Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

PhilOssophy

munchkin_utd wrote: »

ffs - there was 1500 odd cases in a fortnight in Ireland.
just 69 travel related.

now, is travel the problem ? Did banning travel keep irelands numbers low?

ireland seems more than capable of creating a home made disaster without need for importing it from abroad, if even that would have happened (with a slightly more liberal green list) seeing as its mainly young people / meat plant workers who are proactively multiplying the disease, not sightseeing pensioners (home or abroad) or families with kids (home or abroad)

How many times do we have to point out that the only figure being quoted as travel are if somebody leaves the country, not if they get it off somebody who has left it and come home, or a tourist coming in to the country? These are wrongly classified as community transmission.
How is that so difficult for people to get in to their head that this is why travel figures are low?

theological

PhilOssophy wrote: »

How many times do we have to point out that the only figure being quoted as travel are if somebody leaves the country, not if they get it off somebody who has left it and come home, or a tourist coming in to the country? These are wrongly classified as community transmission.
How is that so difficult for people to get in to their head that this is why travel figures are low?

For example in the previous article I linked to in The Guardian with 11 teenagers coming back from Greece and then going out in Plymouth city centre and finding out they were positive with coronavirus. The people they infected on the Irish government's criteria wouldn't count as travel related.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the virus was introduced through travel and that this could happen again with the latest emergence of cases in Europe?

The time to act is now before it causes issues in the autumn and winter.

Icepick

saabsaab wrote: »

So true. Pointless trying to lock down the country to eliminate the virus but importing new cases.

We cannot eliminate the virus without a vaccine and ultra cheap and quick testing.
Controlled spread is our best option right now.

gral6

Pointless to lockdown country because of ordinary flu.

PhilOssophy

Icepick wrote: »

We cannot eliminate the virus without a vaccine and ultra cheap and quick testing.
Controlled spread is our best option right now.

Well no less than infectious disease experts beg to differ with you! I've read several of them suggesting if we had another 2-week lockdown, a mandatory quarantine location at the airport (i.e. none of this "I'm going home to isolate") for 14 days on arrival, that we could completely eliminate this and life return to normal within 4-6 weeks provided we actually obeyed the lockdown properly (probably the least likely of all the above).

But sure, what's another year as Johnny Logan said I suppose!

Icepick

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Well no less than infectious disease experts beg to differ with you! I've read several of them suggesting if we had another 2-week lockdown, a mandatory quarantine location at the airport (i.e. none of this "I'm going home to isolate") for 14 days on arrival, that we could completely eliminate this and life return to normal within 4-6 weeks provided we actually obeyed the lockdown properly (probably the least likely of all the above).

But sure, what's another year as Johnny Logan said I suppose!

Ifs don't count. reality does.
We can't seal the Irish border either.

theological

Icepick wrote: »

Ifs don't count. reality does.
We can't seal the Irish border either.

We could agree a joint notification system for new arrivals from quarantined countries at least. So that if someone flies into Belfast the Irish authorities would be notified and vice versa.

People should be told only to travel for essential reasons like caring for family members. With France on the verge of a national lockdown it is ludicrous that we're still arguing for unnecessary travel being allowed.

What happens now will determine how well autumn and winter will go.

JP Liz V1

I'm sick of apologies from "politicians" for not quarantining on arrival, sack and fine the lot

gral6

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I'm sick of apologies from "politicians" for not quarantining on arrival, sack and fine the lot

They did not break any law. Moreover, the laws are for the plebs so just keep your head down.

3xh

theological wrote: »

For example in the previous article I linked to in The Guardian with 11 teenagers coming back from Greece and then going out in Plymouth city centre and finding out they were positive with coronavirus. The people they infected on the Irish government's criteria wouldn't count as travel related.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the virus was introduced through travel and that this could happen again with the latest emergence of cases in Europe?

The time to act is now before it causes issues in the autumn and winter.

I know this post is 2 days old but I just read it. Jaysus. What kind of logic is that?! That means every single case is ‘Travel Related’ It means there is no such thing as community transmission.

Think before you type.

theological

3xh wrote: »

I know this post is 2 days old but I just read it. Jaysus. What kind of logic is that?! That means every single case is ‘Travel Related’ It means there is no such thing as community transmission.

Think before you type.

It is pointing out the logical flaw of reasoning that since "travel related" cases are so low that it isn't a problem is wrong.

If you travel you can spread coronavirus to many more people and reintroduce the virus into the community.

It is a response to those repeating the chestnut that 3% of cases are related to travel when that isn't the case.

With cases rising quickly in many European countries the time to ban non-essential travel is now.

3xh

theological wrote: »

It is pointing out the logical flaw of reasoning that since "travel related" cases are so low that it isn't a problem is wrong.

If you travel you can spread coronavirus to many more people and reintroduce the virus into the community.

