Loading Notifications...

Scotland back into lockdown

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021

And Boris making an announcement tonight, will that be for an English lockdown too? 

And yet they have still never shut the airports and ports!

8
In reply to girlymonkey:

> And Boris making an announcement tonight, will that be for an English lockdown too? 

> And yet they have still never shut the airports and ports!

Why would they shut the airports and ports? There are millions of people trying to get back to the UK having spent Christmas and New Year in various European countries. Would you stop them from entering the UK even if they are resident here? 

23
In reply to girlymonkey:

> And yet they have still never shut the airports and ports!

Not sure why they would at this point. More likely to take it away than bring it in.

1
In reply to Wanderer100:

If we were to shut our ports it should be to stop us spreading the virus outwards rather than bringing it in. Oddly, bringing people into the UK would statistically lower our case rate, as we are total Covid Mingers. 

In reply to Wanderer100:

> Why would they shut the airports and ports? There are millions of people trying to get back to the UK having spent Christmas and New Year in various European countries. Would you stop them from entering the UK even if they are resident here? 

Personally I would have stopped them leaving in the first place but now they are out we need to let them back in. 

I would only let residents in though and once in no one leaves until this is all over unless someone wants to leave and stay gone and can find a country daft enough to allow us in. 

1
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Because the point of locking down is to lower our case numbers. As the numbers drop while we are locked down, we don't need people arriving from elsewhere with it. It spreads by people moving around. Stop people moving and it can't spread as much. We are not allowed to go to another council area to walk up a hill, but we can pile into metal tubes and fly anywhere we like! It's nuts!

International travel should have stopped in Feb/ March and should have stayed that way. It's never too late to start sensible policies, although they obviously have less effect now than they would have early on. It will still help though

7
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Dax H:

And when letting them back in, take them to a supervised quarantine center. 

4
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Because the point of locking down is to lower our case numbers. As the numbers drop while we are locked down, we don't need people arriving from elsewhere with it.

Not sure the point's landed... You're more likely to have people arriving from elsewhere without it, and people flying off to elsewhere with it. If the objective is to get case numbers down (albeit at the rest of the world's expense), you would open some new airports and encourage people to use them.

> It will still help though

Not now it wouldn't. Absolute opposite is true at the moment.

Post edited at 16:20
16
In reply to girlymonkey:

> International travel should have stopped in Feb/ March and should have stayed that way. It's never too late to start sensible policies, although they obviously have less effect now than they would have early on. It will still help though

International travel should have stopped in January. Hopefully we've learned for next time.

2
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Every time someone infected leaves here, they are likely to push numbers up wherever they are going. That means people returning from there in the future are more likely to have it!

But more broadly, the point of the lockdown is to reduce our cases, and from previous lockdowns this seems likely to work. So our cases are going to come in line with or go lower than other countries, so airports being open is a bad thing. 

11
 mondite 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Not sure the point's landed... You're more likely to have people arriving from elsewhere without it, and people flying off to elsewhere with it.

Not necessarily. It would a)depend on where they are going and b)whether they are coming back again. If you have thirty people going off on their skiing holiday with one being infected then in a weeks time on the way back the number might be a tad higher. At the risk of being cynical I have a suspicion that the sort of person who sods off on hols at the moment is going to be the sort who is relaxed about precautions.

Plus they could have new and fun variants like the possible South African variant.

Locking them up for 2 weeks in controlled quarantine I think would make people think rather hard about whether their trip really is essential.

1
In reply to girlymonkey:

> But more broadly, the point of the lockdown is to reduce our cases, and from previous lockdowns this seems likely to work. So our cases are going to come in line with or go lower than other countries, so airports being open is a bad thing. 

Only once that's happened. Miles off that at the moment.
As long as the planes going out have more covid on them than the planes coming in, closing airports will, quite obviously, not help our case numbers.
Until our cases numbers are a lot lot lower closing airports isn't worth talking about.

Post edited at 16:37
7
 Le Sapeur 04 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> so airports being open is a bad thing. 

Airports being open to non-essential travel is a bad thing. There has been absolutely no need for anyone to take a foreign holiday in the past 10 months but some essential travel needs to continue.

1
In reply to mondite:

>  Locking them up for 2 weeks in controlled quarantine I think would make people think rather hard about whether their trip really is essential.

