 Poster: A snowHead
|
@snowhound,
"TB? Flu? Cancer? Malaria?"
"1. No vaccine or guaranteed treatment for all those other infections I mentioned."
TB: There's a vaccine
Flu: There's a vaccine
Cancer: Not transmitted person to person
Malaria: Not transmitted person to person
"to prevent approximately the same number of flu deaths."
We don't have to take these actions to prevent the same number of flu deaths because there is a vaccine. If one dies of flu, there is a very high likelihood that person was in a severely compromised condition and/or did not bother to get a shot.
"I would let people make their own decision based on their own risk profile-that’s we let people do in other aspects of life whilst it runs its course."
But it's not just about you. It's about the impact of your actions on others. If the only person you could hurt driving drunk was you, laws would be different regarding that activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
1. Whether it is transmitted or not, it does not explain why we are prepared to spend orders of magnitude more saving COVID deaths than NICE does on a day to day basis when it decides on whether to fund other treatments. Actually, the reason is political rather than medical.
2. re. actions affecting others, shall we then drop motorway speed limits to 40 mph to prevent drivers in one car crashing and killing drivers in another? Our actions in ALL aspects of life affect other people. Again, why should COVID be any different, particularly when the at risk group are do clearly identified? Speeding drivers could kill anyone else at random.
My whole argument against actions for COVID is that they are completely inconsistent with what we have done in the past for every other medical issue. So we spend £500 billion (at least) saving 250,000 lives (at most). That is £2 million per life. Shall we do the same next year to save the annual 20,000 flu deaths-i.e. 40 billion? Despite what you see on the news, and it isn't PC to say this, all lives come with a cost attached. I just don't see why the sums have been treated completely differently for COVID, particularly given the economic and social carnage resulting.
PS TB is a bacterial infection therefore no vaccine. Relies on antibiotics but more and more becoming resistant. Flu vaccine is nowhere near 100% effective.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 29-05-20 21:06; edited 5 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yes, I have! Flights only for now though....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@snowhound, #1 that is not what this thread is about and #2 60,000 dead in the UK despite the action taken. Estimates were up to half a million if we hadn't taken action. Is there anything (aside from war) that has caused that many deaths in modern history?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Layne, OK my last comment on this, feel free to disagree.
Whether 500,000 or 250,000 without action (£2 million per death was based on 250,000 compared to NICE who base their decisions on £20-30,000 per quality life saved), this still means we are still spending vastly more on COVID than any other cause of death every in history. And don't forget that the same model predicted 40,000 deaths in Sweden if they resisted lockdown-so far, 4000. Yes, I know higher than Norway but nowhere near what that 500,000 model predicted. So I wouldn't take it as Gospel.
To question number 2 yes. Annual flu deaths are not a million miles away. Flu pandemic in 1969 was 70,000 and we didn't shut down the economy for that. Oh, and cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, dementia and everything else people die of. 650,000 people die every year on average. I am not saying 60,000 deaths (actually 38,000 officially but let's not jump too regularly between estimations and actual measurements) is not 60,000 individual tragedies, but perspective has been thrown out of the window. And when you look globally in the 3rd world at the poverty this will cause, things just get worse.
For what it is worth, my prediction is that in a year or two, a huge number of unemployed people, ill people, relations of people who died of untreated conditions, young people whose futures have been ruined will look back and look at these actions in a very different light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I booked the EOSB, and a few more flights to a from Geneva, but nothing else e.g. accommodation yet. I was planning a week over NY, a week late Jan, and few long weekends. It might actually turn out better than that though, and I'll be able to work from Chamonix quite a lot, given the massive shift to WFH, which would be great for me. I'm expecting there to be ski touring opportunities at least, and I'm thinking about driving down. Plans I'm sure will evolve as the situation does!
In the meantime I'm quietly confident my pre-booked weekend in Cham in August will be doable, and I can get back to see and support a few bar-owning friends 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Layne, read the fecking thread title
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| snowhound wrote: |
@Layne, OK my last comment on this, feel free to disagree.
Whether 500,000 or 250,000 without action (£2 million per death was based on 250,000 compared to NICE who base their decisions on £20-30,000 per quality life saved), this still means we are still spending vastly more on COVID than any other cause of death every in history. And don't forget that the same model predicted 40,000 deaths in Sweden if they resisted lockdown-so far, 4000. Yes, I know higher than Norway but nowhere near what that 500,000 model predicted. So I wouldn't take it as Gospel.
