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.

• 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.

• Ash says:

  1 Nov1 November 14:57

  Regarding the latest international travel restrictions, the government has said that all international travel is banned, unless for ‘legitimate’ reasons. Obviously a holiday etc would be off the table.
  My issue is that I am going abroad to sell a property, and the date of signing with the buyers has been set for the 25th of November, when the sale will be finalised. I have to be there in person and I have booked my tickets in accordance.
  My question is does this count as a legitimate reason to travel abroad, as long as I can present the legal document of property sale with the date on?

  • Lady London says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:37

    as you are legally required there and presumably contracts were exchanged or presumably something equivalent to make it irrevocable was done before the lockdown was announced?
    , I would have thought it’s a legal requirement that you be there.

    Having said that unless there is some practical reason like cash to be handed over, could it be worth checking whether that country has varied the personal attendance requirement due to covid/ lockdown? I know this has begun happening in the UK in some instances.

  • Anna says:

    1 Nov1 November 18:30

    They may have said it but’s it not law just yet and the devil will be in the details. They may make it incumbent on airlines to ensure they are not taking anyone on holiday (similar to current requirements to ensure passengers have the right to enter the destination country for immigration procedures) because otherwise I just don’t see how it would be enforced. People will be looking for loopholes to exploit as with any other situation!

  • DV says:

    1 Nov1 November 21:36

    You cannot tell from the guidance precisely what you will be permitted to do. The legislation will be published before it comes into effect. Wait until the legislation is actually published (it will be on the gov.uk website, or google coronavirus legislation) and then check that.

    • Abdirashid says:

      2 Nov2 November 01:53

      How is it if I came uk for personal reasons and then I want to go where I came like Sweden

    • Martin says:

      2 Nov2 November 06:50

      Some of the recent legislation has been published by Statutory Instrument a whopping 20 minutes before coming into force, so don’t expect too much advance notice. Hopefully it should still be long enough for Ash to clarify their position.

  • Zander says:

    2 Nov2 November 06:19

    Are you sure you need to be there in person? We recently sold a property in US and were able to manage all signing requirements whilst staying in UK. Might be worth checking out if remote options are available………

  • The real John says:

    2 Nov2 November 07:31

    So far all the legislation has had wording that allows you to leave your house to fulfill a legal obligation.

• Max says:

  1 Nov1 November 16:12

  And what will happen when the lockdown is lifted and the infection rate goes up again, will they impose another lockdown, and another one and another one? We may never have a vaccine. Utterly nonsensical decision.

  • Harry T says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:19

    Got any better ideas? Lockdowns are a temporary measure to control transmission and prevent the health service being overwhelmed. They also buy time until more effective treatments can be developed. No one is arguing that they are the perfect fix. The fact is that we are at this point because of poor governance and the lack of discipline and resolve demonstrated by (hopefully) a minority of the public.

    • Chris says:

      1 Nov1 November 16:20

      How do you think those with a lack of discipline and resolve will behave during this lockdown?

      • Johnny Tabasco says:

        1 Nov1 November 16:30

        I’d wager it will be the as same before, most people playing their part but the same people as before doing whatever they want without fear of reprisals. Actually, if anything it’ll be worse.

        I’d also wager Christmas will be anarchy.

      • Anna says:

        1 Nov1 November 18:35

        There will be even less compliance this time round because a) people are fed up with it and b) people have found ways to get around restrictions and exploit loopholes. For example – during the last lockdown people were offering home haircuts via social media and will no doubt start up again this week. Impossible to detect unless someone catches them at it. There will always be people trying to profit illegally from any given situation and in the absence of the kind of intrusive enforcement which has the liberal element marching in the capital (because their right to protest is more important than public health), they will get away with it.

        • James H says:

          1 Nov1 November 21:15

          Betraying your politics again Anna. I’d be more concerned with the right and far right anti-lockdown, anti-masker marches, than the ‘liberal’ ones you choose to mention, but that’s just me. And to be clear, I’d rather none of them were marching.

    • Atanas Todorov says:

      1 Nov1 November 20:16

      What about Sweden?…….

