UK acts to protect its borders !!!

[Drummond]

At the risk of anyone calling this 'xenophobic' ... YES ... the UK has just announced a worldwide measure designed to protect us from outside infection.

I call it no less than 'responsible'; the logic of the move is completely clear ... not to mention 'timely' .. !!

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/holiday-coronavirus-travellers-quarantine-arriving-uk-a9506016.html


New quarantine rules are set to crush the UK travel industry for many more weeks, wrecking overseas holiday plans for millions.

The Independent understands the prime minister will announce on Sunday that travellers arriving in the UK by air, sea or rail will be obliged to self-isolate in stringent conditions for 14 days. The aim is to reduce the rate of coronavirus infection.

The transport secretary hinted about the policy when interviewed by the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on 3 May. Grant Shapps said: “I think it is important that [the sacrifices] we are asking the British people to make are matched by anybody who comes to this country.

The move will wipe out almost all tourism and business travel for as long as it remains in force – which is likely to be at least until July.

America doesn't get a mention in the report (so far as I can see). Still, it's curious timing, coming so soon after American States announce that they're opening up.

So, there it is. Your country won't act to respect others' lives. So, we in the UK have had to protect ourselves.


Almost everyone arriving from abroad at a UK airport, seaport or international rail station will be told that they must self-isolate for two weeks under stringent conditions.

The only exceptions are expected to be some key workers; flight, train and ship crew; and international transit passengers, the vast majority of whom will be connecting at Heathrow airport.

Inbound travellers will effectively be treated as though they have symptoms of coronavirus. They will fill in a form with their personal particulars, including passport data, stating where they intended to self-isolate, and providing contact details. They will be given a “stay-at-home notice” (SHN) telling them to stay indoors and avoid contact with other people.

After 14 days, if they do not develop symptoms, they will be allowed to join the general population.

Our attitude towards Covid-19 circulation is not yours, thankfully:


Downing Street believes that introducing quarantine at the same time as other measures are being eased will send a message that the government is not lightening up too much or too fast.

Very limited relaxations of lockdowns will be introduced in the UK shortly. This latest announcement has the effect of reassuring the general public that our Government intends to continue to protect our lives in a responsible fashion.

[jimnyc]

The USA has banned travel to within it's borders for quite some time now. And while states may open and allow for businesses to open, that has nothing to do with opening our borders.

This was the USA and still stands as per what I'm reading, and can be extended. So the same is here and has been for some time.


On 31 January 2020, the United States declared the virus a public health emergency. Starting 2 February, all inbound passengers who have been to Hubei in the previous 14 days will be put under quarantine for up to 14 days. American citizens who have travelled to the rest of mainland China will be allowed to continue their travel home if they are asymptomatic, but will be monitored by local health departments.[175] As of 2 March, foreign nationals who have travelled to Iran within the past 14 days are denied permission to enter the US.[176] American citizens and permanent residents returning to the United States who have travelled to Iran within the previous 14 days must enter through an approved airport.[176][91] Suspended incoming travel from the Schengen area in Europe, beginning at 23:59 ET on 13 March.[177] The official proclamation states that this restriction applies only to foreign nationals traveling to the United States, if they have been to a country within the Schengen area in the past 14 days. The ban does not apply to for example legal permanent residents and most immediate family members of U.S. citizens.[177] Also, cargo and trading goods are not affected.[178][179] On 14 March, Trump administration extended the ban to include United Kingdom and Ireland.[180] The restrictions will reportedly be in place for 30 days,[181] however the official proclamation does not contain that time limit, stating; "This proclamation shall remain in effect until terminated by the President."[177] The move was criticised by EU leaders

So yes, we too have acted to protect our borders, a long time back. I don't know what extended changes will be made if any when the border restrictions start being lifted.

I'm more than confident that America will have much concern about how to handle incoming foreigners at such time. As of now, I honestly don't see a difference in how either is respecting lives. The quoted information is about quarantining and information about incoming foreigners. I don't see anything about outgoing if/when things start to open? The USA too is not quarantining as they aren't getting through yet. I don't believe it's been announced the future plans for incoming folks from foreign travels.

