Will you travel? [Mod Note in Post #1 - Travel Discussion Only! Megathread]

ShineOn7

bikeman1 wrote: »

Life is not for putting on pause because of a virus that we know how to deal with now.

Travel is essential.

Gotta disagree here

We know how to deal with it?

In the last 24 hours has Trump's Wonderdrug appeared in every Boots in the land and we haven't heard about it?

In one hospital in Northern Ireland they came close to having to ration oxygen this week. Outside the ROI the scenarios in many EU countries are looking increasingly worrying

This thing only got from China to every county in Ireland because of Travel and how entitled we all feel about it

Travel isn't "essential" in 2020 or 2021

Father Hernandez

theological wrote: »

In the incubation period (the first 6 days before symptoms) people can test out negative only to test positive later. Testing at airports isn't a silver bullet.

This is why we need travel restrictions and / or mandatory quarantine until this is under control.

Banning travel is to stop things at the source. It is to stop new cases entering.

What do you do in the case of essential travel, ban it outright?

ZiabR

ZiabR wrote: »

is arguably the biggest cesspit in the world for possible infections (Airports and Planes).

Then put forth your argument because both are not that busy and with masks and sanitation mandatory, are probable lower than many places like your local Aldi

theological

theological wrote: »

This virus kills people. I think that's more important than not being able to visit someone.

I agree that's unfortunate. I'm in the same position. We need to get this under control first because stopping people dying of this is more important than getting to see my family this Christmas.

Plenty of viruses kill people. Thats not an argument

I will be seeing my family at Christmas. Stay inside if you dont want to cross paths with us

ShineOn7

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Travel isn't "essential" in 2020 or 2021

We are an island. Of course travel is essential in certain circumstances. what you mean is travel is not essential for you

Kivaro

Just to clarify a point on the antigen tests.
These test are recommended for people showing symptoms, but not longer than 4 days after the onset of these symptoms. You can take the test without symptoms, but that does not give you a clear indication whether you have the virus or not. Based on this information, it may not be a suitable/accurate test for people who want to travel overseas.

These tests are now available today in pharmacies all over France, and there is no charge for it, as it is covered under their national insurance. It makes sense for Ireland to roll out a similar system.

theological

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

We are an island. Of course travel is essential in certain circumstances. what you mean is travel is not essential for you

This is another reason why "essential" travel would need to be defined if it was restricted. Caring for a sick or dying relative would be essential. Going to visit someone otherwise wouldn't be.

We should be working together to send this packing so that we can sustainably travel. I agree with ShineOn7 here. People need to take this seriously and cop on. That's why the government should be leading here.

If your travel could lead to a spread of the virus in the community then the government should step in and say no.

theological

theological wrote: »

If your travel could lead to a spread of the virus in the community then the government should step in and say no.

How is this compatable with your statement about caring for a dying relative?

What about caring for children or ya know, seeing your wife or husband?

what about all the staff that put food on your table, medical supplies? The PPE didnt fall out of the sky. It came from China via Dublin airport

Father Hernandez

theological wrote: »

This is another reason why "essential" travel would need to be defined if it was restricted. Caring for a sick or dying relative would be essential. Going to visit someone otherwise wouldn't be.

We should be working together to send this packing so that we can sustainably travel. I agree with ShineOn7 here. People need to take this seriously and cop on. That's why the government should be leading here.

If your travel could lead to a spread of the virus in the community then the government should step in and say no.

You're seriously expecting a government to lead and define which is essential travel and which is not.

The same government that last week decided to put the whole country to a halt even in industries that had a low rate of covid infections. You're living in dream land.

People will class travel 'essential' to suit themselves, whether they're right or wrong.

Tenzor07

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Travel isn't "essential" in 2020 or 2021

This coming from someone who's being posting up questions about which country you should travel to for an extended stay?

theological

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How is this compatable with your statement about caring for a dying relative?

What about caring for children or ya know, seeing your wife or husband?

what about all the staff that put food on your table, medical supplies? The PPE didnt fall out of the sky. It came from China via Dublin airport

Deliveries of goods obviously need to continue. I'm speaking of people travelling because they want to see people (other in medical necessity) or to go travelling. These obviously are non-essential.

People need to take this seriously. We're in the second wave because of travel. We're in lockdown because of summer travel.

theological

theological wrote: »

Deliveries of goods obviously need to continue. I'm speaking of people travelling because they want to see people (other in medical necessity) or to go travelling. These obviously are non-essential.

People need to take this seriously. We're in the second wave because of travel. We're in lockdown because of summer travel.

A, again thats your version. Essential depends on individual circumstances. I will continue to travel to see my wife and children. I deem it essential. if you are at risk, you stay inside.

