UK Government to ban international travel and domestic hotel stays ‘except for work’

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Libcrit says:

  1 Nov1 November 10:38

  The UK government will ban people (Londoners with foreign ancestry) to travel internationally to be with their family for Xmas???

  • Jonathan says:

    1 Nov1 November 12:44

    Yes, if we’re still in lockdown then. But those with more local family will also be banned from travelling to see family even if it’s 10 minutes up the road. This plan only works if people stop mixing with others!

    • Kate says:

      1 Nov1 November 14:23

      How do you know this? I need to go to Canada for Christmas

      • Rob says:

        1 Nov1 November 16:29

        3 Government ministers have separately said today that 2nd December is not the end date, just an aspiration if cases are down to virtually zero.

        • Jamie says:

          1 Nov1 November 20:43

          I don’t think anybody, even the members of this omnishambles government are expecting lockdown to achieve virtually zero.

  • guesswho2000 says:

    1 Nov1 November 14:16

    Australia have had the same in place since 25 March.

• chef says:

  1 Nov1 November 11:00

  I wonder what peoples attitude to non-enforcement of mask wearing would be if they were sat on a plane surrounded by people not observing the rules?

  • Harry T says:

    1 Nov1 November 11:08

    That’s the typical flying experience right now!

    • chef says:

      1 Nov1 November 11:42

      Is it really Harry? That would upset me.

      • meta says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:14

        Yes, some people didn’t wear masks and BA didn’t care. I’m coming back from Greece today and when doing online check I had to click twice to confirm that I agree wearing mask is required. Also on my way hear, it was strictly enforced. That was completely different experience from my previous 2-3 flights with BA.

      • Harry T says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:52

        Most people do follow the guidance to a degree. But a sizeable minority of people drink alcohol and talk loudly/shout to fellow passengers. A fair few others wear their mask intermittently or just around their mouth.

  • Rob says:

    1 Nov1 November 12:04

    A few weeks ago when only 1 in 5,000 were infected, any logical person wouldn’t care. Bit different at some of the current rates admittedly.

    • BLT says:

      1 Nov1 November 14:42

      That’s exactly the thought process that moves us from 1in 5000 to where we are now!

      • Nick_C says:

        1 Nov1 November 15:30

        Precisely. We are back to square one because people are stupid and selfish. You should assume that anyone outside your own household is Covid positive, and protect yourself accordingly.

        You should assume that you are Covid positive and asymptomatic, and protect people you are forced to share space with.

        One of the reasons for Johnson’s failure is that he credits the public with levels of intelligence, education, and common sense which exceed reality.

        • Lady London says:

          1 Nov1 November 16:39

          +1. Well said.

        • Ken says:

          1 Nov1 November 17:13

          Supposed intelligence and education wasn’t much good for Johnson when he was swanning round COVID riddled hospitals without a mask and shaking everyone’s hand.
          Together with an obsession with ‘the great British Pub’ , a propensity to lie and shag anything with a pulse and he doesn’t seem imbued with common sense either.

          The public need clear, consistent rules, but they need to be enforced. If people see enough others flouting the law and the police turn a blind eye, then it chips away at any kind of social cohesion.

          B & Q have someone on the door politely reminding people to wear a mask – why can’t Tesco ?

          There were places in Liverpool serving alcohol during lockdown both in the city centre and the suburbs – the Police sadly ignored it until just before lockdown was lifted.

        • Char Char says:

          1 Nov1 November 19:58

          Yeah right

      • BJ says:

        1 Nov1 November 16:01

        Exactly, compounded by the fact that your average Tom, Dick and Harry (or Tessa, Doreen and Hilda if you prefer) don’t understand risk anyway.

  • Tony says:

    1 Nov1 November 17:54

    Had two flights in recent weeks and everybody obeyed the rules.
    This is a total over reaction by a Government unable to make rational decisions.
    Eat out and come back to your office in the summer were truly mind bogglingly stupid.

