Indian batch of Astra Zeneca vaccine

sheramber

sueb20 said:

Well it's being debated on other forums regarding entry to Malta.

Some people say they have boarded planes OK and the batch numbers haven't been checked on arrival to Malta.

 Others have said that their airlines won't let them board. 

The new rules are effective from Tuesday so previous experience is not relevant.

TonyM19

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

silvercar

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

Not everyone wants to put up with cost of an extra test, the stress of worrying whether the result will be negative and whether it will come back in time. Especially for something that is not their fault and just a bureaucratic issue.

basill

This site looks useful at least as a guide.

https://visaguide.world/news/vaccine-checker-proof-of-immunity-for-travel/

MattMattMattUK

silvercar said:

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

Not everyone wants to put up with cost of an extra test, the stress of worrying whether the result will be negative and whether it will come back in time. Especially for something that is not their fault and just a bureaucratic issue.

The thing is, if you can afford to go on holiday you can afford the cost of the test, if you do not have enough money for the test then you do not have enough spare money for the holiday in the first place. None of this is the fault of anyone in the UK, however choosing to go on holiday abroad in the middle of an ongoing global pandemic is daft at best. It makes little sense that people do something daft, then complain about the consequences. 

lisyloo

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

In that particular example where a negative test is allowed you are correct.
However there are countries where that is not the case.

lisyloo

MattMattMattUK said:

silvercar said:

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

Not everyone wants to put up with cost of an extra test, the stress of worrying whether the result will be negative and whether it will come back in time. Especially for something that is not their fault and just a bureaucratic issue.

The thing is, if you can afford to go on holiday you can afford the cost of the test, if you do not have enough money for the test then you do not have enough spare money for the holiday in the first place. None of this is the fault of anyone in the UK, however choosing to go on holiday abroad in the middle of an ongoing global pandemic is daft at best. It makes little sense that people do something daft, then complain about the consequences. 

I don't agree with this logic.
If you have £X for a holiday and £Y for spending money, why does it automatically mean you have hundreds of pounds spare for tests? especially if it's for 4 or 5 people.
Some people might be camping or staying with family and not spending thousands.

Do bear in mind that some of us are committed to holidays we booked before the pandemic, so in that context your comments harsh are unfair. I don't think booking a holiday early 2020 before we'd heard of COVID was "daft".

people who decide to book now then yes have to accept the risks they are taking, but some of us made bookings beforehand.

MattMattMattUK

lisyloo said:

MattMattMattUK said:

silvercar said:

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

Not everyone wants to put up with cost of an extra test, the stress of worrying whether the result will be negative and whether it will come back in time. Especially for something that is not their fault and just a bureaucratic issue.

The thing is, if you can afford to go on holiday you can afford the cost of the test, if you do not have enough money for the test then you do not have enough spare money for the holiday in the first place. None of this is the fault of anyone in the UK, however choosing to go on holiday abroad in the middle of an ongoing global pandemic is daft at best. It makes little sense that people do something daft, then complain about the consequences. 

I don't agree with this logic.
If you have £X for a holiday and £Y for spending money, why does it automatically mean you have hundreds of pounds spare for tests? especially if it's for 4 or 5 people.

If you do not have a comfortable buffer, spending what you do have on a holiday is insane. It is not sensible to spend money on a holiday but to leave yourself with no reserve, which means that people should be able to afford a few hundred pounds of testing if required. 

lisyloo said:

Do bear in mind that some of us are committed to holidays we booked before the pandemic, so in that context your comments harsh are unfair. I don't think booking a holiday early 2020 before we'd heard of COVID was "daft".

Some people might have been, but many are also people who booked since the pandemic was in full flow, others seem to be those who are booking now yet complaining about the costs of testing. 

lisyloo said:

people who decide to book now then yes have to accept the risks they are taking, but some of us made bookings beforehand.

Some might, I had three holidays last year that were booked in 2019 but I could not go on, one I had refunded, one I rolled over and is now pencilled in for next year and the other I have credits with BA for the flights and a refund on the hotel. However if I was due to travel the cost of tests is what it is, part of life.

lisyloo

MattMattMattUK said:

lisyloo said:

MattMattMattUK said:

silvercar said:

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

Not everyone wants to put up with cost of an extra test, the stress of worrying whether the result will be negative and whether it will come back in time. Especially for something that is not their fault and just a bureaucratic issue.

The thing is, if you can afford to go on holiday you can afford the cost of the test, if you do not have enough money for the test then you do not have enough spare money for the holiday in the first place. None of this is the fault of anyone in the UK, however choosing to go on holiday abroad in the middle of an ongoing global pandemic is daft at best. It makes little sense that people do something daft, then complain about the consequences. 

I don't agree with this logic.
If you have £X for a holiday and £Y for spending money, why does it automatically mean you have hundreds of pounds spare for tests? especially if it's for 4 or 5 people.

