Some other countries are doing it, aren’t they?
It needs to be secure, obviously, otherwise people will be selling them down the pub for £20.
Re the NHS, one can find scandals in any national institution anywhere. The NHS loses over 1BN/year to staff theft, for example. My experience of it is that once you get in there, having first been fobbed off several times, the work they do is top class.
What do we make in the UK (and elsewhere) of this idea mooted yesterday by Hancock of a “I have had it – passport”? I see it fraught with some many issues.
Ditto. But maybe it’s the pragmatic thing to do.
something they’ve chosen to do which is pretty well paid and with a tremendous pension.
Healthcare assistants are on about £10 an hour, with a tremendous pension to match. The notable exception to everyone coming in to work would be the agency nurses, many of whom have refused to work on COVID wards until they were told they would be reported to the regulator if they refused.
Many nursing homes are refusing to take patients with COVID even if they already have other patients with COVID! There is a notable public/private divide in how people are approaching the issue. I’d be interested to hear what is happening in countries with primarily private healthcare.
kwlf wrote:
I’d be interested to hear what is happening in countries with primarily private healthcare.
In Ireland the private hospitals have effectively been temporarily taken over by the state for the duration of the crises. The private insurance companies are planning to refund policy holders to take account of the fact that they can’t provide the services insured.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
What do we make in the UK (and elsewhere) of this idea mooted yesterday by Hancock of a “I have had it – passport”? I see it fraught with some many issues.
Either a very foolish comment from someone who should no better! Because if the lock down is so effective that we slow the spread, such that it stays as a minority, then say 90% won’t have the passport, that leaves the other 10% to pick the fruit and deliver parcels 
Or he believes a very large proportion of us will get it, and thus such a passport might allow herd immunity to be achieved at lower percentage than say 60%.
I am not suggesting a test should not be developed but its use needs to responsible and depending where we are at when it is available appropriate to the circumstance. If 45% of us get it perhaps it will stop another 15% or more etc.
kwlf wrote:
What do we make in the UK (and elsewhere) of this idea mooted yesterday by Hancock of a “I have had it – passport”? I see it fraught with some many issues.Ditto. But maybe it’s the pragmatic thing to do.
Definitely. While politicians are busy dealing with the crisis and bailout strategies for businesses, the industry is not idle waiting to see what’s on the other side and what the governments will do about it.
Some of us in the transport and tourism industry are working on an international standard that can be agreed to allow travle and tourism to recover more quickly than it would otherwise do.
Obviously, people and businesses are going to be released from the current curfew at different rates in different locations. This will mean a very slow return to travel normality with the subsequent unbearably painful economical situation that no European country can afford, no amount of bearable public bailout schemes can support an idle transport and tourism industry. Even if we were allowed to travel, people will initially be afraid. The industry is coming forward with a strong plan to allow consumer and business confidence and hence a quick return to unrestricted travel:
a) First, why restrict movements to all the population when a big percentage is already immunized (ie got the virus and with or without symptoms overcame it). This is already estimated at 15% of the population in Spain and growing.Their travel is not a threat to anyone else or themselves, so there should be a system to test everyone for antibodies and all of those positive should be given a ‘green card’ to travel freely. How this is implemented in a secure and internationally recognised way is what has to be worked on. This must be coordinated at EU and beyond international level and airlines, airports, receiving as well as supplying markets should implement controls to that effect, complemented with compulsory symptoms checks.
b) Second, until we have a system for everyone else to get immunized (vaccine?) a combined liability waiver (useless under current EU consumer law which must be adapted) + a system with recent antigen tests + during-travel symptoms check should be implemented for the rest of us.
c) All the travel support industry (which suffers a delayed effect from the lockdown and recovery, like aircraft maintenance and manufacturing) should also be prioritized to avoid finding ourselves in a situation where travel has recovered but the industry has not survived to support it.
172driver wrote:
Podemos in Spain?
Populists rather than the extremists. At the same time right-wing extremists exist in any European country (somewhere you have several competing parties) and they managed to enter practically all national parliaments. Extremists are e.g. AfD or National Front.
I don’t know about foreign press coverage of the UK (probably flakey in many respects, not least due to brexit) but the NF has been practically nonexistent in the UK for many years.
Some of us in the transport and tourism industry are working on an international standard that can be agreed to allow travle and tourism to recover more quickly than it would otherwise do.
Yes; an excellent point.
I think there will have to be much more strict controls on travel, with a very rapid reaction to scenarios like this year’s ski scene which distributed the virus perfectly all over Europe.
Peter wrote:
uch more strict controls on travel,
What are you proposing?
“The answer is every country that wishes must sign up to a new agreement that they undertake to make immediate disclosure should this occur again (as it will) and the WHO will send in independent inspectors (the same principle as weapons of mass destruction)”
I’d be surprised if all? UN countries hadn’t signed something like this many decades ago.
The problem isn’t signed agreements. The problem is humans. They will lie to try to protect themselves.
