Bouleversee wrote:dealtn wrote:Mike4 wrote:
Are there restrictions on people leaving too then?
I don't know, but it's the nature of "tit-for-tat", and the corollary when agreements are made bilaterally to exempt etc.
If on net less people go abroad, because they either have to quarantine on arrival, or coming back, and the same kind of thing applies internationally, then you will achieve a reduction in travelling, and "global mixing". That all helps in limiting the spread, so a good thing.
But it isn't the only consideration. You would also need to take into account that if 1% of travellers carry the virus say, and if they don't travel abroad they are at home, then they are more likely to spread it to other UK citizens as a result (than if they were abroad). So fewer foreigners with the virus arriving and also fewer domestics going abroad, and available to spread the virus in the UK.
If you only look at part of the equation you won't get the full answer. Particularly if the UK has a higher prevalence, and/or the strain in the UK is "worse", you might be net worse off if such policies are adopted across the globe. That's not to say it isn't a good idea from a global perspective in limiting the spread and transmission across the world, of course.
How convoluted can you get? If we already have more cases, surely we should try to contain them here rather than export them elsewhere, just as we are trying to prevent getting more here. All travel should be prevented (apart from Air Force One, of course, and I shouldn't think Biden is in too much of a hurry) till this virus is contained. Strict isolation is the only answer.
You are looking at what should be done, what common sense suggests, how theoretically people must behave. And also assuming that individuals, and countries, will all be striving to do what is the best thing, in an altruistic way for everyone, and not necessarily best for themselves. I am not convinced the world looks like that, pre-Covid or now.
All I am saying is in the practical world in which we live sometimes there are unintended consequences of decisions that are made, regardless of the best of intentions. I am not advocated such, merely replying to someone who says that doing X will result in less of Y, and giving a real world example where that might be so, and might be worse. That is all.
Consider a "game". There are 2 velvet bags each contain 100 balls. The first bag is labelled "UK", the second "elsewhere". You have to pick a ball randomly from the bag "UK", if it is white you win, if black you lose (or die if we want to be morbid). There are 90 white balls and 10 black ones. the model is simple and the ball representing your next "contact", you can work out your odds of winning easily.
In the next version of the game before you choose your ball from the first bag 10 balls are switched between bags (representing air travel). What if in bag "elsewhere" there are 96 white balls and 4 black ones? After the "switch" the odds of pulling a white ball from the 100 balls in bag "UK" have improved.
Consider other versions. Instead of switching 10 balls, travel is now "restricted", so the preamble to the game represents just 2 balls switching bags now instead of 10. This version of the game has higher odds of white than the original, but less than the second version.
Lets add another colour ball to represent a new strain of the virus. White is safe, blue is "get ill", black is "die" (black being a worse strain). Bag "UK" has 90 white, 2 blue, 8 black. Bag "elsewhere" has 90 white, 8 blue, 2 black (or 96 white, 2 blue , 2 black) etc.
There are plenty versions of this game where allowing mixing between the bags increases your chances of pulling a white ball from the "UK" bag, than from the strict 90 white 10 black original version.
Those who are insistent and only talking about the "outrageous" chance of a black (or blue) ball coming out of bag two, and that something must be done about it, aren't looking at all of the rules of the game
