Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Health and Fitness > Coronavirus and travel
Reload this Page >

Best place to spend winter during a potential second wave of COVID?

Best place to spend winter during a potential second wave of COVID?

 
Old Jul 28, 2020, 11:28 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1
Problem with Thailand is the visa restrictions, 30 day visa and then you have to leave the country and re enter. Lately Thai's have not been all that friendly they are seeing tourist as a threat and the ones carrying the virus in their country. Some of my friends who are expats say everything is shut down and its terribly boring.
Hawaii is your safest bet, they are handling the pandemic pretty well. Only you would need to quarantine for 14 days when you arrive. Lots of vacation rentals, they are not allowed to rent short term but they can rent long term, some good deals out there on all the islands.

Last edited by Tom Mccall; Jul 28, 2020 at 11:33 am Reason: spelling
Tom Mccall is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 11:38 am
  #92  
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,671
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
Herd immunity Sweden, Milan, New York, London are the safest as they have the highest amount of cases cumulatively so unlikely to have 'second waves' or lockdowns.
For the umpteenth time, there is no Herd Immunity in any of the places you mention.
DYKWIA is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 11:51 am
  #93  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by nk15
Just pick a country that you will feel comfortable spending 1-2 months in the ICU, if it comes to that, God forbid. If you get covid, I dont think there will be flights in and out or evacuation flights to the hospital system or country of your choice. You will probably be stuck there, for better or worse. And then think who will be there to help you, what access to family or friends you may have for assistance.
I realise that different people have different levels of risk tolerance, but choosing a country based on this is a step too far for me. Whilst the risk does of course exist, it is for the vast majority of people still very small.

Anything can happen while travelling- car crashes, heart attacks, etc. If I based such decisions on the worst case scenario, I would never have been to half the places I've been to.

The factors I will be considering for my winter destinations in the event of a significant second wave are:

Accessibility and ease of escape in the event of lockdown
Level of freedom and quality of life
Climate
Cost of living

At the moment, Greece and Malta are winning if long haul is off the table. If things get really bad, I'll just drive up to Sweden and to the devil with the weather.
exbayern, the810 and Saint4805 like this.
The_Bouncer is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 12:22 pm
  #94  
Hilton 10+ BadgeAccor 10+ Badge
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Gold
Posts: 5,731
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
Herd immunity Sweden, Milan, New York, London are the safest as they have the highest amount of cases cumulatively so unlikely to have 'second waves' or lockdowns.
Give a scientific proof of this statement. If you can not please stop posting.
Other social media are starting to seriously crack down on anti scientific and hurtful messages with bans of posters. They do understand those bad advices are truly hurtful to society.
fransknorge is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 12:27 pm
  #95  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,109
"Anything can happen while travelling- car crashes, heart attacks, etc. If I based such decisions on the worst case scenario, I would never have been to half the places I've been to."

Or even safer, just stay at home, avoid public transport and drive everywhere?

Let's take a look.

According to New York City statistics, a bit less than 5 percent of those who died of Covid there in the spring were 64 or under with no health issues, or it wasn't determined whether they had health issues (303/6839). At the present U.S. death rate of about 50,000 per month, that suggests around 2,500 deaths fall into the under-65-with-no-health-problems group.

U.S. traffic deaths run something over 3,100 per month. About 83 percent of the U.S. population is under 65, so let's just say we have about that proportion of traffic deaths -- 2,500 -- in our cohort of under 65s, healthy or not.

That is, for those in that group, mortality from Covid, even in the U.S. with its current high infection rate, poses about the same risk as mortality from auto accidents.

Of course these are back-of-the-envelope sorts of calculations, as are the statistics, and can be nitpicked to death. But rough as they are, they do suggest the sort of limited risk that healthy under-65s are taking when they decide to travel. Or just stay at home, safe in their cars.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-population/
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...-demographics/
exbayern, the810 and The_Bouncer like this.
889 is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 12:54 pm
  #96  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,670
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
Herd immunity Sweden, Milan, New York, London
Not even vaguely resembling that in any shape or form I'm afraid.
orbitmic is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 1:01 pm
  #97  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,770
Originally Posted by The_Bouncer
I realise that different people have different levels of risk tolerance, but choosing a country based on this is a step too far for me. Whilst the risk does of course exist, it is for the vast majority of people still very small.

Anything can happen while travelling- car crashes, heart attacks, etc. If I based such decisions on the worst case scenario, I would never have been to half the places I've been to.

The factors I will be considering for my winter destinations in the event of a significant second wave are:

Accessibility and ease of escape in the event of lockdown
Level of freedom and quality of life
Climate
Cost of living

At the moment, Greece and Malta are winning if long haul is off the table. If things get really bad, I'll just drive up to Sweden and to the devil with the weather.
First, in reference to various posts, we are not judging anyone in this thread, if anything, this is a quintessential FT thread for these times, where to travel to hunker down for the virus.

