That’s sorted, then. You really should stop reading the DM ... it destroys brain cells if you’re not very careful. 😃

I know about DM but it was on the Radio 2 news and I couldn't believe it. Surely plane won't be allowed to land with non residents on board.

Well done, you have aboided DM-20! ⭐️

Now move from R2 to R4 and you may yet be saved completely. 😀

No can do only moved to R2 10 years ago!

I read somewhere that airports are planning to roll out the use of rapid detection tests so if you test negative you can fly, one is being developed by Oxford university and is already being trialled. Anybody else read this?

I know this is about a cruise line, but it got me thinking.... This was the post from the Seabourn web site very early-on what this was all happening.


Dear Valued Guest:
To protect the health and safety of all onboard, we are closely monitoring the evolving situation with novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Our medical experts are coordinating closely with international health authorities and together, we have developed a written traveler�s health declaration to be completed by all guests and crew prior to boarding in order to keep our guests and crew safe. Those individuals identified as high-risk groups are required to undergo enhanced screening measures and additional prevention and control procedures.
These measures include:

1. Any individual who has traveled from or through mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong, South Korea, Iran or Italy within 14 days of the start of their cruise, including transit through their airports, will not be permitted to board the ship.

The red is my highlight... Now that the United States is # 1 in the world, followed by Spain, Italy, Germany, UK, France instead of the countries listed above, will this now be changed?

Which really leads me to my nest question. Is that how travel will "re-open". If you're from, or transmitted thru, certain countries and airports you will not be permitted in?

That has always been true (different countries have rules about entry based on visit to certain areas with Yellow Fever, for example). And it will obviously be part of the equation this time.

But I think that the biggest problem is that we don't yet know enough to even predict the difference. Here are a few of what I suspect are the major issues:
1. What level of immunity is provided by exposure?
2. Does having only a mild case mean that you will only have a mild case next time? Or does it mean that you will have a worse case next time?
3. How many people have been exposed? (i.e. - how close are we to herd immunity, if that even exists)
4. What is the actual chance of catching the disease from touching a surface that someone else touched, versus being too close when they cough?
5. What are the long-term health consequences of being sick? (i.e. - is there really a 25% chance of long-term significant health deficit?)
6. What is the chance that if you get on an airplane, and go to another city (or another country), you will not be allowed to return? Or, if you are allowed to return, you will be subject to a "real" 14-day quarantine?

The answer to those questions, NONE of which are yet known, will help to set the "mood" of the public.

This is pretty misleading though. The NYC/NJ area is #1 in the world. The rest of the United States altogether is something like eleventh in the world, from what I recall. Hoping the entire U.S. doesn't get penalized in this kind of system.

Why not! Is the US that special?
Who flew out of the US from an airport in NYC? What did they pick up there?

Even Jersey (Channel Islands) imposes 14 days Q for arrivals from UK ... although as we have no flights or passenger ferries it�s a bit academic.

Plus if you compare the US to Western Europe, as both have about the same population, Europe is much worse off in cases and deaths.

Nothing to do with being special; rather, it's about basic common sense.

There is something of a parallel here, imperfect obviously, with the EU. Should one country in the EU with a low infection rate be restricted because of countries such as Italy?

For instance, Wyoming has had two deaths so far from coronavirus. Population adjusted, that is similar to New Zealand's rate. Will probably have very few cases because they are so spread out. Does it really make sense to restrict them as much as people from Queens? Let's use our heads here.

No it doesn't make sense at all. The lockdown is/was supposed to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Are hospitals overwhelmed in Wyoming?

But populous politics rules. Governor Cuomo in New York early on gave a speech about how the rules had to be the same across the entire US to prevent people from going to other states to be able to find work and services.

I would be careful comparing Wyoming to New Zealand. New Zealand has a real chance of eliminating the virus, I'm not sure what the plan would be long term (we were debating it up thread a while back) but they are in a fairly unique circumstance. They have a relatively small population (not compared to Wyoming but compared to Australia or Taiwan). When you are talking about eradication it is total number of cases that matters more than cases per million in my opinion; so it will be somewhat easier to do for NZ then Aus or Tawain. Geographically, its harder to envision locking yourself down and controlling borders when your are in the middle of a continent as opposed to an island in the south pacific. There are a number of Canadian provinces in similar circumstances. From a travel perspective, just to get to an international destination these people would have to mingle with others in other US/Canadian airports (assuming not a private jet) .

In terms of reopening locally and getting the economy going however I fully agree with sentiments

Look, I do get your sentiments and each country will have to decide which country's citizens to allow to enter its borders.

And we are 100% in agreement on your last sentence!

Another data point. Was checking Royal Jordanian's website for some scheduled flights and had to first "accept" this notice before continuing to the website. No details but a sign of things to come?

"Mandatory safety requirements:

1. Passengers must undergo all medical checks required prior to check-in and/or embarkation
2. Passengers must wear masks, gloves and shoe covers during the flight.
3. Passenger will not be allowed to take cabin baggage with them on board and instead will be accepted as check-in baggage , this will be in addition to their normal baggage allowance.
4. Excess baggage will be collected according to normal rules.
5. Passengers can take small personal belongings (VAL, electronics, and medication).
6. Passenger shall strictly adhere to all verbal and/or written measures and instructions provided by the PIC and/or crew during flight, particularly in relation to health, safety, security and seat allocation or re-allocation;
7. Passengers should ensure that full and accurate contact information are inserted in the booking; failure to provide such information will result in offloading the passenger."