• John says:

  1 Nov1 November 11:00

  “The science” really irritates me. Like they all agree and as if the majority who think lockdown is right now are even correct. History shows us they could be wrong. The abuse, insults, attacks and downright disrespect some in the scientific community have shown to the likes of Prof Gupta have endured is disgraceful. Let’s not get into the fact she and many of her kind are female & BAME.

  The way out of this is discourse. To totally dismiss the very reasonable theory that constant lockdowns will work as pseudo-science, essentially flat earthers boils my blood. What’s been tried isn’t working, we need new ideas. It’s about as progressive as the “climate emergency” maddies who forecast the only way to solve that crisis is a total shutdown of the world economy and swapping veg grown on the allotment.

  Why won’t any journals publish the Danish mask RCT? Do they believe the public can’t handle the truth, like FDR’s illness was simply too shocking to the US nation to be told what was really going on?

  • Harry T says:

    1 Nov1 November 11:07

    Science is about consensus. The majority of scientists and senior NHS clinicians support this lockdown, but it’s always trendy to be a dissenting voice. The reality is that the government will have access to a wide range of scientific expertise that far exceeds the intelligence of the comments section on this blog, and they will have determined that the consensus is in favour of a national lockdown. If you think you know better, based on a few lockdown sceptic opinions, then write to your MP. There will always be someone who disagrees, because that’s the nature of science. But it’s foolish to follow the advice of the minority when the overwhelming consensus favours a certain approach. It is important to listen to dissenting voices but we can’t have a debate for a few weeks over the right approach when people are dying.

    • TGLoyalty says:

      1 Nov1 November 11:18

      I would never have locked down to an extent where manufacturing, construction, schools and universities were closed.

      While I’m annoyed by the next 4 week period happening. I don’t think its that intrusive to most peoples lives I do feel for the hospitality industry as furlough alone won’t save jobs/businesses.

      • Lady London says:

        1 Nov1 November 13:53

        More has bern given to those businesses and their employees as from November by Rishi though.

      • Ken says:

        1 Nov1 November 17:25

        What’s the issue with large parts of University teaching being done online?
        I appreciate that is doesn’t work for every course, and it detracts from the experience, but it’s not remotely like closing schools.

    • John says:

      1 Nov1 November 11:29

      Would you like to explain to us what you believe the advice of the minority is? Your tone suggests that sceptics of the strategy are advocating throwing the elderly and the weak to the wolves but I would argue it is the lockdown lovers who are doing that. The last lockdown didn’t work, no lockdown, in any country has worked: the success in Asia is due to test, track and trace, not lockdown. They’re also societies where taking care of their elderly relatives is a responsibility of the families and not the Leftism in the U.K. that puts everything onto the State. Talking of leftism, Prof Gupta is a lifelong leftist! In South Korea, grandparents live with their sons and daughters, yet the bodies are not piled high?

      My understanding the sceptic strategy is to protect the elderly and the vulnerable; previously called shielding. While I do understand in the U.K. that citizens expect the government to even feed their children, I’m appalled that in European countries where people take care of their relatives and don’t lock them up in nursing homes they don’t even want to try a strategy of totally protecting the elderly and putting to good use millions of unemployed to take care of them.

      The WHO doesn’t recommend lockdown as a primary way to control the virus, show me proof there is a strategy in Europe apart from lockdown with the exception of the maddies in Sweden?

      Despite a mask mandate in Spain since May, thats even including outside, cases have continued to rise, even more than they did in the first wave. Masks are mandatory in France since May. Same result. Belgium since July. Austria as far back as March.

      By the way, talking of consensus, why are masks not mandated outside in the U.K? By that logic, if masks are so effective (evidence shows not and any dissent isn’t granted the right to be published) how many excess deaths can be attributed to not having to wear masks outside? Therefore, are the lockdown scientists actually putting tens of hundreds, thousands (?) of lives at risk by not calling for outside masks? No one needs to argue they could potentially work outside, but the behavioural effect is where the benefit lies, to keep it on at all times, only at home do you take it off.

