In this post:
No quarantine for amber for vaccinated
No sooner had I said that I was hopeful the government may include some concession for vaccinated travellers, than The Telegraph today is reporting that ministers are now looking at exactly this subject.
Currently, the UK is way behind many other countries in not allowing vaccinated travellers any dispensation from quarantine or testing. 33 countries already give dispensations to vaccinated travellers. I notice on social media people still seem confused as to why you would do this since technically you could still get Covid and pass it one even if fully innoculated. If you look at the various rules around the world for non-vaccinated travellers they vary. For example, Hong Kong has 21 days quarantine as there have been one or two outlying incidents where people were positive despite testing negative at 14 days. Whereas Australia has 14 days and the UK has 10 days quarantine. The rules around travel are about minimising risk, not eliminating it altogether. Otherwise, we would lock everyone inside their homes forever!
Tim Spector, the epidemiologist behind the Zoe app, estimated the chances of someone getting Covid who is fully vaccinated is about 1 in 30,000. If you add in the fact that we would still be requiring people to test as well, the chances of someone vaccinated then bringing back a variant from an amber country are very small. Another concern is the discrimination against people who are not vaccinated. However, given the effect on the economy and keeping families apart, it seems to me that making everyone suffer the same fate when it is not necessary seems pointless for the sake of someone feeling discriminated against. For example, lots of people can’t eat peanuts because they are allergic. Do we ban everyone in the country from eating peanuts because some people medically can’t?
The Telegraph reports that the government is in the early stages of looking at removing the quarantine element for amber countries from those that are fully vaccinated. As we know the government does not move quickly so it seems unlikely it will make this round of changes on 28 June but there is still some hope. 28 June is not only the next change for green list countries but it is also a key review date for the entire traffic light system. Apparently, Matt Hancock, who has mainly be responsible for refusing to add more countries to the green list against scientific advice, has not ruled it out.
A government spokesman said: “Recognising the strong strategic rationale and success of the vaccine programme, we have commenced work to consider the role of vaccinations in shaping a different set of health and testing measures for inbound travel.”
More green list rumours
Many of the major travel experts are saying that they believe there will be no more countries added to the green list until after 29 July or Freedom day as it has been dubbed. However, as we know this is all pretty much guesswork since the announcements come as a shock to everyone, and generally, most informed guesses have proved to be wrong.
This week there are articles in a couple of the larger regional publications saying that there could be up to 10 countries added to the list. Given that most of Europe now has less cases than we do (and far less of the Delta variant) then in terms of the science, there are plenty of countries that should make the list. Whether the government actually pays any attention to the science remains to be seen. The country that has been at the top of the “next to make the green list” is Malta where I am currently writing this. With just 7 cases a week and a vaccination program similar to our own, the country should have made the list from day one.
Other countries that are still in the running for 28 June based on case numbers:
- Malta
- Canary Islands
- Balearic islands
- Poland
- Mexico
-
Italy
- Germany
- Jamaica
- USA
- Greek Islands
Personally, I’d be surprised if more than 2 or 3 countries are added this time around, with my bet still being on Malta.
Airline and airports challenge government legally over traffic light system
Given what happened at the last review of the green list, I’m only surprised this did not happen earlier. The government’s decision to not add any new countries to the green list was very unexpected given the data. Shortly afterward it was exposed in the media that the government had gone against its own rules and scientific advice to try to save “freedom day” where UK restrictions would be lifted.
Today it was announced that Ryanair and the Manchester Airport Group which represents Stansted and East Midlands airports as well. would be taking legal action.
Ryanair and MAG’s legal argument is that ministers have not been clear about how the government has made its decisions regarding the categorisation of countries as red, amber, or green. Given that the government originally said that it would be based on case numbers, vaccination programs, variants, and genomic sequencing. some of its recent decisions are baffling. As usual, the exact details are not spelled out to the public leaving ministers to do whatever they feel like, without laid out criteria for scrutiny. MAG is arguing that the government’s actions are undermining consumer confidence, which is entirely true. The sudden removal of Portugal from the list which was against what the government had said would happen with the next traffic light system, was the final straw for many travellers.
Court papers are due to be filed today with both Matt Hancock and transport secretary Grant Shapps named as defendants.
9 comments
I’ll keep my fingers crossed for Poland given I’ve got a trip booked on 17th of July. In terms of Scotland requirements for testing and quarantine, am I right in thinking there is no hotel quarantine for amber countries any more? Do we need to book our test package far in advance? Poland’s status could change from amber to green while we are there. Many thanks
So lets have this right. Its perfectly OK to discriminate against those who either cannot for medical reasons or those who choose not to (for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate in my age group) be vaccinated because hey, we dont ban peanuts right?!
But we couldnt possibly discriminate against the ‘vulnerable’ so had to lock everyone and everything down for the past 18 months. On marches the new narrative that further lockdowns will be the fault of those of us who dont want – or need – a vaccine.
I think the point I’m trying to make is that the rules are there to reduce the risk of importing variants. So if a vaccinated person is not a risk, why would you subject them to quarantine for the sole reason that we don’t offend someone else?
I think your peanuts analogy is wrong. There are also people who want to eat peanuts but haven’t been offered them! If a person refuses peanuts fair enough but there are those who have the allergy and that is discrimination it’s the equivalent to saying when we build a new building we don’t need to consider disabled access because it will only impact a few and the rest should be denied entry a job in the building! How many times have I read complaints when an airline serves business class from the back and there wasn’t a meal choice for status customers let alone no meal at all
The point is that we are trying to protect the country from people importing variants. If vaccinated people do not pose a risk with double testing, why would we lock them up for 10 days to save offending someone who will be given the vaccine in a couple of months time if they want it?
How do you know that European countries have less delta variant than us? Spain sequences 0% of cases, France 0.3% and Germany about 7.5%. We sequence 50%. We know which variants we have and where; they don’t.
You ask “ Do we ban everyone in the country from eating peanuts because some people medically can’t?”. Some airlines do! In addition to explaining that they do not serve peanuts because other risk of allergic reactions, I have been on a flight where the cabin crew instructed passengers not to eat their own peanuts. I just can’t recall which airlines it was, but it was on a flight out of the UK. I suppose this also explains why airline snacks emblazoned “Salted Peanuts” with a large photo of peanuts on the packet also has the warning “May contain peanuts”! That’s cleared up any doubt then.
Yes I did think that as I wrote it. I remember once on BA they said no nuts could be consumed but the main course was nut crusted fish!
“Freedom day” is July 19 rather than 29 ^
I’ve had the same flying on a Qatar flight regarding nuts, and then was promptly served nut mix with pre-departure champagne
Comments are closed.