B, If thats true then we should just stop travel and open all the social activities again right? but by closing the internal systems but leaving the airport open we will see cases continue to increase. I will put money on that not being the case.

Have you actually travelled lately? Been in an airport? Theres distance, masks and cleaners everywhere.

smurfjed

theological wrote: »

If your travel could lead to a spread of the virus in the community then the government should step in and say no.

If flying was that dangerous, I’m sure that you would see increased positivity numbers for airline staff, especially cabin crew, if this was the case I would then expect the EI cabin crew union to voice their objections.

theological

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

A, again thats your version. Essential depends on individual circumstances. I will continue to travel to see my wife and children. I deem it essential. if you are at risk, you stay inside.

B, If thats true then we should just stop travel and open all the social activities again right? but by closing the internal systems but leaving the airport open we will see cases continue to increase. I will put money on that not being the case.

Have you actually travelled lately? Been in an airport? Theres distance, masks and cleaners everywhere.

smurfjed wrote: »

If flying was that dangerous, I’m sure that you would see increased positivity numbers for airline staff, especially cabin crew, if this was the case I would then expect the EI cabin crew union to voice their objections.

A: this shouldn't be a matter of opinion. The government should define this and restrict travel until this is under control.

B: not until cases and deaths are under control. After this easing could happen if travel remains restricted. The travel restrictions should only be removed when the virus is controlled internationally.

I've not travelled outside of England since December.

You and the other poster miss the point. I'm not discussing catching in an airport or travelling although that is possible. The problem is people catching it abroad and returning home. This is clearly documented now and this is why this should stop.

lainey_d_123

theological wrote: »

This virus kills people. I think that's more important than not being able to visit someone.

I agree that's unfortunate. I'm in the same position. We need to get this under control first because stopping people dying of this is more important than getting to see my family this Christmas.

God, your thought processes are so simplistic. It's really irritating to read.

Yes, the virus kills people, and so do lots of other things. Lots of elderly people are now totally isolated, locked away, unable to spend the last year or two of their lives with family and loved ones. What's the point in keeping them safe if their last months are miserable? My best friend's grandmother died all alone in a hospice recently - she declined hugely during lockdown and not being able to see or talk to her husband and family.

A fella at my work killed himself last week, young guy of about 25, had been struggling with depression and anxiety for a few years, and was no longer able to access any of his support networks or coping mechanisms.

It just isn't feasible to lock down indefinitely. Even in China, they only did 12 weeks in the worst hit area and then opened back up to pretty much normal. The difference is that they comply much better with mask wearing than the spoiled entitled babies here, they have a good track and trace system and they basically all work together to ensure they don't need another terrible lockdown.

It's starting to get to the point where the 'cures' are worse than the disease.

theological

The UK didn't lock down indefinitely. On the other thread you were arguing against lockdown easing in England in May and June. We're about to go into a second lockdown which is unfortunately necessary due to people's non-essential travel in the summer.

We're still at the beginning of this pandemic. We need to understand that and take it seriously.

smurfjed

You and the other poster miss the point. I'm not discussing catching in an airport or travelling although that is possible. The problem is people catching it abroad and returning home. This is clearly documented now and this is why this should stop.

Not missing the point. More a case of not agreeing with it. Rather than ban travel completely, the government could easily insist on a COVID test within 72 hours of travel and a subsequent test within a specific period after arrival. The costs may be prohibitive for leisure travelers, but business travel could continue.

Have you seen the testing program used by United Airlines between New York and London, each passenger is given an antibody test prior to flight, this has no impact on the requirement to quarantine in the UK, but it allows the passengers to have confidence in that all the passengers on that flight were tested and were negative.

lainey_d_123

Tazz T wrote: »

Do that and there will be little international travel left, certainly none that ordinary people like you and I can afford.

Kerry airport has closed, Shannon in on its knees. The businesses that support those airports are hammered. Aer Lingus has sent everyone on fixed rate contracts packing and is looking at another 250 redundancies. That's nearly a quarter of its entire workforce.

The virus may never be gone. We need to plan to live with it. Unfortunately due to the ineptitude of the current government, it may now be too late for Ireland. Even if the government adopts the EU model, it's virtually guaranteed from the rumours already in press it will be such a FUBAR version of it, the green list will actually look like a good plan.

Absolutely. And then people like theological will be the first to complain when they have to pay 600 quid for a flight to Dublin like in the old days.

The fact is the industry NEEDS leisure travel to survive. You can't just shut down all travel for two years because of a virus.

theological

I've mentioned testing at airports. It isn't effective because you can test negative in the incubation period.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Absolutely. And then people like theological will be the first to complain when they have to pay 600 quid for a flight to Dublin like in the old days.