To question number 2 yes. Annual flu deaths are not a million miles away. Flu pandemic in 1969 was 70,000 and we didn't shut down the economy for that. Oh, and cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, dementia and everything else people die of. 650,000 people die every year on average. I am not saying 60,000 deaths (actually 38,000 officially but let's not jump too regularly between estimations and actual measurements) is not 60,000 individual tragedies, but perspective has been thrown out of the window. And when you look globally in the 3rd world at the poverty this will cause, things just get worse.
For what it is worth, my prediction is that in a year or two, a huge number of unemployed people, ill people, relations of people who died of untreated conditions, young people whose futures have been ruined will look back and look at these actions in a very different light. |
April 2020 was the deadliest month ever on record in UK history.
As bad as it gets.
Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MorningGory wrote: |
| @Layne, read the fecking thread title |
Read the Opening fecking Post and most of the content.
There are Covid threads a plenty. Lockdown has happened. This is about booking trips for 2021 taking that into account. Debating about if it should have happened is off topic IMVHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@Layne, exactly. You posted 'that is not what this thread is about' under a post about flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| snowhound wrote: |
PS TB is a bacterial infection therefore no vaccine. Relies on antibiotics but more and more becoming resistant. |
Not sure what age group you are in, but many people on here come from the Generations that were give the TB inoculation when they were 12/13. Cases in this country were relatively rare, such that we stopped giving it. (The short sighted reason given that it was not cost effective compared to the number of cases, completely ignoring the increased cost of a future epidemic)
Then, in the late 1990's, we had an influx of un-inoculated and infected migrants arrive, causing it to become a problem again. TB can cause lifelong disabilities as well as lingering death,
The EU could have had a program to rid itself of this problem, but as usual, failed to all agree. The result is that some parts are close to an epidemic.
When we visit certain Countries, a number of Inoculations are compulsory for entry. I would not have a problem with compulsory inoculation of the population, and visitors.
Back on thread. Yes, I have already booked and paid for the Birthday and pre Bashes, (even advanced monies to pay for lift passes. - no risk as Admin only gets them the day before we arrive). Flights paid for, only the local transfers to arrange, which are not yet available.
I am carer for my Elderly Parents, who I have been staying with for the duration. I will therefore have to consider the situation carefully at the time. However, I am confident that some sort of season will be available, and looking forward to they only trip I will be able to take in the year.
Fortunately, half the trip was booked in February, prior to the pandemic, and is covered by annual travel insurance (commenced 25th Jan) if I am unable to go. Return flights with BA only £60, so worth the risk, as they can be taken any time in the following 12 months if cancelled.
Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flights sorted by rebooking the ones we did not use this March. No accommodation sorted yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Handy Turnip wrote: |
| motdoc wrote: |
You can use small sample sizes to show something exists. In this case a problem. I'm very aware of statistics, the availability heuristic and epidemiology having had a pretty thorough education. You can't use a small sample to show the absolute size of the problem. Given in the UK more people have died in three months than died in the blitz I'd say it's pretty big. What would you say? |
Yes, I'm also very aware of statistics (it's my job). I'm not saying that the UK issue isn't big, and I'm not saying that it isn't worst than other countries - I'm merely saying using a sample of a group of friends to base conclusions is not wise, and unfortunately it's something that people do time and time again. Using a wider set of data to draw conclusions, and then bringing them to life using personal experience is not an issue, and but it's just using one without the other that I don't understand. |
Given that my group of friends collectively work in around half the ICU units in the capital I'd say their work provides a sample size big enough for us to draw some conclusions?
For very unusual events such as colleagues in their 40-50 s dying of an infective disease you don't need a very high incidence to reach statistical significance.
What area of statistics do you work in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@motdoc, NHS medics are at no greater risk of dying of C19. It's been done already and it's not true.
I knew someone, a cracking bloke and paeds RN in his forties who was otherwise fit and well. Unwell after a holiday, septic then dead. This likely had nothing to do with his work.
