Here are the 12 countries and territories on the travel Green List

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

• Tom says:

  9 May9 May 15:11

  Is it risky to fly to Portugal via Munich on Lufthansa? From what I can see online you can transit on a flight from the UK…any advice would be welcome.

  • Alex says:

    9 May9 May 16:21

    In the 10 days prior to returning to the UK, you need to abide the rules of the highest traffic light country. So if you go to Portugal via Munich and go back to uk direct from Portugal after 10 days have passed, you’d declare a green country and only need 1 PCR within 72hrs.

    If you fly via Munich on the way back OR spend less than 10 days in Portugal you’d have to declare Amber and self isolate at home. (Providing Munich doesn’t become green by time of travel).

    I would recommend a direct flight without doubt to save any potential hassle

  • Will_ says:

    9 May9 May 16:26

    Rules are here and are fairly clear:
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-amber-and-green-list-rules-for-entering-england#transit-stops-in-amber-or-red-list-countries

    • Tom says:

      10 May10 May 07:26

      Thank you both!

• TimM says:

  9 May9 May 16:37

  There was an interesting session with Simon Calder on the new Travel.Radio Q&A programme this morning. He says that if you are planning on going to Portugal (or another ‘green-lit’ territory) for the weekend, you can have your pre-arrival to the UK Covid test, the cheapest medically certified will do, before you leave the UK! It is the law.

  • TGLoyalty says:

    9 May9 May 17:11

    Yes it’s been the law ever since they introduced pre flight testing.

    • James says:

      9 May9 May 17:47

      What’s the point of testing for Covid-19 when the whole country (UK) reaches safety levels?

      There are NO dangerous variants, ie all variants are well-controlled by existing vaccines.

      We already hit basic herd immunity in UK and when the under 40s get their vaccines – which they look happy to get – herd immunity will go up from 70-80% to 90%+.

      Only foolish anti-vaxxers need worry.

      Please understand: no variant of concern is actually of concern: it’s an exaggeration to get people to accept vaccination & stifle travel.

      Bed-wetters / yellow mattress people probably also get bad dreams about somebody asking them to justify their Covid-19 position/ logic/ intelligence – the can’t do that, it’s another bed wetting episode.

      ‘I’m just scared something bad will happen’.

      • pauldb says:

        9 May9 May 17:57

        Your paragraph about herd immunity strongly implies you don’t understand herd immunity. What is “basic herd immunity”?

        • James says:

          9 May9 May 18:04

          Lower herd immunity. 60-70%? Who knows?

          Doesn’t really matter – basic herd immunity just means most people are safe.

          Obviously herd immunity is not an absolute % number eg 75%. Look at Measles.

          As more people get immunised/ already got Covid-19 – their safety increases. So 1 week 60% herd immunity, a month later 70% etc.

        • pauldb says:

          9 May9 May 18:08

          “basic herd immunity just means most people are safe”. I think reading a basic explanation of herd immunity would help you out here.

        • James says:

          9 May9 May 18:16

          I am happy to be corrected in my English by a scientist if I have goofed up in what I tried to say.

          Of course I understand herd immunity. UK has herd immunity for Measles. Which doesn’t mean people don’t get Measles.

      • Nadeshka says:

        9 May9 May 18:41

        I think you’re confusing the percentage of the population vaccinated with the percentage of adults. 35m have had at least one dose out of 66m people (just over 50%). That one dose is not 100% effective. Only 17m have had two doses, and again that’s not 100% effective.
        About 20% of the population are children who aren’t eligible to get vaccinated. We’re not going to get to 90% immunity through vaccinations alone.
        It’s hard to calculate what % have immunity through having the actual virus, and we can’t be sure the overlap of the two groups.
        So no idea what you mean by basic herd immunity, but by any definition of herd immunity we are not there yet and won’t be for some time.

        • Nadeshka says:

          9 May9 May 18:48

          Basic maths from govt stats says
          Normal R rate of covid = 3
          R rate of Kent strain = 5 (60% more infectious, now dominant in uk)
          Immunity needed to have herd immunity is therefore >80% (out of the 5 you normally would have infected, at least 4 are immune so outbreak dies down)

          Given 20% population is children who can’t get vaccinated + those who refuse + those whom it’s not effective against infection (depending on vaccine and study 1%-30%) we are not and will likely not get to herd immunity without kids being vaccinated or it running rampant through schools so they get ‘natural’ immunity.