Or you actually police self-isolation and levy punitive fines for those that breach it. It worked here.  Lack of policing the covid rules for whatever reason is a big part of the failings in the UK approach.

Post edited at 16:43
1
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

No, you missed the point about the cases rising elsewhere as we take it out! Every time we do that, the risk of incoming travellers also rises.

6
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Le Sapeur:

As long as quarantine is enforced. 

1
 Eric9Points 04 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

I believe BJ will make an announcement at 8.00 pm. I would hope that he too would order a lock down, including schools but nothing would surprise me. I did hear that generally he is inclined to go with the science until Rishi Sunak objects.

I'd love to know what's going on with the vaccines.

5
In reply to mondite:

> Not necessarily. It would a)depend on where they are going and b)whether they are coming back again. If you have thirty people going off on their skiing holiday with one being infected then in a weeks time on the way back the number might be a tad higher. At the risk of being cynical I have a suspicion that the sort of person who sods off on hols at the moment is going to be the sort who is relaxed about precautions.

Same balance of probabilities still holds, even for doorhandle-lickers. They're more likely to have caught it being a tool here and come back without out it than catch it on holiday.

> Plus they could have new and fun variants like the possible South African variant.

> Locking them up for 2 weeks in controlled quarantine I think would make people think rather hard about whether their trip really is essential.

Aren't we doing this??? At least for certain places? Or is it one of those things that's "just guidance"?

2
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Aren't we doing this??? At least for certain places? Or is it one of those things that's "just guidance"?

No! If we were I wouldn't be so bothered! People are told they should, but nothing is being enforced or checked up on. 

3
 mondite 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Same balance of probabilities still holds, even for doorhandle-lickers. They're more likely to have caught it being a tool here and come back without out it than catch it on holiday.

Not convinced by this. Since one tool here surrounded by sensible people is less of a risk than one tool surrounded by a bunch of fellow tools also on holiday and then they get to spread it around once they get back.

> Aren't we doing this??? At least for certain places? Or is it one of those things that's "just guidance"?

It doesnt seem to being enforced in any useful way.  Its unclear what is happening now but a couple of months back the level of enforcement was pisspoor. The police might pop round to knock on your door (if you had filled in the form with the added bonus of using the right details) but if you didnt answer then that was the end of it. So the only way it could be enforced is if you were unlucky and the cops arrived at just the right/wrong time or when they called someone else answered the door and dobbed you in.

 jonny taylor 04 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

>> Same balance of probabilities still holds, even for doorhandle-lickers. They're more likely to have caught it being a tool here and come back without out it than catch it on holiday.

> Not convinced by this. Since one tool here surrounded by sensible people is less of a risk than one tool surrounded by a bunch of fellow tools also on holiday and then they get to spread it around once they get back.

For me the biggest factor about non-essential air travel is that they're sat on a plane shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of *other* tools for several hours breathing recirculated air. It doesn't matter if you're coming back from a lower-prevelance area if the one person who has it passes it to everyone else on the plane.

Post edited at 17:06
2
 The Norris 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I believe BJ will make an announcement at 8.00 pm. I would hope that he too would order a lock down, including schools but nothing would surprise me. I did hear that generally he is inclined to go with the science until Rishi Sunak objects.

> I'd love to know what's going on with the vaccines.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Here you go, it's taken over from the worldometers misery stat watch in my house, as it's a bit more positive 

In reply to mondite:

> Not convinced by this. Since one tool here surrounded by sensible people is less of a risk than one tool surrounded by a bunch of fellow tools also on holiday and then they get to spread it around once they get back.

Dunno... who do they hang out with at home? I mean, I can think of people who would be sensible at home and a knob on holiday, but not many. Most seem fairly consistent. And they're far more likely to encounter a bad doorhandle at home than away.
Either way I don't think it changes the mean number of people per plane with covid that much. There's more going out than coming in for sure.

3
 walts4 04 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> No, you missed the point about the cases rising elsewhere as we take it out! Every time we do that, the risk of incoming travellers also rises.

Have you actually tried to board a plane recently?

Without a PCR test it’s now impossible to fly.