How is it relevant that more Brits died in the Blitz? It's a different type of death, 75+ yrs ago and with a smaller, less healthy population with worse medical provision. It's a really odd comparison. It's like saying C19 has killed ten thousand times more people than have died of bowel perforation from over-enthusiastic sex toy usage. So what? The death toll worldwide is ~350,000. 1.5mil die EVERY year from TB, then there's malaria etc. These are all communicable diseases the vaccines/treatments for which are imperfect yet we continue.
Lastly, if you understand scientific evidence then you'll know that professional opinion is the lowest grade along with case studies. Simply going 'what's your job???' is crap rhetoric and poor science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
No booking for 2021 as yet. Trying to get the Summer Holidays refunded (Southern Hemisphere trip). Will make a decision at that stage and will probably book late.....very late.
Big concern at the moment is that getting insurance to cover C-19 and C-19 related issues is impossible. All insurers are carving this out. If as they are saying in the UK you will have to isolate for 14 days if you show symptoms or come into contact with someone who shows symptoms it makes booking at the moment a little like playing Russian Roulette. Still hopeful to get a ski in, but will be a late booking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Tried to get travel insurance for September onwards today. No one would even quote. Not even the comparison websites. My existing company wanted me to renew on due date (30/6/2020) and wanted to raise the Multitrip basic premium front £48 to £125.
On a brighter note I understand Easyet are releasing more May flights tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Having claimed on our travel insurance recently, one problem for the insurers is the cover for an extended stay due to illness/injury. Our cover would have paid for my wife to stay indefinitely if she couldn't travel after breaking her arm. I imagine that with Covid-19, to apply this sort of cover to the far greater numbers who would need to isolate for 14 days is so expensive/uncertain that they don't want to go there. Leaving the EU potentially makes it even worse: if there's no EHIC-type reciprocal arrangement (á là Switzerland), they will also have to factor in paying for the 'core' medical treatment as well. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I anticipate a lot of dialogue between the insurance industry and the government about how to handle these two issues. The simplest one to solve is the EHIC - the Government could just agree to continue the scheme, particularly as it works both ways anyway: EU visitors to the UK would be covered too, which is good for tourism. Presumably there would be some sort of 'balance' around Brits needing Covid-19 hospitalisation abroad vs EU visitors needing it in the UK. The thorny one is Brits having to quarantine 2 weeks if they're found to be infected after a test: no doubt the insurance industry will be asking for some sort of government underwriting of the liability. In the current climate I can see them doing this, as it just involves a commitment to spend, rather than actual money now.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 2-06-20 10:20; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yes interesting - mine comes with my bank and goes Jan-Jan so we'll see how that changes, but interestingly my wife has just been on the phone with Admiral sorting her annual multi-trip renewal and they have kept it the same. Not sure if they come up on the comparison sites so might be worth trying them @lambert,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Yes, but @dunc99 wouldn't that be because the Foreign Office is still saying 'no unnecessary travel abroad'? So the insurers are absolved of any liability for any expenses, whether related to Covid-19 or not? Which means they're actually in a statistically better position than 'normal'. So it's one of those cases where they're only too happy to take your money because they are excluded from having to cover most of the things they'd usually be liable for? (BTW, I can see us all becoming experts in travel insurance Ts&Cs over then next year).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Interesting development on insurance front received in my junk folder. My current policy covers to next Jan, so not interested, but anyone looking at a policy could check this out and give feedback.
Staysure offering discounted annual policy up to end of June 20. (15 months for price of 12), which covers you if you take ill with Covid19 whilst on holiday, with exclusion as follows:
"Unfortunately, like other insurers, we can’t cover claims related to COVID-19 before you travel or if you are positively diagnosed before you leave home. However, we think our cover is an excellent solution to fears about being ill due to COVID-19 when traveling."
Doesn't say if it would cover you were well, but the Govt. advice was not to travel.
Obviously, if we had to pass a test before traveling, the chances of catching the virus on the holiday, and having symptoms whilst still there (within 1 or 2 weeks) would be quite small, so minimal risk to insurers on short holidays. Might just be a ploy to generate some cash flow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@brianatab, This could work if there's an internationally-recognised process for getting a 'virus-free Certificate' of some kind. Even if there was an infection window of a few days between the test and travel, it would do a lot to minimise the risk if airlines had to check everyone had a certificate before boarding.
