nomad098

2 hours ago, cured said:

You are basically saying the same thing. There is a huge difference between scientists with the same expertise debating the proper way of handling something and someone who doesn't have the same training weighing in as an expert.  The scientists with focus on the area of concern have all put in long hours of work and experience and debate among them is good for progress. Their opinions as experts should be believed. Not the guy down the road. It is when those not as qualified weigh in as the same experts.

 

For instance, when Apollo 13 was experiencing catastrophic difficulties, NASA consulted scientists and mechanics who had experience and expertise in the Apollo program. They debated the best strategy for bringing home the astronauts based on experience and knowledge. They all shared expertise in the Apollow program.

 

What NASA did not do was bring in the local Honda mechanic. While technically a mechanic just like the NASA mechanics, the Honda mechanic had no experience with rocket mechanics so therefore his/her opinion was not even close to the validity of the mechanics who had worked on rockets for most of their career.  Just as the NASA mechanics would not be the experts on Hondas.  Everyone has their own area of expertise.

 

So it is with biological and chemical scientists and doctors.  There is a reason we have multiple specialties. Each one is an expert in their particular field because they have the training and the different education.  There is a reason why your GP sends you to an oncologist if they suspect cancer.  Your GP may be able to weigh in on their expertise, your overall health, but the oncologist will be able to weigh in on particular courses of action for your particular diagnosis.

 

If you disagree with the consensus of the leading epidemiologists, looking at the research and work of other epidemiologists or experts in virology is healthy.  Their opinions are based on expertise and work done on viruses.

 

Discredited doctors' opinions who have absolutely no expertise in epidemiology do not carry the same weight as those that are experienced in epidemiology.  Just because they make youtube videos or create a dramatic background of standing on sweeping steps in white coats does not give them expertise.

 

All this is saying is listen to the experts. If you are trying to bring a disabled spaceship home, you cannot listen to the Apollo mechanic and the Honda mechanic and then weigh their opinions equally. You cannot listen to everyone who spews an opinion on a subject with or without expertise and then decide you will believe the person who fits your own narrative better.  If scientists with the same narrow expertise, research, and education differ in opinion, then so be it. They are all coming at the problem with the same expertise.  Science changes as more knowledge is learned. But the experts know how to interpret the knowledge and make adjustments as necessary.

 

All this piece is saying is to weigh the experts' opinions more heavily than those that have no expertise in the field they are opining about.  It is not equal.

Up to now the experts have not exactly lived up to the hype.

I can't speak for the US but in the UK we have SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ) all experts in their fields but based on some of their advice and recommendations they have little to no clue of the realities of ordinary people's lives. At which point an expert is pretty useless.

From the chief medical officer for Wales an expert and a member of SAGE " non essential items are not to be sold in supermarkets to reduce the movement of people" sounds good except non essential items included women's sanitary products, you could buy food but not the pot to cook it in, you could buy alcohol but not baby clothes, you could buy a birthday cake but not candles to go on it and the list goes on.

We have been fed a narrative by one like minded group of experts, they may well be right however we will never know if they were right or wrong because the discourse normally associated with science has been shut down and the only people that are giving an alternative view are not the most credible sources

6 hours ago, tosteve1 said:

But we know the gene sequence of new variants very quickly. Updates to mRNA vaccines can be produced within weeks. As long as people are willing to get boosters, it shouldn’t be a problem. But hey, we can just lockdown forever instead!

No matter how quickly the updates can be produced the logistics, verification, approval process and manufacture takes time all the while the virus is mutating.

From the little science available exposure once vaccinated might provide better long term protection than continual booster shots for variants you may never come in contact with.

7 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Variants aren't the only issue.  We are still not certain how long vaccine protection will last.  It would not be surprising at all if annual vaccines are necessary.  Maybe it will be longer.  Let's hope!

From looking at older research into RNA viruses

The chances are long term immunity to the version of covid-19 your vaccinated for

Limited protection against present variants if not exposed to the virus previously or had a booster jab

Less or no protection for future variants if not exposed to the virus previously.

What we know about live vaccines and previous exposure to covid-19 in the Novaxx trial is that this offers protection against present disease and known variants.

This is why they are working on mRNA vaccines that mimic more of the whole virus to give better protection against variants

Exposure to the disease or a mRNA or other vaccine that mimics the whole virus may abrogate the need for boosters. 

3 hours ago, cured said:

This pretty much sums up "opinion"

 

And that's your "opinion"

All the post proves is that everyone suffers from conformational bias, the person who wrote the article, the poster and myself.