6
 David Myatt 04 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

I only have one example, but on the strength of that they are actually checking. My daughter flew back from uni  in Munich to Edinburgh in early December and was phoned several days later to check she was self isolating. She, my wife and I, were. We had 14 days of meals planned with all provisions in stock, apart from milk which a neighbour picked up halfway through. She has just booked a direct flight back in early Feb to attend an interview with the Bavarian gov regarding her residency...courtesy of Brexit.

The top of Seamab is an hour’s walk from home, so we are much luckier than the city dwellers.

 Graeme G 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Why would they shut the airports and ports? 

So they couldn’t leave in the first place and bring back a 2nd spike after the summer break. And then transmit our new variant across the globe.

Sorry, but that’s just a bloody stupid question.

2
 Eric9Points 04 Jan 2021
In reply to The Norris:

> Here you go, it's taken over from the worldometers misery stat watch in my house, as it's a bit more positive 

Thanks I have been following what *has* happened but really want to know what *will* happen. We need to increase the rate of vaccinations by at least an order of magnitude.

 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to walts4:

And PCR tests only catch some of the infections. The countries which have done well with keeping it out have relied on quarantine, not PCR tests.

 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to David Myatt:

And that is all good when people do take it all seriously. However, you can answer a phone anywhere and tell the person on the other end what they want to hear! 

Yes, we are very lucky to have hills accessible to us. It is far less of a bind to stay local in some areas than others!

2
In reply to Graeme G:

> So they couldn’t leave in the first place and bring back a 2nd spike after the summer break. And then transmit our new variant across the globe.

> Sorry, but that’s just a bloody stupid question.

Well that's just a bloody ignorant reply.

The OP proposed closing airports and ports. I, not unreasonably,  asked what about the millions of people trying to get back to the UK?

You, in turn, garbled some nonsense about the summer break. Sorry, but that horse has well and truly bolted. We are talking about here and now and airports and ports can't close, not least so that UK residents can get home as well as the continued movement of goods to and from Europe and further afield. If people are travelling into the UK they should be self isolating for 10 days thus eliminating the risk.

7
 Graeme G 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Well that's just a bloody ignorant reply.

> The OP proposed closing airports and ports. I, not unreasonably,  asked what about the millions of people trying to get back to the UK?

Leave them. Sorted.

1
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> As long as the planes going out have more covid on them than the planes coming in, closing airports will, quite obviously, not help our case numbers.

How about a policy of free one way plane tickets for anyone with a positive test result. It would get our infection rate down and help the struggling airline industry. Win, win.

Post edited at 18:25
1
 r0x0r.wolfo 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Wanderer100:

He's still right about not exporting our variant. Lots of countries have banned flights from the UK over the last few weeks, we'd just be talking about extending that policy ourselves. 

Anyone flying right now, well since March really knows there's a risk they'll be delayed, need to quarantine, may not be able to fly without a test / documentation etc. Hasn't stopped the UK chopping and changing foreign travel advice as it needs to. 

 Tringa 04 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

Agree. It is ludicrous that we haven't stopped all non essential traffic through ports and airports.

Throughout this pandemic the UK government have been constant in one thing, a total inability to learn from other countries.

Dave

 elsewhere 04 Jan 2021

Anybody know what exercise is allowed?

My local park has been mobbed (which is good, people need to get some fresh air) so I hope I can get out to stretch my legs or go for a cycle ride.

1
In reply to walts4:

> Without a PCR test it’s now impossible to fly

PCR false negative rate is ~30%

In reply to Wanderer100:

> There are millions of people trying to get back to the UK having spent Christmas and New Year in various European countries

Millions? I very much doubt it.

5
In reply to girlymonkey:

It seems we can still   "travel" for exercise ,a subtle difference from March rules (Within ones local authority). This will make quite a difference ( if I have interpreted the rulings correctly)

Post edited at 21:00
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Bob Bennett:

Yes, this has been the case here for a while now. We can also go up to 5 miles outside of our council area (presumably to accommodate people who live near a council boundary?) I'm not sure what it has been elsewhere in the UK. However, we are being encouraged to stick as local as we can. So I can't remember the exact wording but it asks us to travel no further than we need to in order to exercise in a socially distanced manner, or something like that.

Our area is pretty good for local hills. Not loads of climbing but plenty of great running, biking and walking. Sucks if you live in central Glasgow!

