Partner desperate to go abroad ...

ginger_chocolate

Thrugelmir said:

ginger_chocolate said:

Thrugelmir said:

ginger_chocolate said:

Thrugelmir said:

ginger_chocolate said:

Pollycat said:

10 days on from the original post, Malta is no longer on the UK exempted list wef 04:00 tomorrow so 14 days quarantine will be necessary on return to the UK.

France and The Netherlands have also been removed, plus Monaco, Turks and Caicos, and Aruba.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53

I find this completely baffling. 

Seriously? Your holiday is more important than other peoples future health and the opening up of the wider economy (as far as it is possible). 

Not remotely. That's not what I said at all. Did you read the whole post?

I did. The UK can only control matters within it's own borders. Elsewhere identified cases are increasing at a concerning rate. Likewise French ICU admissions are on an upward trend. Who knows what the winter is going to bring either. Lots of questions but nobody has the answers. Only people themselves can minimise the risk. 

I'm just not sure how you got the impression I thought my holiday was more important than other people's health. I'm not even planning on going to France (I don't have any trips abroad planned until early November, and even then I may end up not going) - I'm just suggesting that a trip of the kind I described is probably a lot less dangerous than many of the activities that have been allowed to continue within our borders.

The difference is the numbers involved. Hundred of thousands of people are travelling abroad every week. Where as I bet Oxford Street has never been quieter since WW2. The City of London certainly is. 

I will have to trust you on that. However, all of the pubs near me are packed, and from the main "nightlife" strip in my home town you would have no idea there is a pandemic  - no masks, social distancing completely out of the window. Unfortunately the near-ban on holidays abroad means that all the nicest places in the UK have been more or less wrecked by crowds of irresponsible people - not only is there little regard for social distancing, but for some reason people seem to have forgotten how to pick up after themselves, and are camping out willy-nilly lighting fires, making noise and relieving themselves wherever they please. I don't necessarily think all of the new quarantine rules are incorrect, I just think we have bigger problems in our own back yard.

Nebulous2

ginger_chocolate said:

Ganga said:

The problem is other people will go to France and mingle with people WHO might have been in contact or be carriers of covid due to the high level in that country ,unfortunately everybody has to be treated with the same rules.In life its always the few who make things worse for the majority.

My issue is how is returning from France intrinsically any more dangerous than a lot of the things we are currently allowed to do? 
If a self-drive trip to Europe in self-catering accommodation is risky enough to merit quarantine (and, OK, maybe it is), then a typical party break in London is definitely no safer and you should have to quarantine after that too. The driving factor seems to be getting people to spend money within UK borders. And maybe that's a laudable aim - I just wish there was some honesty about it.

The problem I see is that risks are cumulative, not discrete, but rules need to be simple enough to understand. 

To illustrate that, think about the sage guy who said you can have pubs or schools, but not both. The modelling will possibly say that the increased risk from foreign holidays and the risk from pubs brings us to a level which will lead to sustained community transmission and increased numbers of hospitalisation and death.

The simple answer is to cancel the foreign holidays, not close the pubs. 

Within France there has been much more variability in risk than in the UK. Yet for everyone that goes to a low risk rural area there will be several that go to a high risk Paris. Add that on to the increased risks already present in England and it tips the balance.

silvercar

Nebulous2 said:

ginger_chocolate said:

Ganga said:

The problem is other people will go to France and mingle with people WHO might have been in contact or be carriers of covid due to the high level in that country ,unfortunately everybody has to be treated with the same rules.In life its always the few who make things worse for the majority.

My issue is how is returning from France intrinsically any more dangerous than a lot of the things we are currently allowed to do? 
If a self-drive trip to Europe in self-catering accommodation is risky enough to merit quarantine (and, OK, maybe it is), then a typical party break in London is definitely no safer and you should have to quarantine after that too. The driving factor seems to be getting people to spend money within UK borders. And maybe that's a laudable aim - I just wish there was some honesty about it.

The problem I see is that risks are cumulative, not discrete, but rules need to be simple enough to understand. 

To illustrate that, think about the sage guy who said you can have pubs or schools, but not both. The modelling will possibly say that the increased risk from foreign holidays and the risk from pubs brings us to a level which will lead to sustained community transmission and increased numbers of hospitalisation and death.

The simple answer is to cancel the foreign holidays, not close the pubs. 

Within France there has been much more variability in risk than in the UK. Yet for everyone that goes to a low risk rural area there will be several that go to a high risk Paris. Add that on to the increased risks already present in England and it tips the balance.

It isn’t cumulative, in that anyone that is abroad isn’t in UK pubs. If no one was abroad the pubs would be even more crowded, public transport will be busier etc.

Butts

A lot of the "social distancing" is complete nonsense and lacks consistency.

I have just returned from a break in Venice travelling with British Airways from Edinburgh via London Heathrow to Venice Marco Polo and back the same way.

In both Countries at the Airports they harp on about 1m or 2m rules and on the planes about an orderly boarding and exiting on arrival to maintain social distancing.

The "elephant in the room" is the seat spacing on  the plane (or lack of it) where you are 1 or 2cm from the person next to you.

Keep masks on at all times except when they bring around the free refreshments and you chow down inches from your fellow passengers.

This ludicrous hypocrisy is completely overlooked and makes a mockery of the whole business of travelling at the moment. 

Nebulous2

silvercar said:

Nebulous2 said:

ginger_chocolate said:

Ganga said:

The problem is other people will go to France and mingle with people WHO might have been in contact or be carriers of covid due to the high level in that country ,unfortunately everybody has to be treated with the same rules.In life its always the few who make things worse for the majority.

My issue is how is returning from France intrinsically any more dangerous than a lot of the things we are currently allowed to do? 
If a self-drive trip to Europe in self-catering accommodation is risky enough to merit quarantine (and, OK, maybe it is), then a typical party break in London is definitely no safer and you should have to quarantine after that too. The driving factor seems to be getting people to spend money within UK borders. And maybe that's a laudable aim - I just wish there was some honesty about it.

The problem I see is that risks are cumulative, not discrete, but rules need to be simple enough to understand. 

To illustrate that, think about the sage guy who said you can have pubs or schools, but not both. The modelling will possibly say that the increased risk from foreign holidays and the risk from pubs brings us to a level which will lead to sustained community transmission and increased numbers of hospitalisation and death.

The simple answer is to cancel the foreign holidays, not close the pubs. 

Within France there has been much more variability in risk than in the UK. Yet for everyone that goes to a low risk rural area there will be several that go to a high risk Paris. Add that on to the increased risks already present in England and it tips the balance.

It isn’t cumulative, in that anyone that is abroad isn’t in UK pubs. If no one was abroad the pubs would be even more crowded, public transport will be busier etc.

It's cumulative for the country wide risk, not for the individual risk. The school children won't be in pubs either, but that guy still insisted it was unlikely we can have pubs and schools.