprisonment is mistaken. There is no suggestion that any such traveller has committed a crime, just that their travel represents sufficient public health risk that it is deemed necessary that they go into a specific form of quarantine for long enough that it is possible to be certain that they are not ill.

 

[Yew]

There will, and I've seen one case on the news where I have tremendous sympathy for the person involved given her specific circumstances. In general, though, my sympathy is scant; anyone travelling at the moment will have done so in full awareness that border requirements can change drastically, expensively, and at minimal notice, and have had far more forewarning of this change than of some of the other quarantine requirement changes.

As for judicial review, the power of a resolution by the Council of Europe or WHO is of minimal legal effect and, given the failure rate of judicial review attempts to date, I see little likelihood of the hotel quarantine requirements making a material difference to the odds of success of any further attempt at judicial review.

I would also suggest that the comparison with imprisonment is mistaken. There is no suggestion that any such traveller has committed a crime, just that their travel represents sufficient public health risk that it is deemed necessary that they go into a specific form of quarantine for long enough that it is possible to be certain that they are not ill.

I don't believe that is compatible with the standard definition of quarantine, it should only be for people who are Ill, and only IF it presents a public health risk; which bringing back a virus to which many of the most vulnerable are vaccinated, and is already in widespread circulation clearly does not constitute such a risk.

 

[Watershed]

There will, and I've seen one case on the news where I have tremendous sympathy for the person involved given her specific circumstances. In general, though, my sympathy is scant; anyone travelling at the moment will have done so in full awareness that border requirements can change drastically, expensively, and at minimal notice, and have had far more forewarning of this change than of some of the other quarantine requirement changes.

I wonder if you would have more sympathy if the government decided to imprison a whole village or neighborhood, because of a flare-up of a new variant. After all, they decided to keep on living in this country in full awareness that the government is prepared to introduce authoritarian impositions at any moment!

As for judicial review, the power of a resolution by the Council of Europe or WHO is of minimal legal effect and, given the failure rate of judicial review attempts to date, I see little likelihood of the hotel quarantine requirements making a material difference to the odds of success of any further attempt at judicial review.

There are certainly aspects of the Regulations which I think are amenable to judicial review, not least the (lack of) provision for travellers with disabilities.

The IHRs are far more significant than a mere WHO resolution - they are the very Regulation which the government sought to implement when, back in 2008, it amended the Public Health Act 1984 to insert the powers currently being used to implement lockdown.

But as you say, the courts are very reluctant to intervene in the government's decisions, regardless of their egregiousness. They probably fear the government would impinge on them, like they threatened to do to the Supreme Court after "unfavourable" decisions on Brexit and the suspension of Parliament.

I would also suggest that the comparison with imprisonment is mistaken. There is no suggestion that any such traveller has committed a crime, just that their travel represents sufficient public health risk that it is deemed necessary that they go into a specific form of quarantine for long enough that it is possible to be certain that they are not ill.

As you say, you don't necessarily have to have committed a crime to be imprisoned. That doesn't make "managed self-isolation" qualify any less as imprisonment.

 

[kristiang85]

It seems that passengers from these 'red list' countries are OK to mingle with other passengers who won't be quarantined at connecting airports and on planes. Yet more proof this is a half baked policy with little root in science but more do with Preti Patel continuing her little power trip and her government wanting to be seen as 'doing something'.

 

[3rd rail land]

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

So it's a case of England ignoring this guidance and Scotland complying? I assume it's just guidance and not law?

 

[35B]

I don't believe that is compatible with the standard definition of quarantine, it should only be for people who are Ill, and only IF it presents a public health risk; which bringing back a virus to which many of the most vulnerable are vaccinated, and is already in widespread circulation clearly does not constitute such a risk.

By that argument, despite the proven dangers to others, you would render the quarantining of "Typhoid Mary" illegitimate. Meanwhile, my copy of the OED includes this definition of quarantine:

2 A period of isolation, orig. of forty days, imposed on a person, animal, or thing that might otherwise spread a contagious disease, esp. on one that has just arrived from overseas etc. or has been exposed to infection; the fact or practice of isolating someone or something or of being isolated in this way.

