3 ms·

> The quarantine for new arrivals has been in effect for 10 days Given how effective arrival quarantines have been elsewhere (TW, NZ, SG, et al) and how long t

> The quarantine for new arrivals has been in effect for 10 days Given how effective arrival quarantines have been elsewhere (TW, NZ, SG, et al) and how long they’ve been in effect it’s frankly insane that the UK took this long to implement it.

g_p 6y ago
I agree entirely here. In fact I know people at the time jumping up and down and saying "apply the Wuhan quarantine rules to everyone arriving from mainland Europe in general, or indeed anywhere". The key to me seems to have been that measures were put in place slowly, at the pace ministers move at, rather than the pace experts can make decisions at. Asking everyone who returned to quarantine for 7 days would clearly have helped, with the benefit of hindsight. I think the issue is that politicians tend to want to avoid imposing what are seen as invasive measures where they feel the risk is low. Their assessment of the level of risk posed by those returning from overseas holidays in February was clearly now, in the cold light of day, very poor. The sheer number of people overseas at the time probably didn't help matters - some suggestions that as many as 1 million people were overseas at the time [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/uk-battling-to-repatriate-hundreds-of-thousands-of-britons-says-dominic-raab-coronavrus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/uk-battling-to...
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > Their assessment of the level of risk posed by those returning from overseas holidays in February was clearly now, in the cold light of day, very poor. Frankly, it was clearly very poor even then. That they didn't realise that reflects poorly on them.
Mvandenbergh 6y ago
Rolling it out anytime between mid March and now would have been pointless. Early it would have helped, late it helps. In the middle there was so much circulating virus here that it would have made no difference.
- culturestate 6y ago
  Surely any mitigation is better than no mitigation. I can’t imagine “we’re already drowning, no need to worry about that leak” is really a viable public health strategy in this scenario.
  - Mvandenbergh 6y ago
    Maybe but there was barely any travel anyway and most of that was people desperately trying to get home. You'd be leaving those people stuck for very marginal benefits.
    - culturestate 6y ago
      Leaving them stuck how, exactly? We’re talking about compulsory quarantine for arrivals.
      - Mvandenbergh 6y ago
        Ah good point. Yes, I guess they could have done that with little cost.

g_p 6y ago

I agree entirely here. In fact I know people at the time jumping up and down and saying "apply the Wuhan quarantine rules to everyone arriving from mainland Europe in general, or indeed anywhere". The key to me seems to have been that measures were put in place slowly, at the pace ministers move at, rather than the pace experts can make decisions at. Asking everyone who returned to quarantine for 7 days would clearly have helped, with the benefit of hindsight. I think the issue is that politicians tend to want to avoid imposing what are seen as invasive measures where they feel the risk is low. Their assessment of the level of risk posed by those returning from overseas holidays in February was clearly now, in the cold light of day, very poor. The sheer number of people overseas at the time probably didn't help matters - some suggestions that as many as 1 million people were overseas at the time [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/uk-battling-to-repatriate-hundreds-of-thousands-of-britons-says-dominic-raab-coronavrus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/uk-battling-to...

nicoburns 6y ago
> Their assessment of the level of risk posed by those returning from overseas holidays in February was clearly now, in the cold light of day, very poor. Frankly, it was clearly very poor even then. That they didn't realise that reflects poorly on them.

Mvandenbergh 6y ago

Rolling it out anytime between mid March and now would have been pointless. Early it would have helped, late it helps. In the middle there was so much circulating virus here that it would have made no difference.

culturestate 6y ago
Surely any mitigation is better than no mitigation. I can’t imagine “we’re already drowning, no need to worry about that leak” is really a viable public health strategy in this scenario.
- Mvandenbergh 6y ago
  Maybe but there was barely any travel anyway and most of that was people desperately trying to get home. You'd be leaving those people stuck for very marginal benefits.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    Leaving them stuck how, exactly? We’re talking about compulsory quarantine for arrivals.
    - Mvandenbergh 6y ago
      Ah good point. Yes, I guess they could have done that with little cost.