It is a response to those repeating the chestnut that 3% of cases are related to travel when that isn't the case.

With cases rising quickly in many European countries the time to ban non-essential travel is now.

If John flies to Spain, returns to Ireland, receives a positive test in Ireland, that’s a travel related case.

If John’s wife, Mary, subsequently receives a positive test, that’s a Close Contact.

If Mary’s friend, Joan, has not been abroad and tests positive after being in contact with Mary, that’s a community transmission.

I can clearly see the dividing line between the 3 definitions.

If John travels from Dublin to Kerry, contracts it there and infects Mary then Joan upon his return, I don’t see the difference with that tbh. All 3 get infected. Yet John’s case is not seen as ‘Travel Related’. It would be classified as community transmission. Solely because he contracted it in Ireland and not after being on a plane.

Also, people travelling for essential reasons are not immune to contracting it. Or spreading it. So banning non-essential travel is pointless. The virus doesn’t care what your travel reason is.

You’re basically advocating for another 2km limit lockdown.

theological

3xh wrote: »

If John flies to Spain, returns to Ireland, receives a positive test in Ireland, that’s a travel related case.

If John’s wife, Mary, subsequently receives a positive test, that’s a Close Contact.

If Mary’s friend, Joan, has not been abroad and tests positive after being in contact with Mary, that’s a community transmission.

I can clearly see the dividing line between the 3 definitions.

If John travels from Dublin to Kerry, contracts it there and infects Mary then Joan upon his return, I don’t see the difference with that tbh. All 3 get infected. Yet John’s case is not seen as ‘Travel Related’. It would be classified as community transmission. Solely because he contracted it in Ireland and not after being on a plane.

Also, people travelling for essential reasons are not immune to contracting it. Or spreading it. So banning non-essential travel is pointless. The virus doesn’t care what your travel reason is.

You’re basically advocating for another 2km limit lockdown.

I'm advocating that non-essential international travel shouldn't be permitted. Travel locally can be handled pretty effectively through contact tracing.

The essence of my argument is that international travel is a significant cause of spread of coronavirus even if only 3% of cases are directly because of travel. Those 3% could account for many more cases if they are out in the community.

Travel restrictions should have been in place in February and March. Cases are rising exponentially in countries like France at the moment. Travel should be restricted now to ensure that there isn't a significant importation of cases leading up to the autumn and winter.

It's a pretty sound argument considering the virus was initially introduced through travel.

The argument for allowing unrestricted travel looks increasingly selfish.

The reason for distinguishing between essential and non-essential is to reduce the overall amount of travel.

3xh

theological wrote: »

I'm advocating that non-essential international travel shouldn't be permitted. Travel locally can be handled pretty effectively through contact tracing.

The essence of my argument is that international travel is a significant cause of spread of coronavirus even if only 3% of cases are directly because of travel. Those 3% could account for many more cases if they are out in the community.

Travel restrictions should have been in place in February and March. Cases are rising exponentially in countries like France at the moment. Travel should be restricted now to ensure that there isn't a significant importation of cases leading up to the autumn and winter.

It's a pretty sound argument considering the virus was initially introduced through travel.

The argument for allowing unrestricted travel looks increasingly selfish.

The reason for distinguishing between essential and non-essential is to reduce the overall amount of travel.

Then that’s a ‘Covid-free’ island you’re working towards. And all the economic damage that that brings to us.

Our cases currently are nothing more than that. Cases. If you’ve, for example, 2000 cases, no deaths, decreasing ICU numbers etc, it doesn’t matter if you’ve then got 5000 cases. It’s just a plot on a chart.

The cases and deaths first time around came from a time of no masks, people shaking hands, no minimum 2m rules, no contract tracing app and caller teams, no hand gel everywhere, sick people sent to nursing homes where the staff there had minimal PPE. It’s a completely different time/scenario now.

And another thing on statistics and their interpretation; it is possible that (using the names above) Mary could have infected John immediately before he left to go abroad for 24hrs. Upon return, he’ll be seen as a travel case. And his wife, Mary, as a close contact case. Yet John is strictly speaking a close contact case and Mary a community transmission. So don’t focus on how the cases are labelled like you are doing.

The focus is cases>hospital admissions>ICU>deaths. We’re basically only at step 1.

normanoffside

theological wrote: »

I'm advocating that non-essential international travel shouldn't be permitted. Travel locally can be handled pretty effectively through contact tracing.

Define 'Essential' and 'Non-Essential' please.

gral6

theological wrote: »

I'm advocating that non-essential international travel shouldn't be permitted. Travel locally can be handled pretty effectively through contact tracing.

The essence of my argument is that international travel is a significant cause of spread of coronavirus even if only 3% of cases are directly because of travel. Those 3% could account for many more cases if they are out in the community.