Surely this is better than a free-for-all multi-way negotiation between every country and every other to try and establish 'air bridges'? What does that actually mean anyway? Other than 'It's just too hard to implement a meaningful and effective monitoring and tracing system'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@LaForet, Agree that some sort of international system would be needed for it to be efficient, but not likely to happen any time soon.
Certificates would need to be presented at check-in for a system to work.
This is exactly the sort of thing that the EU should be able to impose on it's members, but doesn't have any power to. The chances of all the member states agreeing to the terms and requirements is practically zero
Air bridges are a total waste of time if someone was able to travel by land from an "unsafe" Country to one considered "safe" and then travel by air from there.
The problem with certification is practicality and cost, especially if the process has to be repeated for the return journey. What would happen if someone failed the return test? where would they go to quarantine?
Heat sensor cameras at Airports, and possibly major rail terminals are an obvious essential addition. A system for dealing with the few people that show high temperatures can be easily installed.
Incidently, watched Mr O'Leary on TV last night, whinging about the quarantine requirements (but only from the point of view of his bank balance). His point was that people would disembark his aircraft, where they would be required to wear a mask, (not sure if they have to at present?), then travel by Public transport, thus infecting the entire network, to their place of quarantine. Obvious answer is to make masks compulsory on Public transport, as already in some Countries.
I don't have a problem with additional checks on foreign visitors. At present, there is nothing to stop anyone traveling from Countries like Brazil (where the situation is very seriously escalating), to the UK, and thus causing a second wave of the virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| brianatab wrote: |
@LaForet,
Air bridges are a total waste of time if someone was able to travel by land from an "unsafe" Country to one considered "safe" and then travel by air from there.
. |
Bit like the proposed system where I can fly Edinburgh to Seville, Seville to Dublin and Dublin to Edinburgh without quarantining? Will get some tapas tho 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes me laugh that our government 12 weeks after they should have been doing quarantine at UK points of entry have now woken up, irony of irony's though is that yesterday the sum of the EU26 countries in total had substantially less daily deathcount than UK.......O'Leary makes the best point though.......all they do on entry is fill in a form with their mobile number, and then disappear into London or wherever on the tube or Heathrow Express etc, one of the goons from Test & Trace phones them up and they don't answer......what next, superb system that?! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Two weeks self catering in Sauze booked for Jan. Will book flights in the Autumn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| brianatab wrote: |
... The problem with certification is practicality and cost, especially if the process has to be repeated for the return journey. What would happen if someone failed the return test? where would they go to quarantine?
Heat sensor cameras at Airports, and possibly major rail terminals are an obvious essential addition. A system for dealing with the few people that show high temperatures can be easily installed. ... |
If someone has a high temperature at the depature airport on the return journey, is there an "easily installed" solution or is it "a problem"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Ghost Dog, That was exactly my point. Air bridges (whatever that term actually means) will not prevent infection being transported.
It would need some sort of affordable pre travel test. I'm sure it could easily be linked to a passport on a database.
If not possible for the return trip, then a compulsory re-test within a set time of return to allow track and trace, with large fines for failure to comply? I would not have a problem with suspension/cancellation of the passport for failure to do so.
This would not completely solve the problem. There will always be cases of early infection that the tests miss, or infection between test and travel, but the incubation period should prevent further infection in most cases.
@ecureuil, The return journey, is more of a problem.
It should be relatively easy to set aside an area at an airport to deal with instances where someone shows a high temperature. Maybe a facility to repeat the test, if it can be done in a short time span? If not, and test is negative, Airlines could be persuaded to re-book onto the next available flight free of charge. It could easily be made a condition on the landing agreements, worldwide.
Airlines could be prevented from flying to/from non-compliant airports.
Heat sensor cameras would need to be deployed for departures and arrivals.
Departures from the home Country can be easily dealt with. They would have to be sent home, probably along with anyone in the same party who traveled with them. Their ID could be checked, and home address noted. Spot checks could be made, maybe on a landline, or visit.
Departures from another Country are more problematic. They cannot be just refused check-in and allowed to leave. Every airport might need to permanently book a hotel nearby and quarantine them there.
Arrivals showing a high temperature would need to be retested, and if positive, detained in quarantine, or denied entry. If the airline had not carried out the proper checks on departure, they could be forced to repatriate, or be held liable for any costs. This would create an incentive.