1
In reply to Bob Bennett:

> It seems we can still   "travel" for exercise ,a subtle difference from March rules (Within ones local authority). This will make quite a difference ( if I have interpreted the rulings correctly)

The exact wording is: "local outdoor informal exercise such as walking, cycling, golf, or running (in groups of up to 2 people, plus any children under 12, from no more than 2 households) that starts and finishes at the same place (which can be up to 5 miles from the boundary of your local authority area).  The number of periods of exercise are not limited".

So it is one again wildly open to interpretation. I live in Kinross so can I legally/morally within the spirit/letter/intention of the guidance/law decide next weekend to drive up to Glen Lyon and walk some hills on my own if the weather is nice? 

Post edited at 21:47
1
 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Under the "Exceptions" section in the guidance it says

"Although you can travel for these purposes, you should stay as close to home as possible.  For example, shop on-line or use local shops and services wherever you can.   Travel no further than you need to reach to a safe, non-crowded place to exercise in a socially distanced way. "

Which is obviously very open to interpretation!

In reply to girlymonkey:

> Under the "Exceptions" section in the guidance it says

> "Although you can travel for these purposes, you should stay as close to home as possible.  For example, shop on-line or use local shops and services wherever you can.   Travel no further than you need to reach to a safe, non-crowded place to exercise in a socially distanced way. "

I've just spent ten minutes looking for that and can't find it!

Edit: Finally found it. So if my chosen exercise is hill walking, can I drive to a hill? (The answer to this question makes a huge difference to me).

Post edited at 22:19
In reply to captain paranoia:

> In reply to Wanderer100:

> > There are millions of people trying to get back to the UK having spent Christmas and New Year in various European countries

> Millions? I very much doubt it.

I personally know at least 200 people I work with. I don't think in excess of a million is stretching it. Close to 4 million Europeans live in the UK not including their UK born offspring. 

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/eu-migration-to-and-from-the-uk/

 girlymonkey 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

My interpretation of that would be yes, but they are encouraging you to choose a close hill rather than going to the farthest reaches of your alloted area. That is encouragement, not law.

So my take would be that from Stirling the Ochils are in, but Dumyat is busy and tricky to park. Heading to the Trossachs would be fine and more likely to find quieter hills so easier social distancing. Up to Bridge of Orchy, while still in the letter of the law, is probably discouraged. 

Of course, that is my interpretation and I am sure there will be many different ways that people interpret that!

2
 Graeme G 04 Jan 2021
In reply to Wanderer100:

>  I don't think in excess of a million is stretching it.

1 million or 1 hundred, who cares? You vote Conservative. Surely you, of all UKCers, understand the concept of personal responsibility? Being stuck abroad is their problem.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Only once that's happened. Miles off that at the moment.

Scotland is not in the same state as SE England and we start a fairly hard lockdown at midnight.  We may as well have travel restrictions from the start of the lockdown rather than try and predict the exact point where they become beneficial. 

Also, if we let people travel during the lockdown and then impose a travel ban after the lockdown the first thing that will happen is the people who went abroad to beat the lockdown will start asking for a repatriation exemption from the travel ban so they can come back once it is over.

Now that there are multiple strains of Covid emerging with significant differences between them travel limits are also about slowing the propagation of different strains.   It's not as simple as more covid going out than coming in.

In reply to Wanderer100:

> Close to 4 million Europeans live in the UK not including their UK born offspring

Yes. And I suspect almost all of them stayed here over Christmas.

In reply to girlymonkey:

> My interpretation of that would be yes, but they are encouraging you to choose a close hill rather than going to the farthest reaches of your alloted area. That is encouragement, not law.

Yes, I think I can justify going to the Ochils at weekends to keep me sane.

2
 Andrew Wells 04 Jan 2021

There were quite a few outbreaks due to international travel. Three in Wales, that I recall, specifically traced to one person who went on holiday, came back and spread the Rona.

Non-essential (i.e to return to where you live, or as a key worker travelling overseas for whatever reason) travel should have been banned internationally in the UK since March 2020. Ridiculous that it wasn't. I mean I know the arguments, air bridges so that we can maintain the tourism economy. Great. Now the whole economy is f*cked, including the tourism economy, due to the virus being out of control. So glad.