I remember the experts the UK government went to when SARS 1, MERS and Ebola looked like being a threat, when these people did not agree with the government's point of view and approach to Covid-19 they were suddenly deemed to be fringe scientists and called far worse by the mainstream media, talk about confirmation bias. These people were not discredited scientists but world leading experts in their respective fields. 

When the people we elected to govern us set a path and the scientists advising the UK government did not agree with them they undermined the government  and released information that forced the government to change their course, when did these scientists become experts in governance?

There are many many scientific experts that do not agree with the approach of the UK government scientific advice, some of these sit on the committee advising the government, when their voices went unrepresented by their superiors they wrote an open letter to the government, they were immediately vilified for their views, yet we have been paying them to advise us for over a year.

In such a fluid situation disagreeing with an "experts" view does not make you right nor will it necessarily mean you're wrong. 

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

Vaccines are doing just fine against the variants

If that was the case there would be no need for booster shots

Astrazeneca would still be being used in South Africa against the South African variant

And the Novaxx trials would tend to disagree a 6 fold decrease in effectiveness against the South African variant

The mRNA vaccines seem to be holding up better but they have not been widely deployed in areas of concern except in the UK

2 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

It's been 6-9 months since the first people got the vaccine. And monitoring the fall off antibody levels in their blood, the scientists can estimate when you will need a booster. And a booster that has been tweaked a bit to better protect you from the mutations. I know people who have already got their 3rd shot and they are doing fine. All still wear masks. All still social distancing. 

What complete balderdash and claptrap, sorry not trying to be rude just trying out some old words

Nobody can estimate how long the vaccine will last based on antibodies it is just not how your bodies immune system works,  secondly drop off in antibodies is normal you have the same with the yellow fever and measle jabs but they still last a lifetime.

Yellow fever jab used to be every 10 years until they realised after decades of study that it lasted a lifetime, WHO now recommend 1 jab only

The 3rd shot at the moment should only be part of trials to see if it makes a difference anyone having a 3rd jab outside of trials is a) taking a risk and b) taking a jab from someone else.

The present vaccines are very targeted and specific and this is why they have limited success dealing with variants, booster shots will also suffer from this flaw if tweaked based on current technology.

So what variants will be around come the winter, no one knows, it still takes a while to produce even a tweaked booster because you still have to produce the original shots because there is no guarantee that a booster will effectively deal with the older strains still in circulation.

We got lucky in the UK the Kent variant was close enough to the original that the vaccines work effectively the same as for older strains the same can not be said for the South African or Brazilian variants and no one knows at the moment for the India variant,

Based on the present technology you can only have a booster that you know will target 1 variant but may or may not cover others. 

It is quite possible that the next variant will make all these vaccines and booster shots null and void and the race will be on to produce vaccines that work more like traditional vaccines.

11 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

1) There were upwards of 10 variants before the UK variant, yet we weren't told to be scared of those.

2) Influenza vaccine makers most certainly guess as to what strain will be the big one that season. And they're usually wrong based on the efficacy of flu vaccines

Lots of variants before the UK one but the 4 main ones of concern have shown an ability to either spread faster or be more deadly or both.

Many don't realise that the strains affecting some parts of the world are less virulent and deadly. When people point at these countries and say look how well they have done they are not taking into account the whole picture.

When I pointed out that influenza vaccines work on a best guess based on scientific data available one rabid pro vaxx poster told me i was wrong in no uncertain terms and would not even accept the facts when I pointed them to the CDC website which actually states vaccine manufacturers use a "best guess" to get moving with vaccine production.

Booster shots for variants that may well be superseded by September and if they use the same technology will probably be of little effect. Continually playing catch up is not a plan but it is a good money maker and provides comfort to the rabid pro vaxxers.

Strange to think that the 4 variants of concern are from places that underwent mass trials for the vaccines is this because more genomic testing took place in these areas or because the virus was pressured by the trials or both??? 

Booster shots great.

But what are you actually getting a booster shot against?

The present crop of vaccines target a very specific part of a very specific spike protein the booster shots will be the same just for a variant.

Covid19 mutates naturally however viruses can be pressured to mutate by external mechanisms like mass vaccination roll outs. This makes it easy for them to mutate beyond the design of the present vaccines, Dr Fauci and the UK advisors have been talking about this for a while

The problem is no one knows what variants will be in circulation in 3 to 9 months time, this is the timeframe to create a vaccine for a known variant, the Novaxx trial tells us that the probability is that the vaccines will have a limited to no effect on a variant it was not designed to protect against.