        • James says:

          9 May9 May 18:56

          Sure – but reduce your analysis to 1. hospitalizations & 2. deaths.

          Neither of which will be troubling going forward.

          Long Covid? – OK you got a point (not that you mentioned it.)

        • TGLoyalty says:

          9 May9 May 22:49

          As long as the at risk have had the vaccine and hospitalisations are well down this should never rule life again.

          We don’t need 80% of the U.K. to be vaccinated!

      • Char Char says:

        9 May9 May 19:47

        You quote herd immunity then mention “Only foolish anti-vaxxers need worry.” isn’t the point of herd immunity meaning those who haven’t had the disease/vaccine are also safer…

        • James says:

          9 May9 May 19:55

          Safer but not 100% safe.

          Herd immunity never meant nobody gets the disease. It just means that those already immunised/ who got antibodies already are safe and the other (say) 15% are more unlikely to get the disease because there’s a lot less of the disease around.

          So anti vaxxers are as prone to getting the disease as they always were, just that there are fewer people infected to give it to them. So less likely to get it, despite their stupid/ selfish stance.

        • pauldb says:

          9 May9 May 20:21

          Meanwhile on the road to Damascus…

        • James says:

          9 May9 May 20:27

          my only damascene conversion would be giving up alcohol

          which ain’t going to happen any time soon

• pauldb says:

  9 May9 May 18:22

  79 measles cases last year.

  • James says:

    9 May9 May 18:29

    Sure – and Covid-19 will come down in numbers very fast as well.

    Both are killers (at worst) – yet should not over-worry people once we get basic herd immunity (vaccinations & exposure).

    Plus over time, most viruses become less deadly.

    Why are people not trying to get zero flu deaths (UK 20,000 deaths a year in a bad year) when they seem to think zero Covid-19 deaths is worth pursuing?

    We should be happy to see 10,000 Covid-19 deaths a year, which would be maybe 50-odd deaths a day in winter – these old people will die of something so it might as well be Covid-19.

    • pauldb says:

      9 May9 May 18:39

      Herd immunity is not a measure of how much of the population has immunity through prior infection or vaccination. It is not a subjective measure of how many people need to be safe in order to go back to normal life, or how many deaths are therefore acceptable. That’s a political threshold – don’t try a stick a scientific title on it.

      Here you are then since you can’t by bothered to google: herd immunity is the point at which the opposite group – those who don’t have immunity – are largely safe because enough of the population don’t transmit the virus. When there is an outbreak, it naturally dies down because most of a case’s contacts are immune. The more naturally infectious a virus, the harder it is to reach herd immunity. For Covid and the Kent variant, it’s certainty requires more than 60-70% antibodies.

      • James says:

        9 May9 May 18:45

        Sure, I know that. But surely you are not trying to say that herd immunity kicks in at an exact % eg 72.5%?

        You are not basing your last point on scientific evidence [For Covid and the Kent variant, it’s certainty requires more than 60-70% antibodies.]

        You are just waving your finger in the air and guessing/ hoping you are right so you don’t look uninformed.

        It could easily be that at 70%, with a milder variant over time, coronavirus becomes no more troubling than the common cold for most of us.

        • pauldb says:

          9 May9 May 18:56

          Actually the first estimate I found for R0 was 3.9 so that would make the the threshold 74.4%.

          As to your last sentence, the impact of coronavirus on “most of us” has no relevance this to the crisis response – the impact on most of us has never been the danger.

        • James says:

          9 May9 May 19:16

          You are correct – but Boris didn’t play it that way – I’m pushing 60 and he/ they certainly got me worried though I guess the risks were minimal for a healthy person my age.

          But I think it is fair to see that 10 years shaved off your reasonable life expectancy – even if you were (say) 75 – is a poor outcome, if you were to get & die from Covid-19.

• Ted says:

  9 May9 May 18:46

  My IQ just dropped 50% by reading some of the comments in this thread.

  • James says:

    9 May9 May 19:30

    went UP by 50%?

  • Mr(s) Entitled says:

    9 May9 May 23:41

    My IQ has herd immunity

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