      • Number9 says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:44

        Not all of us dumped our parents on the state, I’ve looked after my Mum 17 years the last 3 she lives with me. Now 81 with advanced dementia and all that entails it’s a constant running battle to get any support. My aim/ hope is to give her a dignified death at home surrounded by her family. Not in a soulless hospital without any of us even allowed to be with her. No lockdown or any government will be stopping me and my family. I get 4 hours a week help with care which I pay for. No one has given one single thought to home carers’s, now the daft government are trying to bring in legislation that a carer can only work in one place, it’s madness.

        • Harry T says:

          1 Nov1 November 12:53

          I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to provide care to vulnerable people, even during full lockdown, so I wouldn’t worry!

      • Dubious says:

        1 Nov1 November 13:01

        I think you missed the memo about what the ‘lockdown’ is meant to achieve. It is *not* about eliminating the virus, it is about significantly reducing the rate of infection and it is needed because the current rate is greater than the health services in England can cope with. Once it is within tolerable rates other measures are required to stop the rate of infection increasing (and the lockdown won’t be need).

        • Dubious says:

          1 Nov1 November 13:04

          (In reply to John)

        • Lady London says:

          1 Nov1 November 14:51

          What is the government using lockdown as a breathing space to improve?

          more acute/intensive care beds?
          a workingtrack & trace system?
          a time to re-stategise?

          other than slowing the spread, which only ever lasts till lockdown ends, what has the governnent been using the breathing space created by lockdown to actually move us forward on?

      • Harry T says:

        1 Nov1 November 13:10

        The last lockdown worked really well at suppressing the virus for a prolonged period of time, preventing deaths and significant morbidity, whilst ensuring the NHS wasn’t overwhelmed. Pretty successful in my opinion.

        Anyone who thinks you can “shield” the vulnerable isn’t probably informed. First of all, we can’t necessarily identify all the vulnerable people. Secondly, the number of people who are likely to be vulnerable is a significant percentage of society when you take into account obesity rates. Thirdly, it is harder to shield the vulnerable when the level of transmission and infection is higher in the general population. Unless you think that all care provided for vulnerable people is delivered by pensioners? For example, nursing home workers are very often young people who move between homes frequently; if we let the virus rip through the rest of society, then these workers will be more likely to have covid which they can then pass on to their vulnerable wards.

        I really wish people without relevant qualifications or experience wouldn’t focus on minority dissenting opinions. It’s about humility, ultimately. If you don’t have any significant training in public health, medicine or epidemiology, you are simply not well placed to evaluate the conflicting opinions and weigh up the evidence. I don’t spend my time evaluating the evidence for the decisions engineers make about designing my car!

      • Lady London says:

        1 Nov1 November 13:58

        distancing has been shown over and over to be what works. I agree with the comments about masks not giving an awful lot of protection but they do give some worth having. I do what the government (and @Polly on here) tells me to do because it’s a combination of factors that will protect people.

      • Ken says:

        1 Nov1 November 17:29

        Nice pile of strawmen there.

        Track and trace utterly impossible at the current level of infection.

        However, it’s fair to say lockdown is futile in the long run if behaviour reverts to norms as soon as it’s lifted.

    • Aliks says:

      1 Nov1 November 13:49

      I would agree that SAGE has access to great expertise and lots of data, but there are choices to make, and the final choices are always political.

      Most likely the doctors presented the politicians with a list of possible lockdown restrictions, and an estimate of how much each restriction would reduce the Reproduction Rate.
      If the aim is to reduce the R-rate by lets say 1.3 then the politicians have to choose restrictions that add up to 1.3 Locking down schools and universities would have a very big impact on the R-rate, but the politicians don’t want to do that, so they have to pick a long, long list of restrictions each giving only a minor impact.

      Stopping outbound overseas travel is very likely a minor factor, but not zero and its a political choice to close it down.

    • BJ says:

      1 Nov1 November 16:11

      Science is about proven facts, not consensus, 999 could easily be wrong and 1 could be right. If that weren’t true you’d still be running around with Bamm-Bamm and Pebbles.
      ..