I particularly note the use of the word "might" in that definition; given our understanding of incubation periods and the difficulty of proving that a traveller is not affected, I don't personally have a problem with this being applied on a precautionary basis while there is a public health risk.

Once vaccination levels are up, I would completely agree such measures to be unnecessary and disproportionate.

 

[Bikeman78]

It seems that passengers from these 'red list' countries are OK to mingle with other passengers who won't be quarantined at connecting airports and on planes. Yet more proof this is a half baked policy with little root in science but more do with Preti Patel continuing her little power trip and her government wanting to be seen as 'doing something'.

Portugal is on the red list but Spain isn't. I'm confident that any varients in Portugal are also in Spain and probably France too.

 

[kristiang85]

Portugal is on the red list but Spain isn't. I'm confident that any varients in Portugal are also in Spain and probably France too.

Yep, this does seem like a cunning virus that respects international borders.

 

[takno]

So it's a case of England ignoring this guidance and Scotland complying? I assume it's just guidance and not law?

No, Scotland are charging for it as well. It's just that Scotland are requiring it for all arrivals from everywhere. I strongly suspect that just means that *everybody* who was going to land in a Scottish airport is just going to England instead.

 

[Yew]

By that argument, despite the proven dangers to others, you would render the quarantining of "Typhoid Mary" illegitimate. Meanwhile, my copy of the OED includes this definition of quarantine:

I particularly note the use of the word "might" in that definition; given our understanding of incubation periods and the difficulty of proving that a traveller is not affected, I don't personally have a problem with this being applied on a precautionary basis while there is a public health risk.

Once vaccination levels are up, I would completely agree such measures to be unnecessary and disproportionate.

Might implies a reasonable suspicion, simply existing in a country does not seem like a reasonable suspicion, but paranoia.

 

[Richard Scott]

No, Scotland are charging for it as well. It's just that Scotland are requiring it for all arrivals from everywhere. I strongly suspect that just means that *everybody* who was going to land in a Scottish airport is just going to England instead.

Sturgeon must think she's so clever but result will be more lost income in Scotland. She really doesn't have a clue does she?

 

[3rd rail land]

No, Scotland are charging for it as well. It's just that Scotland are requiring it for all arrivals from everywhere. I strongly suspect that just means that *everybody* who was going to land in a Scottish airport is just going to England instead.

So in reality the only difference for travelers is Scotland is charging in arrears but in England you have to pay upfront? Scotland will just end up in more debt when all some of the rooms they have pre-booked go unused as I assume these rooms have to be paid for regardless of whether they get used or not.

 

[Watershed]

I particularly note the use of the word "might" in that definition; given our understanding of incubation periods and the difficulty of proving that a traveller is not affected, I don't personally have a problem with this being applied on a precautionary basis while there is a public health risk.

I've heard rumours that scientists have invented this magical device called a "PCR test" which can tell whether or not you have Covid. Apparently it is so effective that it can be used to say whether or not people need to self-isolate after coming into close contact with someone who has tested positive.

Unfortunately it would appear that this test becomes suddenly much less effective when applied to people who have travelled in from abroad. False negatives are a problem seemingly unique to such travellers. Scientists are calling this phenomenon "politics".

Might implies a reasonable suspicion, simply existing in a country does not seem like a reasonable suspicion, but paranoia.

If the existence of variants were truly a justifiable basis for imprisoning fellow citizens, it would be applied to anyone living in an area where variant flare-ups are detected. That this hasn't happened, tells you everything you need to know about the entire travel quarantine policy.

 

[takno]

So in reality the only difference for travelers is Scotland is charging in arrears but in England you have to pay upfront? Scotland will just end up in more debt when all some of eth rooms they have pre-booked go unused as I assume these rooms have to be paid for regardless of whether they get used or not.

