AIBU to cancel holiday?

[Nostrings457]

Booked to go to Malta in May - holiday balance is due tomorrow (over 6k). Travelling with young children and 1 aduly is aged 65+

Malta has no coronavirus cases currently but who knows what will happen between now and May. I dont want to pay the balance and then risk trying to claim off insurance if we dont go.

I suppose its more a what would you do than aibu?

(I know the risk is so low, influenza kills more people etc.. but i dont want to end up in quarantine with 3 young kids somewhere either)

It’d be good if advising against unnecessary travel was up there with the hand washing message.

It's the ambiguity that people are struggling with. If we had a clear "don't travel" directive, it would be a lot easier.

COBRA meeting as we speak and so we may well get formal advice regarding travel.

Some fuckwits will still ignore it of course

Hope so Hasa

I think we all know that travel causes the virus to spread. I know the advise is ambiguous, but all Governments wanted to see whether the virus could be contained internally before calling for travel bans. I suspect it won't be long before the advise is not to travel as the Government today has said an epidemic is inevitable. Hard to know why restrictions on travel weren't put in place immediately, but now it's up to all of us to help not hinder the efforts to contain it.

My dd's school trip to Malta isn't going ahead.
There does of course need to be a proper government issued directive though, because until there is, travel insurance etc won't pay out etc. I have a study holiday booked for a group of kids and as you can imagine am getting lots of calls from parents saying we should cancel. I've had to point out that if we cancel they'll lose the flight money paid and 25% ( what the college keeps in event of "changed my mind" reasons) if we are told we can't go, then we will get both refunded.

I do wonder if part of the issue is travel insurance coping with the strain if they have to refund all cancellations if FCO said no travel.

There might be government assistance for the insurance industry if there was something as big as an international travel ban.

However, that wouldn't help many other people/mainly small companies dependent on leisure and tourism. Imagine if they banned international leisure travel for the next three months.

The impact on the accommodation, hospitality and leisure providers would break a lot of them if they lost all the Easter and May half term spend. The impact on people like that also has to be considered and travel bans have to be proportionate.

I'm sure it is Marsha. The govt will be worrying about the economic consequences for the tourist industry, the travel companies will be bricking it.

I'd go, just booked for France, I have annual travel insurance bought before corona virus left China. Unless the ferry doesn't run we will go as it's rural. Also not planning on stopping doing anything else, it's not a case of denying some people are dying/getting sick, but every year people die of flu, it will spread and be endemic just like SARS, MERS etc. Scaremongering is just pointless at this point, get on with living. The only exception is those who are immunocompromised, who do need to take extra care and we all need to practice good hygiene

I think lots of people are still booking thinking that the travel insurance will pay out if travel gets stopped. Actually many policies don't work this way and will not cover you even if the foreign office advice is not to travel.

So those still booking now or continuing to make further payments should double check their insurance.

@HasaDigaEebowai

I checked with my insurance, I'm covered because there's no travel advisory for Brittany currently. You are not covered if you book for anywhere on the fco list at time of booking

There are going to be big economic losers in this if it turns into a pandemic, which sounds likely. I think whatever happens the tourism industry is either going to lose out now (with a travel ban), or lose out later (everyone too ill and scared to go anywhere). Either way, they are not going to come out of this unscathed. I imagine at this point there will be an message from Government to avoid unnecessary travel and avoid large gatherings of people - from what I understand we need to slow the spread so that we don't end up in a position where we have hundred of thousands of people off work at the same time, either ill themselves or looking after people who are ill. That really would screw the economy and overwhelm the NHS.

We are due to go on our first family holiday in may to Disneyland Paris and I'm watching with debated breathe myself as to whether we end up not going last minute if this gets worse 😬 it's horrible really but I'm so concerned about my children's safety and health than my own

Scaremongering is just pointless at this point, get on with living
Except it isn't scaremongering. Travel causes the virus to spread. If you travel you are part of the problem. Either people are not listening to the Government or reading the WHO reports - it's very likely to be an epidemic and we all have a responsibility to slow down the spread of the virus in order not to overwhelm health services. 'Getting on with living' on the cusp of a global epidemic does not mean 'travelling for leisure'.

@Tigerlilly17

That's really informative, I've had a cold since flying through the Middle East but none of the other symptoms! Just a bog standard runny nose

I would cancel. I'm not generally an over worrier, but airports and hotels bring people together so the risk is higher. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a quarantine hotel for a fortnight.

It is scaremongering and it’s making it all a whole lot worse. It’s not the bloody bubonic plague, ffs.

It isn't scaremongering - reducing travel can only make it a whole lot better. Imagine if all those people hadn't travelled to Northern Italy over half term. Be logical.

@alsohuman you may think that making that comment about the bubonic plague shows how great you are not to be scared, but not sure the patients at the cancer unit in the UK or the elderly residents of the old peoples facility in the US who have just been exposed to the virus would agree with you. Just because you probably won't die from it doesn't mean other people aren't very high risk.

I'd say the government are right to balance the economic issues with the health issues. It's not a case of putting money ahead of health, it's long term planning and recognising that mass job losses is in itself a danger to society. Poverty being very closely linked with long term health outcomes.

I’m over 60 which is apparently “high risk”. My previous comment stands. It’s utterly ridiculous.

Well there is always going to be a few people like you @alsohuman. It's a weird thing that even though people can see the effects of the spread of the virus around the world, with cities in lock down and people dying, that they are still assuming it's not going to happen here. Even though the government tells us a full scale epidemic almost certainly will happen here, and are currently considering locking down cities and trying to slow down the spread of the virus in order that we don't overwhelm an already stretched NHS. The numbers of people seeking medical help will be inconceivable.

But if the government thought that preventing travel was the correct approach they'd already be doing it. They're being advised by experts in epidemiology presumably.

But if the government thought that preventing travel was the correct approach they’d already be doing it

I agree. Which is why I find all of this very confusing.