    • Tariq says:

      1 Nov1 November 17:24

      Boo hoo people are dying, you realise that is a natural phenomena don’t you? Death naturally and inevitably follows life! You know what isn’t natural? Inhibition of personal liberties. No number of lives saved are worth it.

      • Aston100 says:

        1 Nov1 November 17:38

        Unbelievable.
        If your loved ones caught it and died from it due to people having the kind of mindset you’ve demonstrated, would you change your tune?

        • Aston100 says:

          1 Nov1 November 17:39

          That was directed at Tariq, in case replies don’t align correctly.

      • Jayne says:

        1 Nov1 November 20:51

        Deeply offensive comment Tariq, and given this, no doubt person.

  • Callum says:

    1 Nov1 November 11:20

    Interesting points.

    What historical lockdowns haven’t brought the virus under control?

    You have a grave misunderstanding of scientific process if you think all theories are equally valid. They are not. Saying that lockdowns don’t work is indeed like being a flat Earther – you can certainly argue the “cure is worse than the disease” if you want, but claiming that lockdowns don’t reduce spread is no different to claiming the Earth is flat. I haven’t seen the “abuse, insults and attacks”, I’ve seen scientists saying they disagree with her and her theories, so can’t comment over whether they’re justified or not.

    Given scientists have never said that the global economy should be completely shut down, it’s clear that you’re just spouting nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously then don’t use such ridiculous hyperbole.

    I don’t know why journals won’t publish it – the authors are refusing to say what the reason given was, you’ll have to ask them. Given the authors themselves are actively keeping it secret, I’d imagine it was just a rubbish study, but who knows. Journals tend not to hide things that “the public can’t handle” and have a long history of publishing controversial reports.

    • John says:

      1 Nov1 November 11:40

      She wrote in yesterday’s Mail (along with the shock she could never imagine she would write in the Mail as she is politically polar opposite), saying she has been abused, insulted and worst of all the libellous claim she has been paid off for pushing that Barrington declaration- please don’t question a BAME woman’s opinion on whether she has been abused or not. Even a cursory check on Twitter shows the typical abuse Diane Abbott would get.

      Gupta was part of the team that discovered one of the first methods to detect Covid. She isn’t some idiot who rejects evidence based science.

      “It must be rubbish” so quick to dismiss. Clearly you’re not a scientist. Sounds like what they said about Pasteur’s theory on germs, total rubbish I am sure many of them shouted at the time.

      The last major flu had no lockdown. 67-68. About a million deaths worldwide, 100k in the US, based on 200m population vs 330m now, worldwide population was 3.3 billion vs over 7 billion now. The virus never went away. Perhaps some people are dying of it even now, given seasonal flu deaths have mysteriously fallen off a cliff?

      • Char Char says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:03

        Yes exactly good points!

        Sadly some people now take the stance of “Conspiracy theory” or “you read twitter/facebook too much” as an excuse for their lack of thinking

      • Callum says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:22

        I am definitely allowed to question whether someone has been abused or not (regardless of their skin colour)… Though the specific accusation was “from the scientific community”, which from a cursory glance at her article is completely unsubstantiated. The fact that black women are regularly abused doesn’t mean I have to therefore believe anything and everything said by black women. I’m mixed race and have been often abused because of it in the UK – do you therefore blindly believe anything I say as well?

        Did I call her an idiot? Though accepting evidence in the past doesn’t mean she’s accepting evidence now, so that’s an irrelevant point.

        Actually I am indeed a scientist, which is why scientific illiteracy greatly irritates me. As do your incredibly dishonest lies. You deliberately changed “I’d imagine it was just a rubbish study, but who knows” to “it must be rubbish” and you have the audacity to whinge and whine about libel!?

        So no, you don’t have evidence of Covid lockdowns not working? And you think it’s mysterious that flu deaths are down!? Quickly think about it and I’m sure you’ll be able to figure out why flu, which is transmitted in a similar method to Covid, is being spread less widely right now.

        • Harry T says:

          1 Nov1 November 12:56

          Lol at saying you can’t criticise someone or question their account of criticism if they are BAME. That’s just suppression of free speech and rational inquiry.

