Yeah, well . . . economist are economists and think like economists. The blinkered dismal science. They can't help it.

The trade-off of course also involves such minor little matters as liberty, freedom, (mental) health, and so forth, none of which matter much to true economists, in whose hyper-theoretical minds people are just little automatons or cogs in economic models.

As for health, the dodgy stats indicate that 1.7m have so far succumbed to COVID-19, the vast majority of whom were already ill and/or very old. Sucks for them and their loved ones, but in the medium to long term that's an insignificant statistical blip. Even on an annual basis it's only 2,5% of the 65m or so that die in an average year, or about the same percentage that are killed on the roads year in, year out, without anybody batting an eye. Begs the question how much of a pandemic it is that we are fighting at such enormous economic and human cost.

If COVID-19 had struck a century ago, instead of the Spanish flu, there's a good chance nobody would even have noticed. For starters, there would not have been a large supply of very old and sick people to kill off, because medical technology was not yet advanced enough to get them to that stage. Nor would asymptomatic cases have been diagnosed, and mild cases would have been taken for a cold or common flu. The world would have shrugged and carried on. As happened in living memory with the Hong Kong flu, swine flu, bird flu, you name it.
​​​​​
The current paroxysmal, knee-jerk, disparate, desperate, panicky, inconsistent, willy-nilly, contradictory, borderline paranoid, fear-mongering and decidedly illiberal way of dealing with a pandemic is a new invention, and as contagious as any virus out there.

For some reason I'm not impressed.

Johan

This is one of the most sensible things I have ever read on FT.

Hey don't hate on economists! For real though, stop talking sense. This is Flyertalk.

So many wrong things in this post.
First, the myth that only people dying of COVID would have die soon is wrong. Average of 10 and 13 years of life are lost respectively for men and women. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....08.20050559v2

Excess deaths in countries where restrictions were low or not followed at all reach up to 70% of a normal year. https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-...c-cbdf5b386938

Mortality rate in Sweden (taken as an example because you live there) for road accident is 2.8/100k in 2016, COVID mortality rate in Sweden is 73/100k, so 30:times more. Yet to drive you need insurance, to have a permit and there laws and sanctions associated with violating regulations.
https://www.atlas-mag.net/en/article...safety-in-2017
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...pe-by-country/

So your reasoning was based on false data.

Can UK originating travellers now transit AMS then without a PCR test if not going through Dutch immigration?

Take a second to look at the profiles of the economists answering the IGM survey. Alongside people working on more traditional things, you have people working on mental health, happiness, time use etc.. It just so happens that in the case of COVID, maximizing those things is very strongly correlated with maximizing economic gain and minimizing the health costs.

Ask yourself, who is more free now: someone in Sweden/the Netherlands or someone in New Zealand? Who is more likely to suffer mental health problems relating to the pandemic (or in general)?

According to this, yes
https://www.government.nl/topics/cor...d-south-africa

Both https://klm.traveldoc.aero and https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/ (which BA website sends to) say yes, but that is of course always subject to change as the link [MENTION=714185]mpkz[/MENTION] shared from the Dutch government website actually says no

Edit: Actually, scratch that... the KLM version is already updated (I based my post on checking it couple of hours ago, the IATA site was checked now) ....

?? The Dutch gov't website says yes (i.e. "yes, you can transit without a PCR test") in the list of exceptions to the rule

My bad, I got confused with your post.

Let's assume the answer is someone in NZ (I don't necessarily agree, but for the sake of argument). Is it because of better epimologic situation or because fewer restrictions in place. In other words, if the Netherlands adopted same rules as New Zealand (minus border restrictions), would people in NL be less free than people in NZ?

Being in Sweden, I would never change it for a country which aims for eradications. Yes, we need to keep our distance and somewhat limit our social life, but it feels much more sustainable than risking a hardcore lockdown everytime one odd case appears somewhere.

Effective 29 December, all travelers travelling to the Netherlands by air must present a negative PCR test result: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwe...ederland.There is a plan to also extend this to travellers arriving by bus or rail.

Is that the same thing discussed here (with the same exemptions) ? Because it was applicable before 29/12.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/klm-...therlands.html

No, This is a new requirement, the correct link (in Dutch) - https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwe...naar-nederland
It seems to only be applicable to flights from outside EU / Schengen and excludes a few "safe countries" such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and few others.

Unlike I think most countries that requires a PCR test, the requirement here is for it to taken no later than 72hrs before arrival in The Netherlands, good luck for those who have lengthy connections on their way.

And with the new requirement from Dec 29th 00:01, also transit passengers requires a negative test