2
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Not sure why they would at this point. More likely to take it away than bring it in.

LOL! Edit - I thought you were joking but apparently not. Your interpretation of the situation is rather odd for the reasons others have set out above. 

Post edited at 00:22
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I've just spent ten minutes looking for that and can't find it!

> Edit: Finally found it. So if my chosen exercise is hill walking, can I drive to a hill? (The answer to this question makes a huge difference to me).

AFAIK 'should' means it is a recommendation.  If it was a law they'd write 'must'.

In reply to girlymonkey:

> Under the "Exceptions" section in the guidance it says

> "Although you can travel for these purposes, you should stay as close to home as possible.  For example, shop on-line or use local shops and services wherever you can.   Travel no further than you need to reach to a safe, non-crowded place to exercise in a socially distanced way. "

Thinking about this again, although I think I can drive to the Ochils and the Lomonds as the nearest places to do some hill walking, the "non-crowded" bit is interesting. I can imagine the Ochils and Lomonds (particularly parking) being overrun at weekends with people from Clacks and Fife, so it could be argued that, being in Perth and Kinross, it would be entirely in the spirit of the guidance for me to do my bit to spread people out by driving to the nearer hills in the Highlands at weekends and keep the more local hills for evening exercise. 

Edit: I see that Girlymonkey made a similar point about going to the Trossachs from Stirling to avoid crowding out the west end of the Ochils.

I also see that I am getting dislikes. It would be interesting to know why making the effort to spread people out would be criticised - keeping people apart is precisely how to minimise opportunities for the virus to spread.

Post edited at 07:46
6
In reply to Misha:

I was half joking. Suppose my point was it's not as obvious as the OP made out. As Mick pointed out too.

 Lrunner 05 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2021/1/regulation/4/made shows the HUGE list of exemptions. The only thing that has really changed in tier 4 is schools being closed. 

What has changed is the messaging but in terms of law barely a difference except for the "must work from home".

It was a bit naughty for Nicola to say that "unlike march there is no limit on the number of times you can exercise". In March there wasn't a limit, Borris just said it in a press conference. 

But god forbid any of the papers can read the legislation

1
In reply to Lrunner:

If the only change are schools closed, then nothing has changed, kids have been off anyway and case numbers rose. Better to for them to identify what actions have caused the spread since schools shut for Xmas. 

 Lrunner 05 Jan 2021
In reply to summo:

well quite, nothing has changed in my opinion. Its just the messaging that's what will make the difference. The law is almost arbitrary at this stage.

In reply to Graeme G:

> 1 million or 1 hundred, who cares? You vote Conservative. Surely you, of all UKCers, understand the concept of personal responsibility? Being stuck abroad is their problem.

How do you know who I vote for? I'm perfectly aware of the concept of personal responsibility as much as I am aware of the need for repatriation in the event that people need to get home urgently and expeditiously. In that case the government has a duty to keep airports and ports open whether you like it or not.

 Colin Moody 05 Jan 2021
In reply to Lrunner:

> It was a bit naughty for Nicola to say that "unlike march there is no limit on the number of times you can exercise". In March there wasn't a limit, Borris just said it in a press conference. 

Yes there was.

' The British population was instructed to stay home, except for exercise once a day (such as running, walking or cycling), shopping for essential items, any medical need, providing care to a vulnerable person, or travelling to work where the work in question was vital and could not be done from home. '

1
 Lrunner 05 Jan 2021
In reply to Colin Moody:

it wasn't legislated for honestly.

Edit

To be fair "naughty" was the wrong word. But she is definitely mistaken.

Post edited at 10:09
 Graeme G 05 Jan 2021
In reply to Wanderer100:

> How do you know who I vote for?

You’ve voiced this on a number of other threads?

Unless I have you mixed up with someone else, in which case I’m happy to apologise for my error.

As for repatriation, I’m just struggling to understand why you’re so concerned for those who have travelled abroad. I’ve sacrificed enough this year to ensure I couldn’t care less. Leave them in Verbier, or wherever they’ve gone until we can be sure they’re safe to travel home.

3
 Le Sapeur 05 Jan 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> And yet they have still never shut the airports and ports!

