Covid restrictions abroad: updates & observations

[Cdd89]

All the usual suspect destinations - US, Canada, SA and South America are masks central.

Many of those are warm and don’t require masks outdoors, though. And nowhere can realistically require them in bars/restaurants.

I’ve been on several long haul flights throughout the pandemic and the crew have always been pragmatic about masks. The airline you choose may help here, eg avoiding Lufthansa and Finnair.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Many of those are warm and don’t require masks outdoors, though. And nowhere can realistically require them in bars/restaurants.

I’ve been on several long haul flights throughout the pandemic and the crew have always been pragmatic about masks. The airline you choose may help here, eg avoiding Lufthansa and Finnair.

It would be BA

 

[Cdd89]

It would be BA

BA are one of the most relaxed airlines with masks. On many flights I’ve been on, the crew don’t even wear them consistently.

 

[VauxhallandI]

BA are one of the most relaxed airlines with masks. On many flights I’ve been on, the crew don’t even wear them consistently.

Good to know thank you. How about the lounges?

 

[Cdd89]

Good to know thank you. How about the lounges?

Have a drink on your table and you won’t need to mask in an airline lounge anywhere in the world. Even the US doesn’t seriously enforce “masking between sips”.

 

[kristiang85]

Many of those are warm and don’t require masks outdoors, though. And nowhere can realistically require them in bars/restaurants.

I’ve been on several long haul flights throughout the pandemic and the crew have always been pragmatic about masks. The airline you choose may help here, eg avoiding Lufthansa and Finnair.

Turkish are utterly insane with masking too.

The only airline I've flown on where it's relaxed is Iraqi Airways. But they aren't exactly a big international carrier...

 

[nw1]

Whilst the Government has never directly prevented British Citizens from returning - some restrictions have made it logistically very difficult, even verging on the impossible for some people to return at times.

International travel needs three things:

1. The country you are in permitting you to leave.
2. The country you are wanting to go to permitting you to enter.
3. A means of transport actually running between the two.

For British Citizens returning home - #2 has never been prevented, but #1 is still banned for example if you are in Australia, and #3 has definitely been an issue at times.

I am amazed a country could actually ban foreigners from leaving. Isn't that against all sorts of international rules?

And why would Australia have a legitimate reason to stop foreign citizens leaving Australia on a one-way ticket anyway? If they want to keep foreigners out, that's one thing - quite another to trap them in. That really is the worst kind of authoritarianism.

Presumably some countries at least have had 'words' with Australia over this; I would hope so.

 

[island]

I am amazed a country could actually ban foreigners from leaving. Isn't that against all sorts of international rules?

It's commonplace in Gulf countries, China, South Korea, and loads of other places, that long-stay visa holders need permission from their employers to leave the country. Singapore also does it for dual national males who haven't completed their mandatory conscription.

 

[nw1]

It's commonplace in Gulf countries, China, South Korea, and loads of other places, that long-stay visa holders need permission from their employers to leave the country. Singapore also does it for dual national males who haven't completed their mandatory conscription.

Not good, and doesn't encourage you to move to such locations to work.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is true, but I want to relax and not be gaming it.

I've got 350k points and nowhere to go at the moment. All the usual suspect destinations - US, Canada, SA and South America are masks central.

Depends where you go in the USA. Some states don't mandate masks and it's just like walking around England.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2021 ==

Not good, and doesn't encourage you to move to such locations to work.

Doesn't seem to stop Singapore and the UAE being absolutely inundated with people from developed and developing nations wanting to work there.

Singapore owes its existence and continuing prosperity to immigration.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Depends where you go in the USA. Some states don't mandate masks and it's just like walking around England.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2021 ==


Doesn't seem to stop Singapore and the UAE being absolutely inundated with people from developed and developing nations wanting to work there.

Singapore owes its existence and continuing prosperity to immigration.

To be fair I’d go anywhere at this rate but it’s the ever changing landscape that puts us off. Using the 241 vouchers you have to book months ahead so it’s a little tricky.

The problem with foreign countries especially those with guns! One isn’t as confident standing up for yourself in these situations

 

[brad465]

According to tomorrow's Mail on Sunday headline, plans are being made to resume quarantine and testing for those who don't get a third booster:


Considering boosters are not being offered to the entire population, and those receiving them are predominantly older people over 50, were this introduced it would I think be a very ageist policy.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be fair I’d go anywhere at this rate but it’s the ever changing landscape that puts us off. Using the 241 vouchers you have to book months ahead so it’s a little tricky.