How is the USA not acting to protect lives any differently, especially since we're only speaking of incoming foreigners?

The attitudes don't sound too awfully different IMO. Seems like the UK is a bit behind us in some things and then eventually follow similar practices. Closings, masks, starting to open... Similar but different.

[Kathianne]

The USA has banned travel to within it's borders for quite some time now. And while states may open and allow for businesses to open, that has nothing to do with opening our borders.

This was the USA and still stands as per what I'm reading, and can be extended. So the same is here and has been for some time.



So yes, we too have acted to protect our borders, a long time back. I don't know what extended changes will be made if any when the border restrictions start being lifted.

I'm more than confident that America will have much concern about how to handle incoming foreigners at such time. As of now, I honestly don't see a difference in how either is respecting lives. The quoted information is about quarantining and information about incoming foreigners. I don't see anything about outgoing if/when things start to open? The USA too is not quarantining as they aren't getting through yet. I don't believe it's been announced the future plans for incoming folks from foreign travels.

How is the USA not acting to protect lives any differently, especially since we're only speaking of incoming foreigners?

The attitudes don't sound too awfully different IMO. Seems like the UK is a bit behind us in some things and then eventually follow similar practices. Closings, masks, starting to open... Similar but different.

Indeed. From the beginning it seems that the UK starts down a 'different path,' "scientific" if you will, then stops and follows pretty close to the road that the US already chose. There's not a thing wrong with doing so, since it seems more than likely that the experts on both sides of the Atlantic are conferring. The only thing 'off' would be when those that think they are superior to the rubes, who follow 'old, dead men who know nothing of viruses and such, (ignoring the history of vaccines in the colonial times here). So those self-proclaimed superiors tick off the rubes that they pretended to admire.

[Drummond]

The USA has banned travel to within it's borders for quite some time now. And while states may open and allow for businesses to open, that has nothing to do with opening our borders.

This was the USA and still stands as per what I'm reading, and can be extended. So the same is here and has been for some time.



So yes, we too have acted to protect our borders, a long time back. I don't know what extended changes will be made if any when the border restrictions start being lifted.

I'm more than confident that America will have much concern about how to handle incoming foreigners at such time. As of now, I honestly don't see a difference in how either is respecting lives. The quoted information is about quarantining and information about incoming foreigners. I don't see anything about outgoing if/when things start to open? The USA too is not quarantining as they aren't getting through yet. I don't believe it's been announced the future plans for incoming folks from foreign travels.

How is the USA not acting to protect lives any differently, especially since we're only speaking of incoming foreigners?

The attitudes don't sound too awfully different IMO. Seems like the UK is a bit behind us in some things and then eventually follow similar practices. Closings, masks, starting to open... Similar but different.

I've posted in the past about the US's own travel bans as applied to foreign countries sending people to the US .. I've said I couldn't understand why Trump omitted the UK in his Europe ban (something that was corrected, happily, days later).

But where the US is concerned, the issue is one of your continuing freedoms to send people FROM the US. Do travel bans going out of the US, compare in stringency to those permitted to enter it ?

So let's check this once and for all, shall we ? You have strict controls over people arriving into the US. Are you saying you also apply them for people going in the opposite direction ?

If not, why not ?

Until now, countries across the world have imposed their lockdowns .. the wisdom of doing that has been clear to just about everybody. Now, certain countries are beginning to relax them .. and, of course, yours is doing it in a big way.

But we in the UK are not.

Very small relaxations are on the cards ... being allowed to go out more than once a day for exercise, or opening up garden centres, for example (that one's limited to Wales). The mask rule is being reconsidered, because we know more than we did about Covid-19's transmission method. But that .. unless Boris surprises us, in Sunday's declaration .. is it. Nothing more major, and certainly nothing on the scale or scope of what the US will be doing shortly.

To be clear, by the way, travel out of the UK by our own citizens is banned for all but the most essential travel. Has been for some time.