        • Char Char says:

          1 Nov1 November 13:16

          If your only evidence is that less contact means less cases then all that does is delay any cases. Flu is down because its being mixed with Covid, so someone with the flu and Covid will be classed as a Covid case.

          Just because you are a ‘scientist’ doesn’t make only your opinion right, you are I assume a human like other people even though I had suspected that you might be a bot with your lack of empathy towards others views.

        • Capt Hammond says:

          1 Nov1 November 20:41

          Social science doesn’t really count, Callum

      • Ken says:

        1 Nov1 November 20:20

        “Gupta was part of the team that discovered one of the first methods to detect Covid”

        No she wasn’t

    • Char Char says:

      1 Nov1 November 12:09

      What scientific data do you have that show lockdowns work?

      Specifically the effect of a lockdown longterm once reopened and not just following the trend of the current cases

      • Josh says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:25

        Lockdowns will never cure an endemic virus. It’s obvious that COVID-19 thrives in damp, cold conditions. The meat factory outbreaks and the current outbreak prove as much.

        “Lockdowns are there to protect the NHS from being overburdened” – Unfortunately however, the NHS has a shortage of critical care beds. Vast swathes of the NHS are being under utilised otherwise.

        A vaccine is very unlikely to be 100% effective. Just like the flu vaccine isn’t 100% effective (there are two flu vaccines in UK anyway…age group dependent).

      • Callum says:

        1 Nov1 November 12:40

        What “scientific data” do you think can be gathered to prove that?

        The evidence I would present is a) reducing contact is proven to reduce spread – lockdowns reduce contact, and b) every Covid lockdown has seen a dramatic fall in cases.

        I haven’t claimed it has a long term effect (do you EVER read my position properly instead of just making up rubbish!?), nor do I believe it does (other than knock on benefits from hospitals not collapsing etc) unless it’s a severe lockdown designed to eradicate the virus – which this isn’t.

      • Callum says:

        1 Nov1 November 13:32

        Char Char. I’m rapidly losing patience with you. STOP LYING. Not only have I not even hinted that me being a scientist means I’m right (for starters I’m not an infectious disease expert, so even many keen “amateur scientists” will know far more than I do), I’ve explicitly stated many times that different scientists have different opinions on this so couldn’t possibly believe that being a scientist automatically makes you right.

        You can absolutely program bots to show “empathy to other views” (very weird phrasing though – are you a bot?), and I’m not aware of any bots that have demonstrated the ability to have such in-depth conversations – perhaps you know of some?

        Not quite, that is only a small part of it. Flu is spread in a similar way to Covid, meaning the extreme measures to stop the spread are also stopping the spread of flu. Which is exactly why in countries like Australia (with small exceptions) and New Zealand where Covid cases are low to non-existent, flu cases have plummeted. Flu strains also vary by season – which is why some years in the UK we only get a couple of thousand flu deaths, some years we get 20,000.

        • Char Char says:

          1 Nov1 November 14:24

          Firstly no need to call people liars, my opinion doesn’t make me a liar if i believe that you think you know everything.

          Apologises for giving you another reason to be pedantic over my wording, i am glad you have enough IQ to understand what I meant.

          Comparing to Australia and NZ is not a fair comparison, they have different seasons and you can see that they had a 2nd peak of cases in July. Try perhaps looking at the death rate of *Sweden*.

    • Harry T says:

      1 Nov1 November 13:12

      @Callum is making some good points here, mainly because he seems to have a proper grounding in the scientific method and evaluating evidence.

      • Callum says:

        1 Nov1 November 13:35

        Thank you! Though people who can’t provide valid counter arguments like to resort to “you just think you’re perfect” – I absolutely don’t! I do however cherish the scientific method and, believe it or not, genuinely enjoy being proven wrong!

        If I’m proved wrong then it means I know now more than I did before. Its a shame so many people view it as a flaw and so resist it.