If you do not have a comfortable buffer, spending what you do have on a holiday is insane. It is not sensible to spend money on a holiday but to leave yourself with no reserve, which means that people should be able to afford a few hundred pounds of testing if required. 

lisyloo said:

Do bear in mind that some of us are committed to holidays we booked before the pandemic, so in that context your comments harsh are unfair. I don't think booking a holiday early 2020 before we'd heard of COVID was "daft".

Some people might have been, but many are also people who booked since the pandemic was in full flow, others seem to be those who are booking now yet complaining about the costs of testing. 

lisyloo said:

people who decide to book now then yes have to accept the risks they are taking, but some of us made bookings beforehand.

Some might, I had three holidays last year that were booked in 2019 but I could not go on, one I had refunded, one I rolled over and is now pencilled in for next year and the other I have credits with BA for the flights and a refund on the hotel. However if I was due to travel the cost of tests is what it is, part of life.

your logic is contradictory.
On the one hand you are saying people should draw a sensible line and not spend what they can't comfortably afford.
but when they do draw a line and say "oh that's too much" you say "well you could afford X so why can't you afford x+200"
exactly because they are being sensible and drawing a line !!

You do realise many people's circs have changed beyond their control during the pandemic?

yes it is life and having lost someone to covid I am acutely aware that holidays are in the bucket of first world problems, but I think people are entitled to complain about extra costs they didn't plan for if they want to. In the end moaning is pointless and you have to get on with it, but venting can be cathartic.

I booked a holiday in Jan 2020 and I have no idea if the new flights will be affordable for our group or not. If flight prices rise it might be that some people can no longer afford to go. They'll have to deal it but they'll get a little sympathy from me for a situation that's outside of their control.

MattMattMattUK

lisyloo said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lisyloo said:

MattMattMattUK said:

silvercar said:

TonyM19 said:

I have been thinking about this.  If (and it's a big if) I travel abroad it will be to the Canary Islands (Tenerife).  Their current (and I know it could change) entry requirements are to complete a locator form, have proof of a double vaccination OR proof of a negative Covid test within 48h of flying, present proof of vaccination OR test to accommodation on arrival.

To get back to the Uk you have to have a negative Covid test within 3 days of flying, complete a locator form, have proof of double vaccination to avoid quarantine and have test on day 2 of arrival.

So would it not just mean that the person with the Indian batch vaccination should have a test 48h before flying out as insurance that they aren't going to get bounced back at the airport.  Am I missing something here?  Is this not the worst case scenario?  It's not that they are going to banned from entering the country it just means that there is another hoop to jump through.

Let's see what happens.

Not everyone wants to put up with cost of an extra test, the stress of worrying whether the result will be negative and whether it will come back in time. Especially for something that is not their fault and just a bureaucratic issue.

The thing is, if you can afford to go on holiday you can afford the cost of the test, if you do not have enough money for the test then you do not have enough spare money for the holiday in the first place. None of this is the fault of anyone in the UK, however choosing to go on holiday abroad in the middle of an ongoing global pandemic is daft at best. It makes little sense that people do something daft, then complain about the consequences. 

I don't agree with this logic.
If you have £X for a holiday and £Y for spending money, why does it automatically mean you have hundreds of pounds spare for tests? especially if it's for 4 or 5 people.

If you do not have a comfortable buffer, spending what you do have on a holiday is insane. It is not sensible to spend money on a holiday but to leave yourself with no reserve, which means that people should be able to afford a few hundred pounds of testing if required. 

lisyloo said:

Do bear in mind that some of us are committed to holidays we booked before the pandemic, so in that context your comments harsh are unfair. I don't think booking a holiday early 2020 before we'd heard of COVID was "daft".

Some people might have been, but many are also people who booked since the pandemic was in full flow, others seem to be those who are booking now yet complaining about the costs of testing. 

lisyloo said:

people who decide to book now then yes have to accept the risks they are taking, but some of us made bookings beforehand.

Some might, I had three holidays last year that were booked in 2019 but I could not go on, one I had refunded, one I rolled over and is now pencilled in for next year and the other I have credits with BA for the flights and a refund on the hotel. However if I was due to travel the cost of tests is what it is, part of life.

your logic is contradictory.
On the one hand you are saying people should draw a sensible line and not spend what they can't comfortably afford.
but when they do draw a line and say "oh that's too much" you say "well you could afford X so why can't you afford x+200"
exactly because they are being sensible and drawing a line !!

Too many people spend money on holidays when they have no or little reserve, that is not rational. If one has a comfortable enough reserve that one can contemplate spending hundreds or thousands on a holiday, then that reserve should be able to also accommodate a few hundred in testing costs. If the reserve can not accommodate that extra costs then the expenditure on the holiday does not make sense in the first place. 

lisyloo said:

You do realise many people's circs have changed beyond their control during the pandemic?

Yes, having spent much sixteen months after varying levels of restriction and having seen my income drop by 90% I am well aware that circumstances change, which is all the more reason to plan for unknowns and to have contingencies in place. In terms of holidays I have always budgeted for a minimum of £200/20% (whichever is the greater) contingency in the cost and that is with full insurance, if I can not cover that I would not spend the money, and I would not touch my emergency fund for holidays.