I'm not aware of any difference to whether it's in arrears or upfront. In both cases the governments have had to make arrangements to book out entire hotels and get the security in place for the numbers of people they expect to arrive. If they're wrong about the numbers of people arriving by a factor of 3 or more then the pumped-up rates they are charging aren't going to cover the costs. The Scottish Government has spend money on getting facilities in place around all the airports, which may see almost no use at all.

 

[35B]

I've heard rumours that scientists have invented this magical device called a "PCR test" which can tell whether or not you have Covid. Apparently it is so effective that it can be used to say whether or not people need to self-isolate after coming into close contact with someone who has tested positive.

Unfortunately it would appear that this test becomes suddenly much less effective when applied to people who have travelled in from abroad. False negatives are a problem seemingly unique to such travellers. Scientists are calling this phenomenon "politics".


If the existence of variants were truly a justifiable basis for imprisoning fellow citizens, it would be applied to anyone living in an area where variant flare-ups are detected. That this hasn't happened, tells you everything you need to know about the entire travel quarantine policy.

I've heard of the PCR test too. I've also heard that it only works after a certain point, so can't detect a proportion of cases - which is why the testing regime involves retests over a period of time.

As for the role of variants within the population, there are regulations around self-isolation already, which should be containing spread. The difference with travellers is their potential to add to the mix - hence the government's policy of getting us all to stay at home where possible. But I'm sure SAGE would be glad to consider the benefits of your policy suggestion, in the interests of plugging loopholes.

 

[brad465]

Yep, this does seem like a cunning virus that respects international borders.

Looking at Spain's reported cases/infections they appear to have had a comparable surge/peak to us, but slightly later, where the same peak has not (yet) happened in France and Italy, so it's possible a more infectious variant has established in Spain, which some media reports seem to believe:

Spain COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Spain Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

(UK graph added for cross comparison)

 

[Watershed]

I've heard of the PCR test too. I've also heard that it only works after a certain point, so can't detect a proportion of cases - which is why the testing regime involves retests over a period of time.

As for the role of variants within the population, there are regulations around self-isolation already, which should be containing spread. The difference with travellers is their potential to add to the mix - hence the government's policy of getting us all to stay at home where possible. But I'm sure SAGE would be glad to consider the benefits of your policy suggestion, in the interests of plugging loopholes.

Right, so we should imprison anyone who tests negative three times (3 days before travel, and 2 and 8 days after travel) - on the basis that the entire country they've come from may or may not have a variant somewhere and therefore they may or may not be carrying it.

Meanwhile, it's OK to release people known to have had a recent Covid-positive close contact, on the say-so of one test.

Oh, and the self-isolation regulations are sufficient to contain known domestic variants, but imprisonment is required to fight potential foreign variants.

Hmm, I'm detecting just the slightest whiff of double standards.

 

[Cdd89]

A telegraph journalist booked a stay at one of the listed quarantine hotels to find out what it would be like. It doesn’t look good!

People consigned to that will not act in rational ways. If they don’t let people outside regularly for exercise then the hotels can expect anti-social behaviour, room destruction, severe flooding, fire alarm activations and more. For many people that situation is one in which they had absolutely nothing to lose.

Small, dark and depressing – the grim reality of a UK 'quarantine hotel room'

I spent the night at a hotel chain close to Heathrow Airport to get an idea of what's in store

www.telegraph.co.uk

I booked a room online, with breakfast included, for the reasonable price of £65; opting for a double over a single in the hopes that I might be able to swing a cat. No such luck. I am 5’8 in height, and could lie across the floor twice length-wise, and one-and-a-half times in width. This – measuring the wall dimensions using my body as a yardstick – was the most interesting thing I did during my 12-hour stay.

 

[3rd rail land]

A telegraph journalist booked a stay at one of the listed quarantine hotels to find out what it would be like. It doesn’t look good!

People consigned to that will not act in rational ways. If they don’t let people outside regularly for exercise then the hotels can expect anti-social behaviour, room destruction, severe flooding, fire alarm activations and more. For many people that situation is one in which they had absolutely nothing to lose.

