Quarantine

[Howardh]

Is the quarantine perhaps being used as a deterrent to attempt to discourage international travel, thus reducing the likelihood of incoming international infections and encourage more people to use the UK tourism and holiday sectors instead?

By that token it also prevents non-UK tourists coming here and spending their currency on us. Under normal times, wonder how much we spend overseas in comparison to whay overseas spend here?

 

[Ken H]

This is true, seems to be conveniently forgotten when start going on about increasing cases.

should quote number of +ve cases per 1000 tests done.
But remember 20% of the tests could be a false +ve
Of you test 100 and 50 people are +ve, then that could mean 30 are infected and 20 are false +ve

But if you test 100, and 21 test +ve. That could mean 20 false +ves and 1 actual case.

 

[Domh245]

It's annoying, but absolutely everyone can afford to lose the money paid out by not going because it's sunk money. If you don't go on holiday, stay at home and watch TV or take local walks instead (i.e. free stuff) you've spent it, if you do go on holiday you've spent it. You might not be able to afford a replacement holiday, but that's different.

Easy to say from a position of financial stability! I find it difficult to believe that telling someone that they're £1000s of pounds out of pocket but that they should just suck it up and go for a walk locally is in any way acceptable. If they were going to sit at home, watch TV, and walk around their local area for the umpteenth time, they shouldn't be also paying for the privilege.

I'm willing to bet that when you pay for something and fail to receive it, you don't just suck it up and carry on, it's straight to S75/delay repay/etc

 

[Mikey C]

By that token it also prevents non-UK tourists coming here and spending their currency on us. Under normal times, wonder how much we spend overseas in comparison to whay overseas spend here?

We're significant net spenders overseas

While there are lots of jobs in the UK based on overseas visitors, we're not so dependant on them. Indeed it's the general Covid restrictions which are the main problem, as UK visitors would otherwise replace foreign visitors whether it's the Tower of London, Stratford-upon-avon, Edinburgh Castle etc

 

[Reliablebeam]

We're significant net spenders overseas

While there are lots of jobs in the UK based on overseas visitors, we're not so dependant on them. Indeed it's the general Covid restrictions which are the main problem, as UK visitors would otherwise replace foreign visitors whether it's the Tower of London, Stratford-upon-avon, Edinburgh Castle etc

Interestingly, I went for a visit to the Tower of London quite recently and was shocked how dead it was. It was actually explained to me by one of the staff that the spend profile between domestic and foreign tourists is quite different. Reading between the lines, it sounds like foreign tourists are more willing to shell out on extras such as tat in gift shops and paid exhibitions and so forth..

 

[Bletchleyite]

Easy to say from a position of financial stability! I find it difficult to believe that telling someone that they're £1000s of pounds out of pocket but that they should just suck it up and go for a walk locally is in any way acceptable.

Which is rather different from whether you can afford to lose money you have already spent. That's about how bad it feels to have spent out on something you didn't get. But the problem here is that it's not your fault or the tour operator's fault that you haven't got it, it's the fault of a virus nobody knew existed 12 months ago.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Indeed, but shouldn't your household be back to square one (ie March) where isolation meant the lady isolates in one room and is fed with food left at the door?

Yes, I fully understand that isn't gonna happen!!

I'll leave you to make that suggestion to her - if you like...

 

[Howardh]

I'll leave you to make that suggestion to her - if you like...

No thanks!!!

 

[Belperpete]

Interestingly, I went for a visit to the Tower of London quite recently and was shocked how dead it was. It was actually explained to me by one of the staff that the spend profile between domestic and foreign tourists is quite different. Reading between the lines, it sounds like foreign tourists are more willing to shell out on extras such as tat in gift shops and paid exhibitions and so forth..

I think the places visited are quite different too. How many of us in the UK want to go and spend a fortnight in sunny London? A day, yes, or perhaps even a weekend, but for a week or a fortnight most are looking for somewhere with a beach. Whereas how many overseas visitors were coming here for the seaside?

 

[AdamWW]

I think the places visited are quite different too. How many of us in the UK want to go and spend a fortnight in sunny London? A day, yes, or perhaps even a weekend, but for a week or a fortnight most are looking for somewhere with a beach. Whereas how many overseas visitors were coming here for the seaside?

I wouldn't have thought that many overseas visitors spent two weeks in London unless using it as a base for exploration. Could be wrong though.

