Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can anyone explain this? As most of mainland Europe is ahead of us in ending the lockdown with lower rates of infection it is more likely that the UK will export coronavirus.


If it is a case of higher risk when you are actually traveling, then perhaps we should implement quarantine every time we go to the shops.


I'm surprised there is not more (or any) backlash from the masses and travel industry. Greece and Spain planning to reopen their resorts is rubbing salt into this wound.


It really cannot be some isolationist Brexit related thing. Surely.


The easy solution is health monitoring by the airlines, track and trace will also be fairly easy. Ferries can probably manage social isolation. Then a country by country arrangement or dare I say even with the EU as a whole


Perhaps there is a simple solution, perhaps Cummings has distracted up from more interest.

?Can anyone explain this? As most of mainland Europe is ahead of us in ending the lockdown with lower rates of infection it is more likely that the UK will export coronavirus?


Sorry, not with you quite on this.

How could the likelihood of the UK exporting coronavirus depend on whether other countries have a lower (or higher) rate of infection in the UK?

They are entirely separate issues.

I think your assertion is logically flawed, malumbu. We can absolutely reduce the spread with a quarantine program. The only problem I have with the policy is that it should have been introduced months ago.


Greece and Spain have already flattened the infection rate fairly succesfully. And the summer tourism season is vitally important to their economies.


Sorry to stray from the narrative, but it has nothing really to do with Brexit or Dominic Cummings.

I'm still a bit lost. Is the reason for quarantine (or quaranteen for those between 13 and 19) because of the dangers of catching Covid-19 when actually traveling - plane and ferry? If so shouldn't those using public transport in this country for any length of time also go into quarantine?


If I go to France there is a lower level of coronavirus in the country, therefore I am less likely to get it from actually being in that country then when in the UK (OK there will be regional variations). Dependent on controls of course but


Closing borders/bringing in quarantine at the height of transmission, particularly for those where there is a low rate of infection, makes great sense. During the recovery phase much less so.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...