Neither did Taiwan or New Zealand.

2
 Graeme G 05 Jan 2021
 Tringa 07 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme G:

It seems some folks can't make a bit of a sacrifice. Everyone in the UK can find some where to exercise within 5 miles of their home.

It might not be the exercise they want to do but no one is going to die if they do not do a hill.

Anything that potentially reduces the chances of spreading the virus or the impact on emergency services can only help.

Dave

1
 Graeme G 07 Jan 2021
In reply to Tringa:

> It seems some folks can't make a bit of a sacrifice. Everyone in the UK can find some where to exercise within 5 miles of their home.

Hence my anger evidenced in other threads. It’s not like we’re sending our children to fight in a war. Or hide underground from bombs. 

> It might not be the exercise they want to do but no one is going to die if they do not do a hill.

I have the privilege of having 4 pretty rubbish Corbetts within the rules. They’ll do me. If I didn’t I’d make do.

> Anything that potentially reduces the chances of spreading the virus or the impact on emergency services can only help.

Couldn’t agree more.

> Dave

 Le Sapeur 11 Jan 2021
2
 Graeme G 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> No, they never did shut the airports.

So the borders were closed to non NZ, but the airports weren’t? Can you clarify how that worked? It’s certainly not mentioned in the link.

 Eric9Points 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme G:

Visitors arriving in NZ had to go into quarantine for a fortnight. They were put in hotels.

However some of them just buggered off after a couple days or went and visited their relatives anyway, that sort of thing.

 Graeme G 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Eric9Points:

Interesting. So how did they manage to significantly reduce the prevalence of the virus? Compared to the UK, of course.

 Le Sapeur 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme G:

The airports were open to NZ residents. Therefore they were not closed. The airport cannot be open and closed at the same time.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

> The airports were open to NZ residents. Therefore they were not closed. The airport cannot be open and closed at the same time.

The Schrödinger International Airport in Vienna is both open and closed until one arrives at it.

 Graeme G 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> The airports were open to NZ residents. Therefore they were not closed. The airport cannot be open and closed at the same time.

Mmmm.....a bit black and white in your thinking. You’re factually correct. But it wasn’t open to all so I stand by my statement, they were ‘kinda’ closed.

 wintertree 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme G:

> Interesting. So how did they manage to significantly reduce the prevalence of the virus? Compared to the UK, of course.

Police went after people who broke quarantine, and they now have MIQ - managed isolation and quarantine - run by the military.

The instant a case is found in the country they activate local lockdown - hard - be use sequencing to help with the contact tracing.

 Graeme G 11 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

What I suspected. And I see Le Sapeur is just being a pendant re:airports being closed.

In short, they responded the way a small island nation with sovereignty over its borders should have responded.

We can but dream.

3
 wintertree 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme G:

> We can but dream.

It's never too late.  

With the South African variant on the cards and potentially undergoing local transmission, I think it's more important than ever to go hard and as early as we can for near elimination and to institute MIQ on the borders.

It's never wise to anthropomorphise a virus, but  this one seems to me to be trying to evolve to be more like the original SARS.  If a more lethal variant or an even more transmissible variant emerges, we just aren't going to be able to contain it with more than absolutely minimal cases and without MIQ on the borders.  Given how the Worldometer page looks right now, I'd expect more variants yet - and most places aren't sequencing as well as the UK to understand that.  I've been wondering if there's been a change to the ribosome on the ORF1ab gene that raises the error rate a bit, or if these new and worrying variants are coming along just because there's so much infection out there right now.

Chances of the UK going hard for elimination and introducing MIQ?  

0

 Eric9Points 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Graeme G:

> Interesting. So how did they manage to significantly reduce the prevalence of the virus? Compared to the UK, of course.

From what I remember they were careful about who they were letting in or out of the country but there wasn't a complete ban on travel.

They locked down when they had fewer cases than we did. NZ is also at the end of the line rather than a huge global travel hub which helps. Further, outside of Auckland NZ is essentially a rural country with a much lower population density than the UK and of course it is split into two parts separated by a substantial body of water.

Surely everyone knows that the UK locked down 10 days too late?

 Le Sapeur 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Ghastly Rubberfeet:

I was going to call it Schrödinger's airport paradox but knew someone else would bite.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.