I agree that people have different considerations and criteria making these decisions, which could include individual characteristics, needs, and preferences. This is going to be a daunting task to be fully comprehensive, but to your list I would add:

1. Access to health care and quality of health care
2. Access to social support system, in case of emergencies
3. Infrastructure for working remotely
4. Ease of legalities for staying and moving in and out of the country
5. Effectiveness of the country in preventing and handling an outbreak.
6. Ability to self-isolate, if needed, while maintaining quality of life (this could be person and environment related)
7. Quality of life in the event of a lockdown

I guess many of these may not matter if the plan is to leave the country if things starting going bad, however this may not be possible in the event of a lockdown or infection with covid.
nk15 is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 1:04 pm
  #98  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by 889
"Anything can happen while travelling- car crashes, heart attacks, etc. If I based such decisions on the worst case scenario, I would never have been to half the places I've been to."

Or even safer, just stay at home, avoid public transport and drive everywhere?

Let's take a look.

According to New York City statistics, a bit less than 5 percent of those who died of Covid there in the spring were 64 or under with no health issues, or it wasn't determined whether they had health issues (303/6839). At the present U.S. death rate of about 50,000 per month, that suggests around 2,500 deaths fall into the under-65-with-no-health-problems group.

U.S. traffic deaths run something over 3,100 per month. About 83 percent of the U.S. population is under 65, so let's just say we have about that proportion of traffic deaths -- 2,500 -- in our cohort of under 65s, healthy or not.

That is, for those in that group, mortality from Covid, even in the U.S. with its current high infection rate, poses about the same risk as mortality from auto accidents.

Of course these are back-of-the-envelope sorts of calculations, as are the statistics, and can be nitpicked to death. But rough as they are, they do suggest the sort of limited risk that healthy under-65s are taking when they decide to travel. Or just stay at home, safe in their cars.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-population/
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...-demographics/
The risk of being stranded in a locked down country is a far greater concern to many that the risk of health issues.

Of course, for many, another consideration is the risk of being locked down in their home countries.
The_Bouncer is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 1:05 pm
  #99  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vale of Glamorgan
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 3,007
In the event of a second lockdown, the only place I would want to be is at home.
orbitmic likes this.
Misco60 is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 1:40 pm
  #100  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by nk15
First, in reference to various posts, we are not judging anyone in this thread, if anything, this is a quintessential FT thread for these times, where to travel to hunker down for the virus.

I agree that people have different considerations and criteria making these decisions, which could include individual characteristics, needs, and preferences. This is going to be a daunting task to be fully comprehensive, but to your list I would add:

1. Access to health care and quality of health care
2. Access to social support system, in case of emergencies
3. Infrastructure for working remotely
4. Ease of legalities for staying and moving in and out of the country
5. Effectiveness of the country in preventing and handling an outbreak.
6. Ability to self-isolate, if needed, while maintaining quality of life (this could be person and environment related)
7. Quality of life in the event of a lockdown

I guess many of these may not matter if the plan is to leave the country if things starting going bad, however this may not be possible in the event of a lockdown or infection with covid.
You make some good points.

Everything depends on a person's own preferences, and people are going to have very different ideas of what works for them.
MSPeconomist likes this.
The_Bouncer is offline  
Old Jul 28, 2020, 2:28 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
I've been looking into Hawaii. They hate the mainlanders & have proven ready to take extreme measures to keep potential carriers out. Domestic USA infrastructure like online shopping is helpful. Europeans can enter by spending 2 weeks in a white listed country (Mexico, Turkey, etc).

AirBNB has some properties, but I haven't found sites geared at long term rentals.
HumbleBee is offline  
Old Jul 29, 2020, 5:04 am
  #102  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ABZ/NCL
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
Herd immunity Sweden, Milan, New York, London are the safest as they have the highest amount of cases cumulatively so unlikely to have 'second waves' or lockdowns.
Yes I think second waves are unlikely in these places. The worst cases now are in places that locked down way too early and have next to no exposure.
The_Bouncer likes this.
flyingcrazy is offline  
Old Jul 29, 2020, 5:05 am
  #103  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14
As an EU citizen probably the best place is the Azores as E111 will cover your healthcare- currently COVID 19 free and easy for that to be controlled as remote island with limited flights in to one airport. Great weather even in winter and scenery great. Various isles to visit and cost of living very reasonable. Why think of anywhere else.
The_Bouncer likes this.
enggeol is offline  
Old Jul 29, 2020, 5:06 am
  #104  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14
As I mention in my message the Azores stands out in the EU, COVID free and good weather through winter.
enggeol is offline  
Old Jul 29, 2020, 5:14 am
  #105  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by enggeol
As an EU citizen probably the best place is the Azores as E111 will cover your healthcare- currently COVID 19 free and easy for that to be controlled as remote island with limited flights in to one airport. Great weather even in winter and scenery great. Various isles to visit and cost of living very reasonable. Why think of anywhere else.
Azores would be great. Perfect if there were a reasonable way to take a car over there from the mainland.
The_Bouncer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.