We're enjoying the tail-end of a mini-heatwave here .. and the temptation people have to break lockdown rules is increasing, unfortunately. So, our police are being kept busy.

[Drummond]

Indeed. From the beginning it seems that the UK starts down a 'different path,' "scientific" if you will, then stops and follows pretty close to the road that the US already chose. There's not a thing wrong with doing so, since it seems more than likely that the experts on both sides of the Atlantic are conferring. The only thing 'off' would be when those that think they are superior to the rubes, who follow 'old, dead men who know nothing of viruses and such, (ignoring the history of vaccines in the colonial times here). So those self-proclaimed superiors tick off the rubes that they pretended to admire.

Just two basic points to make.

One - up to now, keeping to stringent lockdowns has been the path which both the UK and US have followed (with fairly small differences, e.g on masks). But this is changing. Certain 'rogue' States of yours have decided to open up.

We certainly have no such equivalent here; no 'rogue States', and no big divergence from lockdown rules. We fear a big spike in infections if we risk lockdown relaxation. We do because scientific advice tells us that it's likely to happen, and we fear it because individual human lives matter to us.

Two - can I have clarification, once and for all: does your Constitution contain any reference at all to pandemics ? Any guidance at all, on how America adapts to one ? If it does, may I have this quoted back to me ?

If it doesn't, please do me the courtesy of admitting that fact.

We in the UK don't have a Constitution, so the question of non-adaptation isn't relevant to us. We are free to legislate, to rule, according to the scientific realities in play, and unencumbered by dogma that stands a chance of getting in the way.

[jimnyc]

So let's check this once and for all, shall we ? You have strict controls over people arriving into the US. Are you saying you also apply them for people going in the opposite direction ?

If not, why not ?

In what you posted, I didn't see anything at all about folks from the UK leaving the country and how they will handle such. It was all about incoming. Same here. And if/when air travel resumes, we will honor incoming restrictions in coming to a country such as yours, or any country for that fact. Same would go with folks coming here.

I really see no difference in how the UK is handling incoming folks, which is about the same. Then outgoing, honor the location you go to. If I go to the UK, looks like I would need a 14 day quarantine. Ok, I respect that 100%. Other locations may be different.

Are you saying that the UK will quarantine incoming for 14 days - and that they are BLOCKING everyone from leaving the country? UK citizens won't be able to leave at all? And if they do, how do they handle going to different countries with different rules? The same exact way, by respecting the location you're going to.

I see no difference in how incoming is being handled, nor any difference about how folks will travel and respect rules of other locations. But if you're saying that the UK will be blocking folks from leaving - which may guarantee that anyone now allowed to roam the UK, who may get sick and not know it, won't be allowed to ever leave the country and possibly infect another? I didn't read that is all.

So how would the folks who will soon be roaming around the UK - when the borders open, how will outgoing be handled and other countries guaranteed?

[jimnyc]

We have national guidelines for pandemics and health emergencies and quarantines.

But nothing of pandemics in the COTUS nor should there be. That's not what the document is nearly about. it's about our freedoms, not how to take them away ever. And about limiting government, not giving more power. And it's itself and completely separate from health matters. Just like we have laws out the wazoo - but those laws must be constitutional.

Not sure why it's asked, as if it's a negative somehow that it's not in there. Supreme laws of the land would dictate how to handle health matters, so long as constitutional. But you still won't ever find such health matters in the COTUS.

[Kathianne]

We have national guidelines for pandemics and health emergencies and quarantines.

But nothing of pandemics in the COTUS nor should there be. That's not what the document is nearly about. it's about our freedoms, not how to take them away ever. And about limiting government, not giving more power. And it's itself and completely separate from health matters. Just like we have laws out the wazoo - but those laws must be constitutional.

Not sure why it's asked, as if it's a negative somehow that it's not in there. Supreme laws of the land would dictate how to handle health matters, so long as constitutional. But you still won't ever find such health matters in the COTUS.
He doesn't understand and what he doesn't understand he ridicules.