    • Capt Hammond says:

      1 Nov1 November 20:17

      Been looking at your comments, Harry – you’re got quite an authoritarian streak haven’t you when it comes to lockdowns and restrictions on the public? As Max says, all the lockdown does is delay the inevitable whilst ensuring that other health issues – cancer, long term illnesses, mental health – get worse and worse. Are you a big fan of closing schools too?

      • Harry T says:

        2 Nov2 November 14:13

        @Capt Hammond
        I’m fairly liberal politically. I think schools should stay open. My thinking on this is driven by the evidence, not political ideology. I wish a lockdown wasn’t necessary because it is draconian and invasive. And the burden on the NHS after this further lockdown (not covid – the long term conditions, mental health issues etc) will be devastating. But I think we’ve reached a place where all the options are bad and we just have to pick the least bad option. The NHS would be overwhelmed if we didn’t lockdown, which would have a bigger impact on the treatment of other conditions than the lockdown.

    • Charlieface says:

      2 Nov2 November 03:48

      And the WHO says lockdown shouldn’t be used…

  • Char Char says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:19

    Exactly, also forget about any vaccine!

    • Rob says:

      1 Nov1 November 18:32

      Realistically, if there was no vaccine, you simply start planning long-term for the effects. You build huge new hospitals and hire substantial numbers of new NHS staff. Those who are ill go there, and over time the death rate will drop sharply as treatments continue to improve. You can remove most restrictions because the capacity is there to deal with the sick and eventually herd immunity kicks in.

      In some ways, this would be easier than the current system which is assuming a functioning vaccine and so is not investing in long term hospital facilities.

      • Char Char says:

        1 Nov1 November 19:39

        Yes exactly!

      • Atanas Todorov says:

        1 Nov1 November 20:18

        Of course! The only wise idea!

      • TripRep says:

        1 Nov1 November 20:40

        Where are you going to recruit the health care staff to risk their lives in hard conditions to create such a capacity?

        • Brian says:

          2 Nov2 November 08:52

          There were 40,000 vacancies for nurses alone at the start of the year.

          I don’t think Bob lives in the real world if he thinks they can be trained and recruited in a short space of time. Add in doctors and other staff too and you’re looking at years and years before capacity can actually be increased.

          Someone has been playing too much Theme Hospital during lockdown

      • James says:

        2 Nov2 November 00:34

        Realistically, where are you magicing these extra people up from? Do you know how long it takes to train doctors and.nurses?

    • Harry T says:

      1 Nov1 November 18:58

      There will be several vaccines.

      • Char Char says:

        1 Nov1 November 19:39

        Good luck with that

        • Cat says:

          2 Nov2 November 06:45

          We don’t need luck, we’ve got science.

      • Harry T says:

        2 Nov2 November 14:13

        @cat amen!

        • Polly says:

          3 Nov3 November 23:56

          Simply need people right now to socially distance and wear masks…and follow the simple rules…stats speak for themselves. And yes vaccines hopefully on the way….

  • Brian says:

    1 Nov1 November 19:36

    Not necessarily. I’ve moved back to Shanghai and life has been COMPLETELY normal for a few months, with only international travel restricted. No endless lockdowns here.

    I never thought I’d have more freedom in China than in the U.K. 🙂

    • Brian says:

      1 Nov1 November 19:37

      That was a reply to the post about endless lockdowns.

      • Lee says:

        1 Nov1 November 20:11

        Exactly, I moved back in Aug with a STRICT 14 days (not like here that you said you are under quarantine but can still do whatever you want basically). Visited 6 cities around country since, hotels and flights were so full that you couldn’t tell there is pandemic rest of the world.

• Henry says:

  1 Nov1 November 16:35

  This thread is stupid.
  It’s turned into the Daily Mail
  Everyone arguing/point scoring thinking they know best when basically they know bugger-all!!
  You lot think you are the educated high IQ brigade but spend all day shouting and arguing with people who you don’t know and have no influence over any way.
  What a fantastic way to spend your Sunday, how very educated of you all.

  • david marsh says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:41

    +1
    Most sensible comment yet

  • Nick says:

    1 Nov1 November 16:49

    If you don’t want to read the comments you don’t have to…

    • Henry says:

      1 Nov1 November 17:16

      I stopped reading after the 2nd page Nick.
      This is supposed to be head for points not head for politics.

      • Aston100 says:

        1 Nov1 November 17:50

        Internet anonymity brings out the worst in many people.