Small, dark and depressing – the grim reality of a UK 'quarantine hotel room'

I spent the night at a hotel chain close to Heathrow Airport to get an idea of what's in store

www.telegraph.co.uk

That is one depressing looking room. Apart from the small size it looks quite dark, thanks in small part to the window being so high up. That room also has a very cheap look about it.
I'd hesitate to book that room to crash for a few hours shuteye at 1am after a night out down the pub let along stay 10 days there.

 

[Simon11]

Right, so we should imprison anyone who tests negative three times (3 days before travel, and 2 and 8 days after travel) - on the basis that the entire country they've come from may or may not have a variant somewhere and therefore they may or may not be carrying it.

Meanwhile, it's OK to release people known to have had a recent Covid-positive close contact, on the say-so of one test.

Oh, and the self-isolation regulations are sufficient to contain known domestic variants, but imprisonment is required to fight potential foreign variants.

Hmm, I'm detecting just the slightest whiff of double standards.

You seem to ignore the fact that the Uk variant caused major problems for us and has taken several months to control. It is now going the right way and we know vaccinations provide protection.

Do you really want other major variants, such as the type in South Africa where no one has immunity in the UK and results of vaccination trials aren't brilliant? Two weeks staying in a hotel room for people flying here isn't a major sacrifice compared to the risk of the whole UK locking down for three months if they bring anything dangerous into the UK.

And on the issue of being negative three times, there was a case in NZ where they tested positive only after the two weeks...

 

[Ediswan]

A telegraph journalist booked a stay at one of the listed quarantine hotels to find out what it would be like. It doesn’t look good!

Perhaps we should wait and see which rooms are actually used. By contrast, BBC are showing the usually prized rooms with a Heathrow runway view. Social media should soon report back on reality. I will be watching for Wifi charges.

 

[Bantamzen]

You seem to ignore the fact that the Uk variant caused major problems for us and has taken several months to control. It is now going the right way and we know vaccinations provide protection.

Do you really want other major variants, such as the type in South Africa where no one has immunity in the UK and results of vaccination trials aren't brilliant? Two weeks staying in a hotel room for people flying here isn't a major sacrifice compared to the risk of the whole UK locking down for three months if they bring anything dangerous into the UK.

And on the issue of being negative three times, there was a case in NZ where they tested positive only after the two weeks...

And if the variant is already here? Besides the Oxford vaccine may not be quiet as effective against the SA variant, but that doesn't mean it is ineffective by any means. Its time to stop panicking every time a new variant is discussed. The vaccine helps the immune system to respond not just to a specific variant, but a range of proteins many variants produce when reproducing their RNA.

 

[Yew]

You seem to ignore the fact that the Uk variant caused major problems for us and has taken several months to control. It is now going the right way and we know vaccinations provide protection.

If vaccines provide protection, what about the concern?

Do you really want other major variants, such as the type in South Africa where no one has immunity in the UK and results of vaccination trials aren't brilliant?

There is significant evidence of cross immunity between SARS, other coroanviruses, and Covid; the statement you make about nobody having immunity is obviously wrong. Furthermore vaccine trials show no evidence of reduced efficacy against serious infections. We're doing this to stop hospitalisation and death, not to stop people having a cough for a few days.

Two weeks staying in a hotel room for people flying here isn't a major sacrifice compared to the risk of the whole UK locking down for three months if they bring anything dangerous into the UK.

You're presenting a false choice here. There's nothing to suggest that is either a realistic scenario, not that those are the only two options. Indeed, our own pandemic plans explicitly stated that closing the borders is ineffective, as it's highly unlikely we can close them before the virus (or any new 'variant') enters the country.

And if the variant is already here? Besides the Oxford vaccine may not be quiet as effective against the SA variant, but that doesn't mean it is ineffective by any means. Its time to stop panicking every time a new variant is discussed. The vaccine helps the immune system to respond not just to a specific variant, but a range of proteins many variants produce when reproducing their RNA.

Indeed, the vaccine targets the spike protein, which is the defining feature of coronaviruses.