        • Harry T says:

          1 Nov1 November 14:06

          Changing your mind is a good thing – it means you are constantly re-evaluating the evidence behind your opinions.

        • marcw says:

          1 Nov1 November 14:15

          Your contributions are 5*. Evidence is a key part of a general scientific discussion, and like you, I like to be proven wrong, as long as they have evidence to support their arguments. As it happens, many people seem to confuse *I think* with *I know*, and this is going in crescendo.

      • Callum says:

        1 Nov1 November 17:45

        Char Char – There’s every need to call you a liar, you constantly lie. Its not “a pedantic point about wording”, you incessantly radically change the meaning of phrases I have said and then completely ignore my corrections. Thinking that I think I know everything is indeed an opinion, but I’ve demonstrated how it isn’t true so it’s a rather stupid one to hold. Though given your debating style is list a load of rubbish, wait for my carefully thought out response to each individual point and then completely ignore it and whine about how I’m supposedly a “know it all” just because I know more than you do, that’s no surprise.

        I completely understand why you’d want to ignore Australia and New Zealand given its inconvenient to your point, but that’s not how science works I’m afraid. If you bothered to look into it properly (I lived there throughout most of the pandemic…), you’d see they had isolated outbreaks (only one of them, Melbourne/Victoria, being major) – not a nationwide surge. The majority of both Australia and New Zealand saw no significant cases throughout winter (which yes, is at a different time to us – your point being?), and those areas without Covid saw massive drops in seasonal flu. I have absolutely no idea how the death rate of *Sweden* proves that the flu is just as prevalent as it always is, it’s just being covered up by them all having Covid too? I would say I’d be keen to hear an explanation, but we both know you don’t have one.

        As I’ve alluded to several times, you’re no longer worth my time. Good night, and hopefully some day you’ll start thinking more carefully about this.

        • Char Char says:

          1 Nov1 November 18:25

          I think you need to go reread what I wrote and you wrote, accusing me of being a liar is over the top and quite frankly rude. Never met such a rude “scientist”

        • Char Char says:

          1 Nov1 November 18:46

          It’s too early to make judgements about Australia and New Zealand anyway as you don’t know what will happen in the next few months will happened.

          Nice that you call me a liar when you seem to be taking my words out of context and then using to fit your counter arguments.

  • Ken says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:35

    Gupta mixes opinions that may or may not be right (cost of lockdown too high, it won’t work, we need herd immunity) with statements that she presents as fact – but which have no scientific basis whatsoever.

    She claimed in June that sero-prevalence was so high that we had herd immunity already, she cherry picked data to fit her narrative.
    Good science should be prepared to test a theory, not cherry pick scant data and use back-fit to trumpet that theory.

• Josh says:

  1 Nov1 November 12:27

  COVID is a form of influenza, Callum

  • Josh says:

    1 Nov1 November 12:28

    Apologies – Pneumonia

    • Callum says:

      1 Nov1 November 12:35

      I’m still completely lost. Pneumonia is a condition, not a virus, so is neither a form of influenza nor coronavirus.

      Both viruses can cause pneumonia, but again, the point is completely lost on me?

    • Harry T says:

      1 Nov1 November 12:54

      No it’s not.

  • Callum says:

    1 Nov1 November 12:32

    I have no idea what that has to do with anything but no Josh, Covid is not a form of influenza. Covid is a coronavirus.

    • Josh says:

      1 Nov1 November 18:07

      I’ll rephrase it – novel coronavirus pneumonia – this is what happens when responding while sleep deprived through work 😂

      • Callum says:

        1 Nov1 November 19:12

        Sorry, can you rephrase it again? I genuinely have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about!

        I can’t see a way to include that correction in your original post that makes sense and have no idea why you’re telling me specifically that Covid can cause pneumonia (have I mistakenly implied it doesn’t somewhere?).

        • James says:

          1 Nov1 November 20:59

          Don’t waste your time on Josh, Callum. He’s just a contrary troll.