 

[Reliablebeam]

I think the places visited are quite different too. How many of us in the UK want to go and spend a fortnight in sunny London? A day, yes, or perhaps even a weekend, but for a week or a fortnight most are looking for somewhere with a beach. Whereas how many overseas visitors were coming here for the seaside?

Absolutely - although conversely it doesn't necessarily scale that people will transfer their 'holiday' budget directly to a 'staycation' - my relatives back in Wales are suggesting that folk from Manchester and the like are simply loading up their cars there and tootling down the coast for a day or possibly a bit of camping.

I note the French and Dutch have retaliated, according the Torygraph.

 

[Yew]

You'll probably have a lifespan of something like 65-100 years. A couple of years is short-term.

If this idiocy keeps going on, your estimates are rather optimistic.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Listening to the interviews with people dashing back from France on the BBC news this lunchtime, I wonder whether the risks of the virus have been weighed up against those from road traffic accidents? It seems pretty clear to me that people have been driving through the night across France at 100mph to beat the deadline.
Why didn't they notify the public of quarantine a week so earlier than they actually did and then give people a few days in which to make their return travel?

 

[bramling]

I think the places visited are quite different too. How many of us in the UK want to go and spend a fortnight in sunny London? A day, yes, or perhaps even a weekend, but for a week or a fortnight most are looking for somewhere with a beach. Whereas how many overseas visitors were coming here for the seaside?

I’ve never really got the thing with beaches. I’m as happy as anyone to enjoy a hotel room with a sea view and sound of breaking waves (though how many people go on holiday to the seaside and then moan about seagulls waking them up?), however if I think about the last few holidays we’ve had to seaside locations the amount of time we’ve actually spent on the beach is minimal.

 

[bramling]

If this idiocy keeps going on, your estimates are rather optimistic.

People aren’t going to tolerate all this for much longer.

 

[duncanp]

People aren’t going to tolerate all this for much longer.

I certainly hope not.

 

[LAX54]

Presumably the crew of flights from France don't have to quarantine because they have a uniform on which prevents them infecting people?

Indeed there are loads of exemptions, really in a nutshell, it is ONLY Holidaymakers that will be at risk from the virus, a virus that is not as bad as the 2018 one ! and of course if you do get it you only stand a 99.98% chance of surviving

 

[Huntergreed]

Listening to the interviews with people dashing back from France on the BBC news this lunchtime, I wonder whether the risks of the virus have been weighed up against those from road traffic accidents? It seems pretty clear to me that people have been driving through the night across France at 100mph to beat the deadline.
Why didn't they notify the public of quarantine a week so earlier than they actually did and then give people a few days in which to make their return travel?

Sturgeon went over this in her briefing, she said that this is what the UK government was wanting to do, but the devolved nations agreed that it was best to impose it sooner for 'public health reasons' (she said something along the lines 'if you're imposing a quarantine to mitigate a risk, there's no point allowing time for that risk to present itself before you put into place the relevant mitigation'

 

[Mikey C]

I think the places visited are quite different too. How many of us in the UK want to go and spend a fortnight in sunny London? A day, yes, or perhaps even a weekend, but for a week or a fortnight most are looking for somewhere with a beach. Whereas how many overseas visitors were coming here for the seaside?

In normal circumstances more British people would be taking advantage of the lack of foreign visitors. Not staying for a week of course, but significant numbers taking day trips and indeed short breaks to see the "tourist sights" would make up much of the slack

Interestingly, I went for a visit to the Tower of London quite recently and was shocked how dead it was. It was actually explained to me by one of the staff that the spend profile between domestic and foreign tourists is quite different. Reading between the lines, it sounds like foreign tourists are more willing to shell out on extras such as tat in gift shops and paid exhibitions and so forth..

That makes sense.

 

[Mikey C]

I wouldn't have thought that many overseas visitors spent two weeks in London unless using it as a base for exploration. Could be wrong though.

I'm pretty sure they'd spend the majority of their time in London, there's a LOT to see and do. Say 2/3 of the time in London, 1/3 on day trips like Stonehenge (which seems disproportionately popular!)

 

[island]

You are told not to go out for any reason if you test positive, not even to a shop; you must use deliveries, assistance from others dropping off to your door (but zero contact) or the NHS Volunteer Responders or similar if you're really stuck. Is that not the case for quarantining?