The problem with foreign countries especially those with guns! One isn’t as confident standing up for yourself in these situations

Nobody is going to pull a gun on you over whether you should be wearing a mask. In any case, when in another country it is wisest to obey all laws to the letter and to try to fit in, because you are akin to a guest in someone else's house. Don't try and stand up for yourself unless there is a serious injustice going on. If someone says you should wear a mask and you don't think that's the law, or whatever, just comply, because you're a foreigner.

 

[Cdd89]

Considering boosters are not being offered to the entire population, and those receiving them are predominantly older people over 50, were this introduced it would I think be a very ageist policy.

I think it’s inconceivable that that would be the case.

It would either be “arrivals over X age need a booster”, or more likely, waiting until everyone has been offered them prior to implementation.

Considering that the rumours of vaccine passports being updated for third doses weren’t planned until early next year, I’m going for the latter.

 

[adc82140]

It's the Daily Mail. There's probably something been muttered in government about future plans if other variants of concern become dominant elsewhere, which the Mail have twisted to become the headline you see.

 

[duncanp]

I think it’s inconceivable that that would be the case.

It would either be “arrivals over X age need a booster”, or more likely, waiting until everyone has been offered them prior to implementation.

Considering that the rumours of vaccine passports being updated for third doses weren’t planned until early next year, I’m going for the latter.

It would be political suicide for the government to introduce restrictions along the lines of "...all arrivals need a booster jab to avoid quarantine or testing.." without giving everyone affected the oppotunity to have a booster jab.

People under the age of 50 would resent deeply having to quarantine and take extra tests whilst those over 50 could travel quarantine free, and would make their feelings known at the ballot box.

Even if the government does say "...all arrivals over the age of 50 need a booster.." that then raises the prospect of people under the age of 50 being able to travel quarantine free without a booster, whilst those under 50 would need a booster for quarantine free travel.j

And then you have to consider what the entry requirements would be for non UK citizens, particularly from those countries where booster jabs are not being offered.

It would be absurd in the extreme if, for example, a US citizen aged 60 with two jabs could enter the UK quarantine free, whereas a UK citizen aged 60 with two jabs would have to quarantine after a two week holiday to the United States.

The alleged reason for this policy is, according to Sajid Javid the "government source" who leaked the story, to "protect the UK against any new variants of concern from abroad". This is codswallop, as there are no known major variants of concern abroad that are not also present in the UK.

The real reason is, of course, to bully and scare people into getting their booster jabs.

Towards the same end, I see the government are also dangling the stick of "extra restrictions" for Christmas in front of us.

Look Boris, we're all sick and tired of all these restrictions and threats, and just want to get back to normal.

The sooner you realise this, the better.

 

[Watershed]

Even if the government does say "...all arrivals over the age of 50 need a booster.." that then raises the prospect of people under the age of 50 being able to travel quarantine free without a booster, whilst those under 50 would need a booster for quarantine free travel.j

Although this would be age discrimination (and arbitrary, as with any cut-off), it would at least have some medical basis - as over 50s/60s are much more likely (though we are talking say 1% vs 0.1%) to end up in hospital if they catch Covid.

But ultimately stories like this show that there are still an awful number of people who refuse to accept that Covid-19 is here to stay, and that we must live with it just as we have done with all other endemic coronaviruses...

 

[Yew]

Nobody is going to pull a gun on you over whether you should be wearing a mask. In any case, when in another country it is wisest to obey all laws to the letter and to try to fit in, because you are akin to a guest in someone else's house. Don't try and stand up for yourself unless there is a serious injustice going on. If someone says you should wear a mask and you don't think that's the law, or whatever, just comply, because you're a foreigner.

Isn’t that how lots of tourists get scammed?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Nobody is going to pull a gun on you over whether you should be wearing a mask. In any case, when in another country it is wisest to obey all laws to the letter and to try to fit in, because you are akin to a guest in someone else's house. Don't try and stand up for yourself unless there is a serious injustice going on. If someone says you should wear a mask and you don't think that's the law, or whatever, just comply, because you're a foreigner.

I agree, I’m not going to kick up a fuss in someone else’s back yard.