        • Josh says:

          1 Nov1 November 22:43

          Thanks James 😘 This chat will be horrendous on Wednesday I imagine 😂

        • Josh says:

          1 Nov1 November 22:45

          Novel coronavirus pneumonia is an alternative name for the disease suffered by those who test positive to COVID-19.

          I should know. I’ve drafted enough CSR releases on it.

• Aston100 says:

  1 Nov1 November 12:55

  It’s starting to turn into the Daily Mail comments section in here, but with slightly better command of English and a few less far right opinions.
  Sad times.

  • Harry T says:

    1 Nov1 November 12:57

    Hopefully we can keep it a bit more civil than the DM comments!

  • mvcvz says:

    1 Nov1 November 13:18

    My command of written English is just fine thank you. And to the very best of my recollection, a right wing government was democratically elected in the UK last time around.

    • Aston100 says:

      1 Nov1 November 17:43

      @mvcvz I said far right.

      • James says:

        1 Nov1 November 21:02

        mvcvz – what’s your point? More people voted for left parties across the country. And why be so rude – if you can’t be civil, jog on.

        • Josh says:

          1 Nov1 November 22:47

          Really?

        • mvcvz says:

          2 Nov2 November 14:24

          James (or should that be Judith?) I suspect I can jog a sight faster than you, so you may wish to watch your tone. And a right wing government was democratically elected in accordance with UK election rules. if you don’t agree with these, then there are a number of campaigns you could join to facilitate your views being heard.

• Navara says:

  1 Nov1 November 13:32

  On a lighter note my auto converting Tesco points have hit my BA account. Not that I can go anywhere✈️

  • Anna says:

    1 Nov1 November 13:48

    Yeah, I’ve just moved over 30k MR points from bonuses to BAEC and thinking the same!

• Anna says:

  1 Nov1 November 13:47

  I don’t comment on the science because that’s not my field but I am a long time (formerly professional) observer of human behaviour and I sometimes read the comments in the DM and other publications because it’s amusing to predict the responses to the articles! I was right about Brexit and the Tory landslide (not because I necessarily supported either, I was just doing a lot of listening and observing around those 2 events) and I’ve been right about the response to lockdown restrictions so far. I think the government knows full well that these measures are sticking plasters and is pinning its hopes on a vaccine and enough take up to ensure a sufficient level of immunity (but if my feelings about the number of people who are willing to take it are right, it may well not be the answer, at least globally, when people won’t even wear masks because they think they shouldn’t be told what to do).

  • Eshaq Choudhury says:

    1 Nov1 November 14:19

    You are right Anna. The vaccine if it ever sees the light of day will not work because there will not be enough take up as many people are cautious about it, unknown side effects, etc. You also have the anti-vaccers. I believe about 70% minimum take up is required. I doubt that will be achieved. Therefore the conclusion is what is the point of the lockdown if we just end up back at square one anyway (after having damaged our economy even further).

    • mvcvz says:

      1 Nov1 November 14:34

      I’m not an anti-vaccer by any means. Vaccinations are one of the prices we should be prepared to pay for receiving the benefits of living within an ordered, civilised society (or even the UK). However, there remains the very real possibility that any Covid-19 vaccination may well prove more dangerous than the virus, especially in its early incarnations.

      • Bagoly says:

        1 Nov1 November 17:30

        Novelty is scary, and after thalidomide etc, it is right to think before acting.

        I’ll want to read about the specific vaccine being offered before getting it, but let’s think about why it might dangerous:

        1) It might give one (a mild form of) the disease from the principal ingredient – vaccines from “attenuated” and “killed” viruses have this risk; those based on smaller elements do not. Any such effect would be pretty quick, so I think the six-month testing period would give confidence that the risk of this is less than say 0.01%.

        2) Some long-term toxic effect which would only show long after most people had received it. This would be from something that the science had not considered – most likely to arise from some ancillary ingredient or impurity in manufacturing. If the vaccine used some new approach here I would be more concerned than it it uses well-proven approaches.

        The first rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn after release because it caused bad disease in 0.01% of recipients.