Is this actually enforced though? I would hope that anyone who decided to break this was pursued to the full extent of the law, but is there any way of actually enforcing this or is it 'trust' based, if so that's a big problem.

If you are contacted by test & trace and asked to self-isolate, this is entirely a voluntary request. There is no legal basis and you cannot be penalized for not following the request.

If you return from a non-exempt country the self-isolation is mandatory, and unless you have an exemption for whatever reason, you can be fined (£1,000 on the spot or up to £5,000 in court) if you go out. You are allowed to go out for food or medicine if there is no other practicable way of obtaining these.

 

[adc82140]

So if you're rather rich (say footballer rich) you can just see the £5000 as a piffling amount, and factor it in to your travel plans. Once again the government haven't thought something through. Should be a percentage of earnings.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Sturgeon went over this in her briefing, she said that this is what the UK government was wanting to do, but the devolved nations agreed that it was best to impose it sooner for 'public health reasons' (she said something along the lines 'if you're imposing a quarantine to mitigate a risk, there's no point allowing time for that risk to present itself before you put into place the relevant mitigation'

Whatever the reason, it's hugely inconvenient and unfair to many people. Not everyone who travels abroad is on holiday or a pleasure jaunt. My wife goes there to make sure her elderly mother is taking her medication and attending hospital appointments.

 

[Crossover]

Oh dear, so it's full of holes, then.

Quarantine should mean quarantine - you are treated as infected. Better if it was in a guarded hotel, with food and medication arranged for you.

I believe this was the case in parts of the UAE, a month or two ago at least

 

[Belperpete]

Why didn't they notify the public of quarantine a week so earlier than they actually did and then give people a few days in which to make their return travel?

With a virus that escalates exponentially, a week is a long time. If they waited a week, things could have got a lot, lot worse in the affected countries. For example, it is now widely accepted that the week's delay in imposing lockdown in this country is the main reason we had one of the worst infection rates in Europe, for example.

To be honest, I was surprised that they didn't impose it sooner - it has been well reported that the numbers in France have been rising for awhile now. Once again, I think our government are dithering for too long.

There are a number of other European countries whose numbers are well over the 20/100,000 mark that our government are using as the benchmark, that must surely be candidates for taking off the safe list. I certainly wouldn't now be booking a holiday to one of those places. Unfortunately I already have one booked, so I will be looking very, very careful at whether the number is rising or falling before I decide to go.

ECDC Data

EU/EEA and the UK	Sum of Cases	Sum of Deaths	14-day cumulative number of COVID-19 cases per 100 000	14-day cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths per 100 000
Spain	337334	28605	110.6	0.3
United_Kingdom	313798	46706	17.3	1.1
Italy	252235	35231	8.4	0.2
Germany	221413	9225	15.3	0.1
France	209365	30388	34.0	0.2
Sweden	83852	5776	36.7	0.4
Belgium	76098	9916	58.7	0.6
Romania	66631	2860	87.8	2.9
Netherlands	61149	6156	41.6	0.1
Poland	54487	1844	24.9	0.4
Portugal	53548	1770	26.1	0.4
Ireland	26929	1774	18.4	0.2
Austria	22730	725	19.4	0.1
Czechia	19401	391	28.7	0.1
Denmark	15214	621	25.6	0.1
Bulgaria	14069	484	37.8	1.6
Norway	9783	257	11.5	0.0
Finland	7683	333	4.7	0.1
Luxembourg	7368	122	122.5	1.3
Greece	6381	221	18.5	0.2
Croatia	6050	161	24.0	0.4
Hungary	4813	607	3.2	0.1
Slovakia	2739	31	8.7	0.1
Slovenia	2332	124	9.3	0.3
Lithuania	2330	81	9.6	0.0
Estonia	2174	63	9.3	0.0
Iceland	1976	10	29.1	0.0
Latvia	1307	32	4.1	0.1
Cyprus	1305	20	25.2	0.1
Malta	1144	9	84.1	0.0
Liechtenstein	91	1	5.2	0.0

 

[AM9]

... Why didn't they notify the public of quarantine a week so earlier than they actually did and then give people a few days in which to make their return travel?