Hence my reluctance to leave these shores.

 

[nw1]

According to tomorrow's Mail on Sunday headline, plans are being made to resume quarantine and testing for those who don't get a third booster:

View attachment 105284
Considering boosters are not being offered to the entire population, and those receiving them are predominantly older people over 50, were this introduced it would I think be a very ageist policy.

Quite. I am slightly over that age but I consider myself in good health and fitness and do not wish to be pigeonholed by the government just because I have passed a certain chronological age. My biological age is significantly below my chronological age, and I consider myself low-risk, particularly as I have had the first two vaccines anyway.

I have no objection to a third vaccine but intend to take it when it's offered to the adult population as a whole, or at least the over-30s. If I was obese or unfit then I would think differently - but I am not.

If someone five years younger than me is allowed to travel without quarantine and I am not, just because of some arbitrary chronological line between us, that is ageism, plain and simple.

But yes, maybe it is just Mail rubbish.

 

[Cdd89]

If someone five years younger than me is allowed to travel without quarantine and I am not, just because of some arbitrary chronological line between us, that is ageism, plain and simple.

This is already the case, and there’ll always be a cut-off. A 17-year-old is not a lower covid risk etc, but is allowed zero jabs. It’s not without precedent to say a 49 year old is therefore allowed two jabs instead of three.

 

[nw1]

Doesn't seem to stop Singapore and the UAE being absolutely inundated with people from developed and developing nations wanting to work there.

Singapore owes its existence and continuing prosperity to immigration.

I wouldn't be one of them I have to admit; such societies seem too restrictive for me to be comfortable living there.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2021 ==

This is already the case, and there’ll always be a cut-off. A 17-year-old is not a lower covid risk etc, but is allowed zero jabs. It’s not without precedent to say a 49 year old is therefore allowed two jabs instead of three.

That is the legal line between adult and sub-adult though. A 17-year old cannot enter a pub unaccompanied either. Having different laws for adults and non-adults is one thing, drawing arbitrary lines through middle adulthood is quite another.

 

[Cdd89]

Having different laws for adults and non-adults is one thing, drawing arbitrary lines through middle adulthood is quite another.

There are already plenty of arbitrary lines drawn at various ages through adulthood, so there is precedent there too; I was just citing the vaccination requirement example!

 

[nw1]

There are already plenty of arbitrary lines drawn at various ages through adulthood, so there is precedent there too; I was just citing the vaccination requirement example!

Not sure about laws relating to freedom of travel though. Since being able to legally enter a pub on my own when I turned 18 in 19xx, I haven't noticed any real change to what I have been able to do or not do. Perhaps the only thing is the Young Persons' Railcard which I lost the right to use some considerable time ago - but that's aimed at giving the young (who are unlikely to have as much spare cash as older people) the opportunity for cheaper travel, so that is fair enough.

 

[westv]

All citizens are required to register with the authorities in order to receive their six monthly vaccine shot. Refusal will result in a custodial sentence.

Oh ok, I admit to exaggeration!

 

[Lampshade]

After seeing that headline this morning, I haven't felt this low in a looooong time.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can’t imagine why, if you are double vaccinated, you’d refuse a booster anyway. The government at obviously trying to shape behaviour around getting the booster by carrot and stick method, but…I dunno, stick the booster in my arm!

 

[brad465]

All citizens are required to register with the authorities in order to receive their six monthly vaccine shot. Refusal will result in a custodial sentence.

Oh ok, I admit to exaggeration!

Be careful what you wish for, come next year that could well not be an exaggeration

 

[Watershed]

I can’t imagine why, if you are double vaccinated, you’d refuse a booster anyway. The government at obviously trying to shape behaviour around getting the booster by carrot and stick method, but…I dunno, stick the booster in my arm!

I mean yes, if you were willing to take the risk of having two vaccine doses then there's little logic in refusing a third on the basis of risk/safety.

But some people will have other reasons why they do not want a third dose - for example, because they've realised that the goalposts will never stop moving, and so the third dose is definitely not going to the last one needed to avoid discrimination in daily life.

 

[duncanp]

Be careful what you wish for, come next year that could well not be an exaggeration

The "custodial sentence" being house arrest lockdown or quarantine for those who don't have their booster jab, or those who don't get it in a timely fashion.