        Even if the chance of the vaccine messing up my health is 0.02%, the chance of Covid messing it up is (for my age) around 1% * the probability of eventually catching it, which I reckon is over 50% in the long–term if unprotected. So 0.02% v 0.50%.
        i.e. one does not have to be expect the vaccine to be 100% safe for it to be rational to get it.

  • Bagoly says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:29

    The good news is that two potential problems are more or less mutually exclusive:
    EITHER there will be problems making enough vaccine for everyone
    OR take up will be low and so not protect those who cannot take it.

    • Ken says:

      1 Nov1 November 16:45

      Or maybe there will be a vaccine that isn’t highly effective and doesn’t provide long lasting immunity. I’d put this as a strong likelihood at the moment.

      It would at least be easy to only allow people to fly who had a recent (ish) vaccine.

      People can’t be forced to have a vaccine , but if it imposes a cost on the rest of society then they should be encouraged to shoulder that cost.
      Want an elective operation on the NHS ? Where’s your vaccination?

• Bill says:

  1 Nov1 November 14:34

  A coordinated European 2 week lockdown would achieve more thank each country doing piecemeal

  • David D says:

    1 Nov1 November 15:10

    A co-ordinated worldwide lockdown, and by that a full curfew not the half measures we had in March and now, for 4 to 6 weeks with all provisions provided by the governments for the period should decimate the ability of the virus to reproduce if it did not kill it off completely, it would not minimise cases around the world to really allow a fully-functioning track and trace system to stand a great chance in future.

    However, if you could get 20% of the countries in the world to agree to it I would be very surprised.

    • Anna says:

      1 Nov1 November 15:23

      Exactly – here in the UK we’d only been in lockdown for about 5 minutes in the spring when someone took the government to court for breaching their human rights because their child “needed” time out from the home environment. Yet somehow children in Spain and Italy seemed to cope.

      • Bill says:

        1 Nov1 November 15:29

        I seriously doubt the children of Spain or Italy are coping well with being continuously indoors. I know someone in Sao Paulo and to say it’s extremely difficult is an immense understatement

        • Eshaq Choudhury says:

          1 Nov1 November 15:49

          Country is more divided than it was during brexit. Who’d have thought!

        • Anna says:

          1 Nov1 November 18:26

          They are not currently indoors, and their parents didn’t feel the need to take legal action to effectively force their governments to abandon their lockdown rules.

    • Char Char says:

      1 Nov1 November 15:32

      You have about a 0.001% chance of eradicating the virus with a lockdown

  • Bagoly says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:30

    Given that nearly every country in Europe has similar exponential growth at the moment, that was my thought too, with travel between countries requiring properly enforced quarantine.

    • David D says:

      1 Nov1 November 22:48

      I’ve been saying it since March. The UK has never been under a lockdown in the strictest sense of the word. We have had severe restrictions on our outdoor and social activities.

      A true lockdown would be policed by both the Police and Armed Forces under Martial Law. The current set of politicians would never go that far though as they know, including the opposition parties that they would have no further political capital.

      Look at New Zealand were an initial true lockdown has worked. Australia, which has reported zero cases for the first time since June with severe lockdown restrictions. It can and does work. It’s a right old pain in the neck, which I would not ever disagree with, but as the phrase goes, short term pain, long term gain.

      From a points collection/status gathering point of view, this time could be well spent planning for the next couple of years for ways to travel on points to desired destinations in cabins you have wanted to try/retry for a long time.

      Also, for those who like the Far East travels and have top tier status with an airline, take a look at the Starlux Airlines COSMILE status match which will last for 4 years (not a typo) if done by the end of this year.

      • The real John says:

        2 Nov2 November 07:28

        Who wants to plan anything when nobody knows which airlines will collapse and when there are no timetables available.

        NZ and Australia’s strategy only worked because they don’t have thousands of lorries driving into the country from Indonesia, and they closed borders before the virus had managed to spread too far, their population densities are far lower and their major cities are 10 hours apart instead of 1 hour.

        Completely agree with you that the UK has never had a lockdown and use of the word lockdown (especially “local lockdown”) is a misnomer.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.