Surely the government should ban traveling

cognoscente

The_Rainmaker said:

cognoscente said:

The_Rainmaker said:

renegadefm said:

Which is why we need to ban all travel until its contained, and so those contained can recover, then normal service can be resumed.  Why wait until its too late then panic?

So are we to presume you have stopped leaving the house and having all provisions delivered until it is all over?  No thought not.

Why on earth would they if they live in an area with no reported cases? I'm certainly not going to.

It looks like the official policy is not to try and delay the inevitable. "If it's going to happen, bring it on and let's get it done with" seems to be the tactic and for those isolating themselves as a form of prevention, you are very probably only delaying the inevitable. It's postponement, not avoidance.

*Apologies to those at heightened risk but it is time to look at it honestly.*
Oh and BTW, most of us have close family at increased risk even if we ourselves might not be.

I am just trying to highlight the absurdity of his whole premise.

Ban travelling...............aye right!

There would have been absolutely nothing absurd about it if the Chinese had banned travel faster, internationally too and if globally no travel from China had been allowed without strict quarantine. There would almost certainly not have been the spread of infection we see today. Travel is the sole reason for global infection.

Most international travel is unnecessary though. Holidays certainly are not necessary and there are very few reasons why meetings need to be face-to-face with current technology. There is no reason that personal travel could not be banned yet allow international trade could continue other than procrastination.

It is obvious that this was never the plan in case of global pandemic.
Be grateful this infection is reasonably mild because the next one might not be, and now we know that on an international basis nobody actually cares about who lives or who dies as a result of infection.
Unless of course plans are different in the event of a higher-death-rate scenario.
But that's above our pay grade to know.

John_

renegadefm said:

Nebulous2 said:

Singapore Airlines cut over 3000 flights about a week ago. Nothing to do with bans, simply reduced demand. If your flight has been cut you go on the next one. 

Its not as easy as that. We need to contain this before it slowely wipes out human kind. 

How exactly will a virus with about a 2% fatality level wipe out humankind?

MobileSaver

cognoscente said:
Most international travel is unnecessary though. Holidays certainly are not necessary and there are very few reasons why meetings need to be face-to-face with current technology. There is no reason that personal travel could not be banned

Eating out at a restaurant is unnecessary. Going to the local pub for a drink is unnecessary. Going to church is unnecessary. For most people in the UK, physically going to the supermarket for a weekly shop is unnecessary. Should we ban all these things too to try to prevent further infections?

Ultimately banning all these things will negatively effect practically every person in the UK compared to currently just 0.00007% of the UK population testing positive for the disease even without those bans in place. Given that 80% of those infected will only experience mild symptoms anyway, your/renegadefm's and AG47/Silvertooth's ridiculously over the top scaremongering should be treated with the derision it deserves.

cognoscente

MobileSaver said:

cognoscente said:
Most international travel is unnecessary though. Holidays certainly are not necessary and there are very few reasons why meetings need to be face-to-face with current technology. There is no reason that personal travel could not be banned

Eating out at a restaurant is unnecessary. Going to the local pub for a drink is unnecessary. Going to church is unnecessary. For most people in the UK, physically going to the supermarket for a weekly shop is unnecessary. Should we ban all these things too to try to prevent further infections?

Ultimately banning all these things will negatively effect practically every person in the UK compared to currently just 0.00007% of the UK population testing positive for the disease even without those bans in place. Given that 80% of those infected will only experience mild symptoms anyway, your/renegadefm's and AG47/Silvertooth's ridiculously over the top scaremongering should be treated with the derision it deserves.

None of the things you mention would put you at risk of illness until the virus has spread - which is due to it being imported.
Again, the only reason we have seen this virus in the UK is because it has been imported.
By international travellers.
Those reading this thread like you can be in as much denial as they want and as nasty as they want (though such nastiness is both unwanted and unwarranted) but that is fact and it has absolutely nothing to do with scaremongering.
The only derision here should be directed at those people who refuse to accept such basic facts.

Perhaps when you've calmed down a little and considered the facts you can maybe tell us what small percentage a ban on international travel would affect and compare that small inconvenience to the number of deaths and those suffering ongoing long-term effects of this virus.

movilogo

Those who are worried, can confine themselves in their homes - rather than trying to lock the whole world.

MobileSaver

cognoscente said:
Perhaps when you've calmed down a little and considered the facts you can maybe tell us what small percentage a ban on international travel would affect and compare that small inconvenience to the number of deaths and those suffering ongoing long-term effects of this virus.

The facts are that as of now, with no ban in place, only 53 people out of a population of 66 million have tested positive for the virus; that is less than 0.0001% of the population.

Compare that with the fact that there are around 70 million trips overseas by UK residents each year and you think a ban on international travel would affect only a small percentage?!?! You are utterly deluded and completely wrong.

bhupinder

MobileSaver said:

cognoscente said:
Perhaps when you've calmed down a little and considered the facts you can maybe tell us what small percentage a ban on international travel would affect and compare that small inconvenience to the number of deaths and those suffering ongoing long-term effects of this virus.

The facts are that as of now, with no ban in place, only 53 people out of a population of 66 million have tested positive for the virus; that is less than 0.0001% of the population.

Compare that with the fact that there are around 70 million trips overseas by UK residents each year and you think a ban on international travel would affect only a small percentage?!?! You are utterly deluded and completely wrong.

It' is really not nice to call somebody deluded when it' is quite true and correct that there would be no infection in Britain at all if people had not returned from overseas carrying this infection but now the proverbial milk has already been spilled. Seventy million trips sounds like a lot but really it is each and every person in Britain taking one trip abroad a year mostly for holidays and lots of these are already being affected because of infection so we see already a ban on travel to some places already and that will increase not decrease.
It is too late now to ban travel for most places and I think rising infection is inevitable but more so if we keep letting infected people travel freely.

penners324

Ludicrous suggestion. It'd send vast swathes of the economy into meltdown which eventually would cause far more damage than the virus.

SpiderLegs

Sooner we all get a bit of exposure and build up some resistance the better.

MoneySeeker1

movilogo said:

If you are the govt. decide what you'd do
[1] Close everything, suffer huge economic loss, lots of people (in gig economy) out of job, they start claiming on benefits, GDP down, panic everywhere.
[2] Show some token actions. Keep everything open. Let old people die (saves NHS billions). 

In reality, the old/retired people should confine themselves in their homes for their own good. Younger generation should get on with life as usual.

Conflating "old" with "retired"!!!!

 Well, lots of people are retired - but that doesnt mean we are old as well.

So - speaking as someone who is retired, but isn't old - I have every intention of carrying on with "life as usual". 

There are many retired people that don't have chronic illness and aren't "frail" and my cynical suspicion is that there might be some in the NHS (and otherwise) that might be thinking telling us to stay home means we won't be there in hospitals complaining we have this illness and then going on to state "The Equality Act (2010?) states age discrimination is illegal and so don't put us to the back of the queue because we aren't 'economically useful' any longer in your opinion. Our lives matter just as much as anyone elses".