The purpose of imposing a quarantine to all inboard travellers from areas where the infection rate is higher than the UK is to restrict the increased load on the UK population. So if the government had said, "the deadline is 04:00 next Saturday (22nd), the not only would there be the tourists who are scheduled to come home by then anyway, but the majority of the estimated 500,000 presently there would also rush back. That would be nearly 1% of the UK population coming from an area with higher infection rates. Governments that are managing quarantines not only have support from epidemiologists, scientists, infectious disease specialists, etc., - they also make extensive use of behavioural psychologists who advise on how the population will react to different measures. After all, those travelling to France can hardly say that there was no chance of a quarantine from many of the mainland European nations when they departed, and they should have regarded it as a risk that they may be caught out.
I'm sure that the experts would have advised that extending the deadline beyond 36 hrs would expose the UK to a higher risk of importing new cases, as happened in March when Johnson delayed the imposition of the essential shopping only and stay at home rules.
I imagine that the 'COVID-19 cabinet' were in detailed discussion with the airlines and ferries involved to establish just how many extra tickets could be accepted before announcing the deadline.

 

[Bantamzen]

%

With a virus that escalates exponentially, a week is a long time. If they waited a week, things could have got a lot, lot worse in the affected countries. For example, it is now widely accepted that the week's delay in imposing lockdown in this country is the main reason we had one of the worst infection rates in Europe, for example.

To be honest, I was surprised that they didn't impose it sooner - it has been well reported that the numbers in France have been rising for awhile now. Once again, I think our government are dithering for too long.

There are a number of other European countries whose numbers are well over the 20/100,000 mark that our government are using as the benchmark, that must surely be candidates for taking off the safe list. I certainly wouldn't now be booking a holiday to one of those places. Unfortunately I already have one booked, so I will be looking very, very careful at whether the number is rising or falling before I decide to go.

ECDC Data

So why is 19/100,000 (or 0.019%) of the population potentially infected an acceptable level whilst 20/100,000 (or 0.020%) a risk? Is this some magic percentage that suddenly increases risk exponentially? I ask because I am fascinated why people fixate on numbers like this.

The purpose of imposing a quarantine to all inboard travellers from areas where the infection rate is higher than the UK is to restrict the increased load on the UK population. So if the government had said, "the deadline is 04:00 next Saturday (22nd), the not only would there be the tourists who are scheduled to come home by then anyway, but the majority of the estimated 500,000 presently there would also rush back. That would be nearly 1% of the UK population coming from an area with higher infection rates. Governments that are managing quarantines not only have support from epidemiologists, scientists, infectious disease specialists, etc., - they also make extensive use of behavioural psychologists who advise on how the population will react to different measures. After all, those travelling to France can hardly say that there was no chance of a quarantine from many of the mainland European nations when they departed, and they should have regarded it as a risk that they may be caught out.
I'm sure that the experts would have advised that extending the deadline beyond 36 hrs would expose the UK to a higher risk of importing new cases, as happened in March when Johnson delayed the imposition of the essential shopping only and stay at home rules.
I imagine that the 'COVID-19 cabinet' were in detailed discussion with the airlines and ferries involved to establish just how many extra tickets could be accepted before announcing the deadline.

Judging by the response from the travel industry to both the latest, and previous decisions I think you are completely wrong about the government having any kind of discussions with them. In fact I'd be surprised if this disaster of a government could discuss anything amongst themselves in anything more complicated than a series of clicks and whistles.

 

[AM9]

...Judging by the response from the travel industry to both the latest, and previous decisions I think you are completely wrong about the government having any kind of discussions with them. In fact I'd be surprised if this disaster of a government could discuss anything amongst themselves in anything more complicated than a series of clicks and whistles.

The travel industry is just another group of commercial entities. They will say whatever they think is in their businesses' interest. They haven't said that the Government didn't consult them, but if the action wasn't their preferred option they might prefer to make it might like they weren't

 

[AM9]

... So why is 19/100,000 (or 0.019%) of the population potentially infected an acceptable level whilst 20/100,000 (or 0.020%) a risk? Is this some magic percentage that suddenly increases risk exponentially? I ask because I am fascinated why people fixate on numbers like this. ...

20 per 100K is a threshold that they have decided to take action. Like it or not, whatever threshold is decided on, there are going to be marginal cases. The alternative is to set levels and then ignore them which makes measuring infections pointless.

 

[Yew]

The alternative is to set levels and then ignore them which makes measuring infections pointless.

Given the number of false positives we see from PCR testing, they are already