 

[Watershed]

You seem to ignore the fact that the Uk variant caused major problems for us and has taken several months to control. It is now going the right way and we know vaccinations provide protection.

Do you really want other major variants, such as the type in South Africa where no one has immunity in the UK and results of vaccination trials aren't brilliant? Two weeks staying in a hotel room for people flying here isn't a major sacrifice compared to the risk of the whole UK locking down for three months if they bring anything dangerous into the UK.

And on the issue of being negative three times, there was a case in NZ where they tested positive only after the two weeks...

Variants can and will naturally independently develop similar, advantageous mutatations. The virus can and will get through even the tightest of hotel quarantine systems, as seen in Australia & NZ. The idea that (effectively) closing the borders is going to stop new variants is simply fanciful.

The point remains - if one test is enough to allow someone to leave self-isolation after close contact with someone who has tested positive, then it is enough for incoming travellers.

And if it is not necessary to send everyone in a given area into hotel quarantine if variants are detected, then it is no more necessary to impose that on incoming travellers from similarly afflicted areas.

This is utterly base political dog-whistling and distraction blame-games - "if all those stupid forriners/influencers/[insert latest group subject to public scorn] wouldn't come here we would be just fine". Frankly, it's sad to see so many people fall for it.

 

[Cdd89]

Two weeks staying in a hotel room for people flying here isn't a major sacrifice compared to the risk of the whole UK locking down for three months if they bring anything dangerous into the UK.

How do you feel about known positive “variant” cases contracted within the U.K.? Those are people confirmed to have a variant, not merely suspected of it despite multiple negative tests. Currently the legislation permits nothing more than home quarantine. Should they be chucked in a hotel room on the basis that they cannot be trusted? Should they be charged £1750? If not, why not?

 

[Bikeman78]

Variants can and will naturally independently develop similar, advantageous mutatations. The virus can and will get through even the tightest of hotel quarantine systems, as seen in Australia & NZ. The idea that (effectively) closing the borders is going to stop new variants is simply fanciful.

The point remains - if one test is enough to allow someone to leave self-isolation after close contact with someone who has tested positive, then it is enough for incoming travellers.

And if it is not necessary to send everyone in a given area into hotel quarantine if variants are detected, then it is no more necessary to impose that on incoming travellers from similarly afflicted areas.

This is utterly base political dog-whistling and distraction blame-games - "if all those stupid forriners/influencers/[insert latest group subject to public scorn] wouldn't come here we would be just fine". Frankly, it's sad to see so many people fall for it.

What is the end game for this? It seems bizarre that this has been introduced 11 months in. People were allowed to go abroad last summer with no sign of a vaccine.

I cannot imagine that many families will go through quarantine. Adults could take several books or watch series on Netflix etc. I have two young children. 10 days trapped in a hotel room would be hell on earth.

 

[Watershed]

What is the end game for this?

That's a question that no-one has been able to satisfactorily answer throughout this pandemic.

It underscores politicians' refusal to be straightforward with the population, and to make clear that they can't prevent all of society's ills (at best, they can moderate and manage them), and in fact that it is unreasonable to expect any such thing of them.

This issue manifests itself through ever-changing goalposts - "slow the spread" ... "save the NHS" ... "significant normality by November" ... "vaccinate the over 70s" ... "vaccinate everyone" ...

The madness will, sadly, continue until someone makes the politicians spit out the "shocking" truth.

 

[35B]

Right, so we should imprison anyone who tests negative three times (3 days before travel, and 2 and 8 days after travel) - on the basis that the entire country they've come from may or may not have a variant somewhere and therefore they may or may not be carrying it.

Meanwhile, it's OK to release people known to have had a recent Covid-positive close contact, on the say-so of one test.

Oh, and the self-isolation regulations are sufficient to contain known domestic variants, but imprisonment is required to fight potential foreign variants.

Hmm, I'm detecting just the slightest whiff of double standards.

I agree, these are inconsistent. They are also being applied to people who choose to travel abroad against advice, as opposed to those who have quite possibly have no control over their circumstances.

Different risk profiles lead to different responses.