  • Harry T says:

    1 Nov1 November 17:17

    If you don’t like the comments section of an internet blog post, but still spend time here reading comments, what does that say about your priorities?

  • Callum says:

    1 Nov1 November 17:58

    Are you under some kind of misconception that “intelligent” people are a different species and so should have different interests? I should be listening to Mozart while finishing off my latest manuscript instead of interacting with the uneducated masses?

    I’m passionate about countering misinformation and enjoy debating. I do always work on the assumption that I won’t change any minds (the people who most need their minds changed are those least willing to do so), but I have seen several people soften their positions after I’ve challenged them. I certainly can’t “claim credit”, but you never know – it’s nice to think I may have had a tiny bit of influence!

    While I would much rather be doing something more exciting, the world is hardly full of opportunity right now…

    • Josh says:

      1 Nov1 November 18:13

      Good luck for the manuscript, Callum. Is it for a journal? Fingers crossed you get a decent reviewer

    • Capt Hammond says:

      1 Nov1 November 20:46

      You’ve certainly “influenced” a lot of people, Callum – tho perhaps not in the way you intended…

    • Dr C says:

      1 Nov1 November 20:56

      Seems to me, you were not prepared to listen to take into consideration the opinion of anyone else and only push your view…

      • Jayne says:

        2 Nov2 November 10:15

        Lol. Fruitloop deniers don’t need to listened to. Just ignored.

• Aston100 says:

  1 Nov1 November 17:49

  So I was chatting to an actual infectious diseases expert a couple of weeks ago.
  He says he personally wouldn’t take a vaccine until it has been tested for a minimum of 12 months as there must isn’t sufficient time to rule out all side effects, including those that may cause a worse outcome amongst some recipients.

  • Super Secret Stuff says:

    1 Nov1 November 22:29

    Yes that is a concern I’ve had for a while. At the end of the day its risk tolerance that determines if you should take it…

    For me, many of my family are older, my partner and flat mate are extremely vulnerable and I am visually impaired so social distancing is impossible, so for me I’ll take it after a few weeks (so those more needed can get it).

  • Crafty says:

    1 Nov1 November 23:31

    This is why it needs to be compulsory for all. Any element of choice could undermine the efficacy.

  • ChrisW says:

    2 Nov2 November 07:50

    The massive job losses, homelessness and suicide increases will take precedence over side effects I would imagine

    • The real John says:

      2 Nov2 November 13:05

      and deaths from undiagnosed terminal diseases, and other chronic diseases whose treatment has been deprioritised.

• Henry says:

  1 Nov1 November 18:24

  Post your daft political/medical views somewhere else.
  No one cares.
  I’m here for the airline points not point scoring.

  • Anna says:

    1 Nov1 November 18:39

    With that attitude, you may well find that people don’t want to share their point scoring methods with you …

    • Henry says:

      1 Nov1 November 20:11

      boo hoo.

    • Jayne says:

      2 Nov2 November 10:16

      And how would that work on an open thread Anna?

  • ChrisBCN says:

    1 Nov1 November 19:12

    And maybe skip over the articles with titles not related to airline points, such as this one. Having said that, it has got a little ridiculous with the flame throwing.

    • Josh says:

      1 Nov1 November 22:17

      All the thread is missing is Harry Hill shouting “FIGHTTTT”

• saheem says:

  1 Nov1 November 20:43

  My sister’s travelling date is 7th of November coming to UK. My question is do flights come from abroad or travel ban is for inbound and outbound..

  • Rob says:

    1 Nov1 November 21:02

    There is no ban on flights, but if there are no passengers they are likely to be cancelled on short haul. Long haul they are very likely to go due to cargo.

    • Saira says:

      1 Nov1 November 22:17

      Im suppose to travel this Saturday the 7th, my mother is very poorly, dont know if i am still allowed… really getting anxious as im not sure whats happening 😕

      • pauldb says:

        2 Nov2 November 07:53

        Travel is permitted for caring responsibilities, if that fits your purpose.

    • MarkS says:

      2 Nov2 November 06:06

      I’m assuming that would apply to your typical city destinations but not necessarily pure leisure routes such as St Lucia? Surely can’t be much cargo going there to justify running a route.

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