[MartynSinclair]

[quote quote=997194]I imagine many of the 15,000 people returning each day through Heathrow are returning Brits who would consider their journeys just as essential as a flypast,[/quote]

SimonS1 you are 100% correct and I do not disagree with you at all on that point.

Where we disagree is 15,000 people per day, 105,000 passengers per week, since lock down 5 1/2 weeks ago, ca 577,500 people have entered the UK with zero medical checks. Quote statisticians, quote what the science says, but logic states just 3% enter the UK infected (could be more, could be less, no one actually knows), the virus spreads.

If it is ok for 507,000 people (and increasing) to enter the UK unchecked & legally able to travel on to anywhere in the UK, why cant ‘jo public’ sit on a patch of green grass, socially distanced without being hassled by the boys in blue.

The numbers so far in the UK

26,771 deaths
171,253 cases of CV19

Its who the passengers come in contact with OR the ancillary workers who work around Heathrow…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8248543/Sixth-Uber-driver-death-linked-coronavirus-prompt-urgent-calls-minicabs-issued-PPE.html

https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/london-coronavirus-harrow-uber-driver-18100196

[AMcWhirter]

If this report is accurate it would suggest Wizzair has had to cancel its Tenerife service.

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2020/05/02/wizz-air-cancels-its-flights-from-spains-tenerife-to-london-luton-on-the-day-they-were-supposed-to-restart/amp/

[K1ngston]

My son flew to TLV yesterday on Wizz to start his new career and life (after 14 days in Government quarantine) and as promised he sent me a video of his time in Luton airport which I will try and share with you, but the statistics were such:

1. There were only 50 people on the flight so SD was easy and the airline positioned the passengers away from each other
2. There were only 4 flights scheduled all day at Luton and surprisingly 2 of them were to Sophia but that was it
3. All stores and restaurants were closed in fact it looked like a ghost town there
4. He had to sign a waiver that he would be heading to Government facility to meet their strict quarantine rules and it was clear to not do so was NOT an option

Now I know there are some of you who dont think airlines should be flying and think you should remain indoors in your cocoon, well I dont disagree with your choice of doing so that is completely up to you, but I do support my sons wishes to have traveled yesterday, he is safe in a hotel in TLV being paid for by the Israeli Government, he said the airline did everything they could to distance the passengers and granted with 50 people on the flight that was easy, I too would have traveled if I needed to and could, we need to get the world back to work and normality as quickly and safely as possible. If someone can show me how to upload the video I will happily do so

Again if your wish is to stay indoors thats completely up to you and I respect that, you should also respect those who have made decisions that differ from your own.

7 users thanked author for this post.

handbag, Jacob, DavidGrodentz, MartynSinclair, ASK1945, SimonS1, GivingupBA

[esselle]

[postquote quote=997376][/postquote]

Thanks for the report. I’d be interested to know how the 6ft distancing worked as they were waiting to board (technically a queue of 300ft), as they were waiting to deplane, and when they arrived at immigration.

JHK from LHR is quoted today as saying waiting to board an A380 would result in a queue of 1 kilometer.

[K1ngston]

[postquote quote=997388][/postquote]

esselle, there was some SD when boarding the flight apparently everyone was masked, when they got off the plane they were all put on a bus and headed to a hotel where he is stuck in his room for the next 14 days, no balcony and food being delivered to their door and testing every 48 hours. For those of you who know Israel he is in a hotel some 2.5 hours away from Tel Aviv

[Swissdiver]

There is a say in French: “La liberté des uns s’arrête là où commence celle des autres” that could be translated The freedom of some stops where that of others begins. Its source could come from the 1789 Human Rights Declaration, where art. 4 reads “La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui”, “Freedom is being able to do anything that doesn’t harm others”. This is the core of this discussion. The problem with flying is related to the involvement of many other people, plus of course the risk of spreading the disease. In that sense, these Wizz flights are not a good idea at all.

The consequences of the lockdown on the other end is a massive economical crisis. So our common interest is to be able to start working ASAP. It will also mitigate other risks such as domestic violence and criminality, particularly with a high level of black economy (in the South of Italy for instance) or no social welfare. So the balance is complicated. It seems however that a strict lock-down or semi-lockdown (Swiss model) should be enforced to protect the overwhelming of the NHS-like, which would mean no flight or any form of international transportation for a given period of time. Then we must learn to live with the disease and see it spreading at a slower pace until we either have a vaccine, a treatment or a natural immunisation.