We saw an example in Parliament yesterday of how quickly the symptoms can show themselves, however, I would have thought that instances of anyone passing a test, and then showing symptoms before arrival would be very rare.
A similar system would need to be installed at major Ports, prior to Customs checks.
It would be in the Public Interest to install heat detection cameras at major rail facilities. Anyone showing up can be taken aside and checked. Better a few are inconvenienced than a whole carriage infected.
It's still a potential nightmare to implement, but would help facilitate travel for the vast majority. However, we would still need a 99% accurate test. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Markymark29, They would still need a passport to get into the UK, the number of which should be on the form, and checked at passport control. Maybe even make the airline responsible for checking it? As an incentive, the fines for non compliance, or providing false information could potentially be massive.
Failure to respond to checks during the quarantine should lead to the Passport being flagged and then picked up next time they attempt to go through Passport Control. If they miss their next flight whilst they are being investigated for the non compliance, why should we care?
If they are foreign nationals, just flag the Passport, and deny them future entry. It's the sort of thing the USA do.
It might not prevent virus infections, but would weed out some undesirables from future travel. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@brianatab, so best we follow US policy then.....and keep out undesirables....oh dear
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| brianatab wrote: |
We saw an example in Parliament yesterday of how quickly the symptoms can show themselves, however, I would have thought that instances of anyone passing a test, and then showing symptoms before arrival would be very rare.
|
Apparently Sharma’s test was negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@andy from embsay, I stand corrected,  Didn't check for updates, but he did get quite unwell very quickly.
@Markymark29, Yes, if they show that they can't follow the basic rules to protect the general public, then we don't need them here.
I would actually go further, and routinely deport all foreigners convicted of serious crime, regardless of what might happen to them in their home Country. If they know the possible outcome, they make the conscious choice to commit the crime.
eg People traffickers. If they are committing a crime under their own Laws, in their own Country, or against their own Countrymen, then their own Courts should be allowed to deal with it. If the sentence is death, (as in China) then so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@brianatab, only just tweeted it a few mins ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Saw an article claiming a very high number of tests are false negatives (combination of test taken too early, errors in samples being taken and errors in processing). Can’t help wondering if that negative test would still be negative in a couple of days. Though obviously other illnesses are still available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Back to the OP
Not booking yet,
Normally have flat booked for 2 weeks in Jan and 2 weeks in March booked as soon as they become available, usually early by early to mid May.
This year French agency have
not yet released availability as they have only just started working again and they're still dealing with our March cancellation this year.
Not sure whether we will even be able to get travel insurance renewed this year due to age, pre-existing conditions, etc., etc. besides cv19.
Looks like this year will be last minute and totally flexible.
Crunch decision time will come at the end of October when the 40% discount on the Les Gets/Morzine season pass comes to an end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Just received a renewal from LV for travel insurance with a quoted increase of £20. Went over to Aviva .com for a comparison but they are not quoting for new customers. Checked back with LV .com as a new customer and they have said the same. I was thinking of cancelling the travel insurance and taking out a new policy when travel restrictions are eased and then getting a full year of cover but now I am not sure this not be possible and that the £20 increase is a price worth paying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just booked Christmas week for L2A And Sauze for mid Jan. Both are luckily on air miles with cancellable apartment/hotel so not too much at stake on the financial side as yet. I have no idea how the world will be in 5/6 months time regarding travel/social distancing but I am sure things will be different one way or another. That said whatever happens it’s nice that I can plan and dream while cooped up at home - it’s a luxury I am lucky to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Booked for 2021 BB while still on the last one. Flights booked with EJ when they opened with 99p hold baggage. Just waiting to see what’s allowed nearer the time. In worse case can afford to take the hir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Quick question regarding Annual holiday Insurance.
I booked in Feb'20, under a policy that covers me until 2 days after I plan to travel, so I am covered as far as cancellation due to Covid 19. A renewal will cover the remainder of the holiday, but most likely with exclusions.
My annual policy covers me until Jan'21, but many people will have to renew before then.
If you book under a policy, then renew before you travel, but have to cancel. Which policy would you claim under?
Might make a big difference for cover in the event of any virus forcing a resort to close, or Govt to recommend no travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