Travel restrictions should have been in place in February and March. Cases are rising exponentially in countries like France at the moment. Travel should be restricted now to ensure that there isn't a significant importation of cases leading up to the autumn and winter.

It's a pretty sound argument considering the virus was initially introduced through travel.

The argument for allowing unrestricted travel looks increasingly selfish.

The reason for distinguishing between essential and non-essential is to reduce the overall amount of travel.

Do you understand what word ''exponentially'' means?

Happydays2020

normanoffside wrote: »

Define 'Essential' and 'Non-Essential' please.

For me getting abroad is absolutely essential.

saabsaab

Happydays2020 wrote: »

For me getting abroad is absolutely essential.

No it's not. No need for abroad.

theological

3xh wrote: »

Then that’s a ‘Covid-free’ island you’re working towards. And all the economic damage that that brings to us.

Our cases currently are nothing more than that. Cases. If you’ve, for example, 2000 cases, no deaths, decreasing ICU numbers etc, it doesn’t matter if you’ve then got 5000 cases. It’s just a plot on a chart.

The cases and deaths first time around came from a time of no masks, people shaking hands, no minimum 2m rules, no contract tracing app and caller teams, no hand gel everywhere, sick people sent to nursing homes where the staff there had minimal PPE. It’s a completely different time/scenario now.

And another thing on statistics and their interpretation; it is possible that (using the names above) Mary could have infected John immediately before he left to go abroad for 24hrs. Upon return, he’ll be seen as a travel case. And his wife, Mary, as a close contact case. Yet John is strictly speaking a close contact case and Mary a community transmission. So don’t focus on how the cases are labelled like you are doing.

The focus is cases>hospital admissions>ICU>deaths. We’re basically only at step 1.

I'm arguing that strategies need to be taken to eliminate coronavirus yes.

What economic damage do you anticipate from saying non-essential travel is off for one year? Lots of work can continue remotely. Unless you mean the cost of tourism for one year?

There is no reason to think the March / April scenario couldn't reoccur in the autumn if there's further importation of cases
through travel which by the way is the reason coronavirus got to Europe at all.

saabsaab

3xh wrote: »

I know this post is 2 days old but I just read it. Jaysus. What kind of logic is that?! That means every single case is ‘Travel Related’ It means there is no such thing as community transmission.

Think before you type.

Yes! Ultimately every case is travel related. Some more so than others.

gral6

saabsaab wrote: »

No it's not. No need for abroad.

So stay home. Preferably in the underground bunker.

Spanish Eyes

I don't care what anyone thinks, but I would be very wary of air travel now. To think that Dublin Bus has separation, but an airline doesn't. Oh dear, and the queing and boarding and all that. Feck it.

Just me and I can live without it.

bobbyy gee

some country has 1 hour test

saabsaab

gral6 wrote: »

So stay home. Preferably in the underground bunker.

I will. Like most sensible people.

Happydays2020

US will open up to Europe in a few weeks. Good value on the dollar now and NY is lower than Ireland right now.

Spanish Eyes

Happydays2020 wrote: »

US will open up to Europe in a few weeks. Good value on the dollar now and NY is lower than Ireland right now.

Trolly Dolley, lol.

PhilOssophy

If travel abroad is really essential, then people should be OK with quarantining in a state-ran facility for 14 days when they return or indeed arrive here. Or at least until they are tested.
I am amazed that people think restrictions on travel would have such an effect on our economy. Not a fraction of the effect that people not being able to work, or businesses being closed, etc is having in local communities.
The fraction of the spend - this year of all years - generated by people coming in to the country, is tiny. And even tinier when compared to the increase in numbers they are causing.
It is beyond me how stupid people must be if they can't grasp this.

Tenzor07

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't care what anyone thinks, but I would be very wary of air travel now. To think that Dublin Bus has separation, but an airline doesn't. Oh dear, and the queing and boarding and all that. Feck it.Just me and I can live without it.

To think, Aircraft cabins contain filtered air through Medical grade Hepa filters and Dublin Bus's don't...Definitely don't have to queue for a bus either like you do at an airport.. :rolleyes:

Tenzor07

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If travel abroad is really essential, then people should be OK with quarantining in a state-ran facility for 14 days when they return or indeed arrive here..

No, move to China or North Korea.

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If travel abroad is really essential, then people should be OK with quarantining in a state-ran facility for 14 days when they return or indeed arrive here. Or at least until they are tested.
I am amazed that people think restrictions on travel would have such an effect on our economy. Not a fraction of the effect that people not being able to work, or businesses being closed, etc is having in local communities.
The fraction of the spend - this year of all years - generated by people coming in to the country, is tiny. And even tinier when compared to the increase in numbers they are causing.
It is beyond me how stupid people must be if they can't grasp this.

They’re not mutually exclusive, as plenty of our EU peers are illustrating