Not great. But I am afraid this is 2020!

[MartynSinclair]

[quote quote=997376]Again if your wish is to stay indoors thats completely up to you and I respect that, you should also respect those who have made decisions that differ from your own.[/quote]

Was there any policing/checking of the “essential travel only rules”, which remain in place – (irrespective of your sons decision to travel).

With regards to those airlines making the wearing of masks compulsory, presumably there will still be a food / drinks service .. masks will clearly be removed. I can see some very challenging and perhaps confrontational times ahead.

[K1ngston]

[postquote quote=997408][/postquote]

There was a flight which was advertised and legally able to fly, and he was able to purchase a ticket to fly, it wasn’t a case of essential or non essential travel, he could and would say it was essential travel as he needs to get back to work, which probably doesn’t meet your definition but he did nothing wrong!

Martyn you are clearly against this, so I suggest you remain at home until which time there is an all clear, but in that case you will be at home for a long time, again it was his decision to fly as was 50 others on the flight, it is not for you to question their decisions as it is not for us to question yours to remain at home!

[MartynSinclair]

[quote quote=997409]he could and would say it was essential travel as he needs to get back to work, which probably doesn’t meet your definition but he did nothing wrong![/quote]

My interest in this K1ngston is the current rules state “essential travel only”. As you say, there appears no definition.

Residents cooped in living spaces way smaller than ours, perhaps with no access to fresh air, are being handed £60 fines / told to return home for finding their piece of fresh air if it involves travel on the basis of a police definition of non essential travel. Travel to second homes is also deemed as non essential travel and this is being enforced. As you may have read, Scottish Chief Medical Officer had to resign for travelling to her second home for the weekend (twice)

Yet no one is being challenged at the airports (inbound or outbound) whether individual travel is essential or not. Indeed, Heathrow still allows transit passengers.

I agree that we all must decide about travel, but until the FCO and Government change the rules, it is not our decision to make.

[K1ngston]

[postquote quote=997410][/postquote]

The thing is Martyn he is leaving the UK into a controlled environment in Israel and then by the time he finishes his 14 days the rules will be relaxed in Israel for him to get to work, again the situation others find themselves in is not nice however what that has to do with travel restrictions or his decision to travel I dont see?

I agree with your final statement it is not anyone individuals decision and again I fully support what he did, and have spoken to him today in his isolation and he is comfortable that everything was done to his satisfaction.

1 user thanked author for this post.

MartynSinclair

[SimonS1]

[postquote quote=997410][/postquote]

I don’t agree Martyn. It IS our decision to make. The Government made that clear at the outset.

“Whether travel is essential or not is a personal decision and circumstances differ from person to person. It is for individuals themselves to make an informed decision based on the risks and FCO advice”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/travel-advice-foreign-secreatary-statement-17-march-2020

I’m sure K1ngston’s son has indeed made a personal and informed decision and is quite entitled to do so. We don’t live in a nanny state, most of us are quite able to think sensibly for ourselves without being “challenged” at every step of the journey.

As for the fines, well based on stats announced last week they are currently averaging about 325 a day across the whole of England and Wales. So the implication that large numbers of people are being cooped up indoors for fear of a fine for being outside is frankly nonsense.

1 user thanked author for this post.

MartynSinclair

[ASK1945]

SimonS1 wrote:

“As for the fines, well based on stats announced last week they are currently averaging about 325 a day across the whole of England and Wales. So the implication that large numbers of people are being cooped up indoors for fear of a fine for being outside is frankly nonsense.”

I understand from yesterday’s newspapers that the Crown Prosecution Service is examining every conviction and fine under these regulations, as it would appear that the legislation may have been drafted incorrectly. The CPS has put a hold on more court cases until the review has been completed. They will apply for overturning the convictions, if necessary.

[MartynSinclair]

[quote quote=997419]I don’t agree Martyn. It IS our decision to make. The Government made that clear at the outset.[/quote]

Thank you SimonS1 for the education – absolutely clear now regarding international travel.

Appears, one set of rules for international travel and a different set of rules for domestic travel, as demonstrated by the ban on travelling to second homes. Not allowed to visit a second home from within the UK (understandably), but if the second home is overseas (and you can gain entry to that country) it’s permitted, as it is for an overseas resident to access a home they may have in the UK.

[Author]

Posts