The fact is the industry NEEDS leisure travel to survive. You can't just shut down all travel for two years because of a virus.

Would I?

Tenzor07

smurfjed wrote: »

If flying was that dangerous, I’m sure that you would see increased positivity numbers for airline staff, especially cabin crew, if this was the case I would then expect the EI cabin crew union to voice their objections.

You're wasting your time with logic and that poster...it's long since left them.

The truth is Air Travel is safer than going to your local Supermarket... https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/air-travel-has-lower-covid-risk-than-grocery-shopping-eating-out-study/articleshow/78942226.cms

We can all go visit other countries without being infected or spreading infection so long as we follow the recommended health guidelines...

lainey_d_123

theological wrote: »

A: this shouldn't be a matter of opinion. The government should define this and restrict travel until this is under control.

B: not until cases and deaths are under control. After this easing could happen if travel remains restricted. The travel restrictions should only be removed when the virus is controlled internationally.

I've not travelled outside of England since December.

You and the other poster miss the point. I'm not discussing catching in an airport or travelling although that is possible. The problem is people catching it abroad and returning home. This is clearly documented now and this is why this should stop.

But if they hadn't caught it in Tenerife, they'd probably have caught it in Manchester, or Dublin, because the virus is EVERYWHERE. How are you not getting this, still? The type of people who go out and socialise indoors in a pandemic are going to do that regardless. That is the problem, not 'travel'.

lainey_d_123

theological wrote: »

The UK didn't lock down indefinitely. On the other thread you were arguing against lockdown easing in England in May and June. We're about to go into a second lockdown which is unfortunately necessary due to people's non-essential travel in the summer.

We're still at the beginning of this pandemic. We need to understand that and take it seriously.

Yes, I was. I thought things should have remained closed for longer precisely so that this wouldn't happen. The government decided instead to encourage people to cram into pubs and restaurants, and send everyone back to school and university, and here we are. That isn't travel, it's the country opening up. Once they decided to open everything, allowing travel really didn't make all that much difference.

acequion

It's quite patently obvious that those who want to ban travel don't travel. Just like those who didn't want the pubs reopened don't go to pubs.

Such people have zero concept of empathy, the ability to understand for others.

It's not essential for me so it's not essential, end of.

Folks, there's no point arguing with fanatics and zealots, you're literally flogging a dead horse.

theological

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I was. I thought things should have remained closed for longer precisely so that this wouldn't happen. The government decided instead to encourage people to cram into pubs and restaurants, and send everyone back to school and university, and here we are. That isn't travel, it's the country opening up. Once they decided to open everything, allowing travel really didn't make all that much difference.

That's factually false given what we know about how the second wave got to the UK (and Ireland). I've cited the articles.

lainey_d_123

theological wrote: »

I've mentioned testing at airports. It isn't effective because you can test negative in the incubation period.


Would I?

But it massively lowers the chances, doesn't it? If someone tests negative AND wears a mask for the flight AND attempts at distancing are made AND track and trace is used, that's still a hell of a lot safer than back in March when people were flying back and forth with absolutely none of these measures in place.

Father Hernandez

acequion wrote: »

It's quite patently obvious that those who want to ban travel don't travel. Just like those who didn't want the pubs reopened don't go to pubs.

Such people have zero concept of empathy, the ability to understand for others.

It's not essential for me so it's not essential, end of.

Folks, there's no point arguing with fanatics and zealots, you're literally flogging a dead horse.

“Everything is okay in my world so you should be too”

theological

acequion wrote: »

It's quite patently obvious that those who want to ban travel don't travel. Just like those who didn't want the pubs reopened don't go to pubs.

Such people have zero concept of empathy, the ability to understand for others.

It's not essential for me so it's not essential, end of.

Folks, there's no point arguing with fanatics and zealots, you're literally flogging a dead horse.

I argued for lockdown easing in the spring.

Those who lack empathy are those who would risk the lives of others to go travelling for a non-essential reason.

Tenzor07

theological wrote: »

I argued for lockdown easing in the spring.
Those who lack empathy are those who would risk the lives of others to go travelling for a non-essential reason.

Oh, so dramatic, so Karen-like...there are over 380 trillion viruses inhabiting each and every one of us... how the human race ever propagated across the world and survived to become a population of 7.8 billion people we'll never know!

smurfjed

theological wrote: »

.

Those who lack empathy are those who would risk the lives of others to go travelling for a non-essential reason.

What percentage of Irish cases can be traced back to travel ?

theological

smurfjed wrote: »

What percentage of Irish cases can be traced back to travel ?

100% given it arrived through travel. 60% of current cases in Ireland are currently from a strain that was brought from Spain through travel. I've cited this already in the thread.