To think it’s dumb that international holidays are being encouraged in the middle of a pandemic

[Redolent]

AIBU to think is probably the part of the coronavirus pandemic that will lead to WTF reactions in future history books? A world clinging desperately to its globalized ways and unwilling to countenance altering them even in the midst of a crisis like this.

European countries have just gone through months of brutal economic and social lockdowns, with the goal of suppressing the virus. They’ve just experienced, at a huge cost, what it’s like to have the virus slowly and imperceptibly land within their borders via air travel.

And yet, just as the virus starts circulating at low levels, they all decide to open up their borders to each other again, in these supposedly safe ‘air corridors’. Enroute to their destinations, their citizens flock to public transport, then to busy airports and planes, where they sit for hours in the midst of other passengers, then on to their destinations, where they mix with other citizens coming in from all over the world too, in social and alcohol-fuelled conditions. In the meantime, governments - like the UK - have vowed that any outbreaks in other countries will mean that returning tourists may have to suddenly quarantine for two weeks upon their return home. It’s a panicked and volatile strategy, subject to a monitoring of the spread of the virus in multiple other countries. Of course it’s bound to go wrong.

TLDR: close the borders. Internationalism can wait.

I could address your points regarding transportation and the coal industry separately @walkaround but neither of them appears to provide any support for international holidays during an active pandemic?

My point is that we need to fly less in the future - and not fly at all during a pandemic - unless essential. Just to be clear.

Greece have decided that for the time being. I don’t blame them either - this country sounds more and more like the US, even down to blaming the apparent spike in cases in Leicester on testing more (or too much, as Trump would have it). I think countries letting in UK citizens are taking a big risk, I don’t think UK citizens are risking more going to those lower risk countries than they would be going to another UK destination on holiday. It wouldn’t surprise me if Scotland started making noises about not wanting to have to let the bloody English in.

Cartesiandebt - you raised coal mining, not me. As for flying during a pandemic - my point is not that everyone should be doing it. My point, as I have made clear several times, is that it is illogical to argue overseas travel to safer countries is too risky, but UK holidays are somehow not risky.

If the govt advice is that it is safe why do you think I need to go further and not travel? If you think the govt is wrong then you are more than entitled to come to your own risk assessment. But I am happy to rely on the govt view. What’s so wrong with that? I cannot WAIT to travel and see family in a European country.

My point, as I have made clear several times, is that it is illogical to argue overseas travel to safer countries is too risky, but UK holidays are somehow not risky.

It’s less about personal risk (although I’d consider risk to parents if staying with family) and more about questioning whether international travel is a good idea atm.

And I’d say crammed on planes is a good way to spread virus.

Also visiting safe countries is obviously worse for them than the visitor as someone will bring in the virus. Obviously that’s their decision but somewhere like Greece, Aus and NZ are right to be careful.

MarshaBradyo - you can say what you like, but you don’t have any scientific back up for there being a major virus transmission problem on aeroplane flights. Data was collected during the time of repatriation flights and it didn’t indicate that covid 19 was being spread liberally amongst passengers during flights. Train, tube and bus journeys are far more dangerous, with people getting on and off all the time with no cleaning in between each passenger, no air filtration systems, passengers more likely to be facing each other, less ability to control overcrowding, or police mask wearing, etc.

Well yeh of course I can that’s the point.

How did the virus travel at the start Walk?

Canada have closed their borders. The only people allowed in, are those who normally live in Canada & Diplomats. On arrival they have to isolate for 2 weeks.

Crowded indoor spaces are particularly vulnerable to spread, why are planes excluded?

MarshaBradyo - you mean, how do people catch the virus? By doing all the things they are currently allowed to do in the UK, or will be allowed to do in the next few days. Do you think we should stop people going on UK holidays, going to pubs, getting their haircut, etc?

No I mean how did international travel spread it so effectively at the start. I do t blame countries like Greece with 191 iirc deaths closing to U.K. visitors.

Don’t blame. Australia too.

MarshaBradyo - planes are not excluded, they are just lower risk than other enclosed spaces people are still allowed to use/are about to be allowed to do - eg getting the train to holiday in Cornwall, going to the cinema.

MarshaBradyo - by transporting people from one place to another and letting them socialise when they got there. Like people getting the train to Cornwall...

How are planes ‘lower risk’ than other enclosed spaces?

They’re much smaller than cinemas, much more enclosed than trains (can’t open windows).

LaurieMarlow - I’ve already answered that question at 21:14.

I'm not convinced I'm more at risk going abroad for a week than I would be in my local pub next weekend. And to catch the virus you have to be exposed to someone who has it. In my local region there are nearly half a million people. No-one has tested positive for nearly a week and a half.

I'm not dismissing the risks. But I'm not convinced I'm less at risk going to a European country for a holiday than other parts of the UK.

These are also the key considerations for airplanes, says Dr. Julian Tang, a professor in the Department of Respiratory Sciences at the University of Leicester, where it is distance rather than air cleaning that is the key issue:

“Airplanes have good ventilation systems but if you’re sitting side-by-side next to a stranger within talking distance, then that may not leave time for the ventilation in the roof and the walls of the plane to change the air between you. That means local airborne transmission will not necessarily be prevented.”

Planes do have good ventilation but proximity still the issue.

Sorry - that should have said more at risk!

Walkaround if you were making the decision for NZ or Aus would you let people fly in no quarantine?

MarshaBradyo - if flights were actually full and people not wearing masks, and screening pre-flight hadn’t picked up people coughing and spluttering, and strangers were facing each other to chat, then yes, there would be a risk, as there is on the train, bus and tube (where there is no air diltration, no pre-screening, nobody enforcing wearing a mask, etc). If you want to stop all overseas flying, you should also stop UK holidaying.

I’m more interested in high to low country transmission so no I wouldn’t stop UK holidaying.

Is it a good idea for a country like Aus to let U.K. in, no quarantine? I’d say no. Better for them to do their own arrangements with NZ (if NZ will have them, they are lower).

MarshaBradyo - it is getting incredibly boring having to repeat myself. No, if I were a country with a lower rate than the UK that wasn’t hugely reliant on tourism to sustain my economy, I would not let Brits in at the moment. That doesn’t stop the fact that from a British perspective, I’m not putting the UK more at risk by travelling to lower risk countries that have made the calculation to let me in.

Another way - just because a Londoner can take virus to Cornwall it doesn’t mean Aus should make worse decisions.

Sure fine for us. Do you not consider the bigger picture ever?

I guess not. Boring here too, adieu.