We all know quickly covid 19 circled the globe, the Kent variant to become the dominant strain in the UK during lockdowns and for 3 other variants of concern to be recognised. Unlike influenza vaccine makers and manufactures will not be able to anticipate what the next variant will be

The Novaxx trial did throw out some other interesting information, that those previously exposed to older variants of covid-19 seemed to be protected from the new South African variant only having mild symptoms.

There is science that shows that an live vaccine like yellow fever teaches the immune system to recognise the whole virus and is not rendered ineffective by changes at the surface. 

23 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

I fully expect it.  And the flu shots are not guesses, they are developed to deal with new variants from the previous flu season.  This virus has developed variants as well and to properly protect, one must have boosters with newer formulations.  I don't mind that at all, I haven't had flu for at least 15 yrs since I started getting vaccines for them.  I will be glad to vaccine up again, fortunately for me, I hardly notice them.  I had a bigger bump on my arm from Covid one and slept a lot, that's it.

Flu vaccines really are scientifically educated guesses and many years they get this wrong because the influenza virus is constantly mutating outside what is known.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm

The present covid-19 vaccines are thought to be partly responsible for the new variants according to vaccine producers, this means booster shots but they can not be developed until a variant is identified, booster shots are then created taking time but they also contribute to the creation of variants and so on and so on. It's an arms race the current vaccines cannot win.

It's not that the current vaccines are bad it is just that they are very specific and targeted.

https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/emergex-covid-19-vaccine/

According to Dr Fauci  “you still have a fixed immunogen and a virus that’s changing. Sooner or later, you’re going to get a mutant that evades that.”

Meaning none of the current or future boosters based on current vaccines will be effective against a vaccine resistant variant and worse still nobody knows when this will happen.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777785

A small subset of the Novaxx trial in South Africa showed that previous exposure to older versions of covid-19 seemed to provide a protective effect against the South African variant. This may hold true for future variants only time will tell.

Getting vaccinated is definitely a good idea not being exposed to the live virus might possibly be a very bad one if new and different vaccines are not created, only time will tell

8 minutes ago, nocl said:

As the study says it is 

 

Laboratory Modeling of SARS-CoV-2 Exposure Reduction Through Physically Distanced Seating in Aircraft Cabins Using Bacteriophage Aerosol 

 

As such it is looking at dispersal patterns and shows significant reduction if the distance is expanded.  It is not a clinical trial looking at people actually getting infected (which would be where vaccines come into play)

 

If there was no eating of drinking on the plane and masks were worn throughout the entire flight than it would not matter.  But we all know people do eat, they do drink and consequently do have their masks off for a portion of the flight.

 

When the airlines left the middle seat open you did not have to risk sitting next to someone ignoring or stretching the rules to the maximum allowed.

 

When everyone is vaccinated and case counts are low it will not matter.  Now people are not all vaccinated (some never will be) and case counts are still high.

 

I would prefer that the airlines take one of two approaches  1. either require proof of vaccine or a negative test and fill the middle seat  or 2. leave the middle seat open

 

 

Obviously things are different in the US to UK probably because internal flights are so short here

No eating and drinking on the plane and masked for the entire journey.

I'm not a big fan of studies of studies and when you are using modelling with a best scientific guess for some of the variables these can very easily throw things off or not be accurate due to confirmation bias.

Spacing people out is really an obvious answer and no doubt it works but as with everything it comes down to risk and benefit for the airlines.

1 hour ago, nocl said:

Unfortunately the middle seat blocking ends May 1.

 

A recently released paper shows that blocking the middle seats does significantly reduce risk of infection on an air craft.  Would like to see that requirement be reinstated, at least throughout the summer until case number has dropped substantially.

You mean this one

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7016e1.htm?s_cid=mm7016e1_w

A laboratory study of an actual study from 2017 using modelling which did not take into account the wearing of face masks nor did it consider whether passengers are vaccinated against Covid-19 or the other measures put in place by airlines due to the pandemic, it could be right but I'm not convinced.

5 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Given that cruise lines have sailings all over the world, it will be interesting to see how the vaccination "requirement," if there is one, will be impacted by decisions like this one:

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/council-of-eu-agrees-on-digital-vaccine-certificate-insists-it-must-not-become-a-precondition-for-travel/

"Last Tuesday, April 13, MEPs of the Civil Liberties Committee have quizzed the European Union Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders on the Digital Green Certificate initiative. They have also insisted that the Commission must not permit the certificates to become a ‘de facto’ precondition for travelling throughout Europe."

 

It isn't clear to me whether cruise ships calling at various ports throughout Europe would constitute "travelling" as defined by the EU Council. Perhaps they're only referring to the freedom of people to move about by car, airplane, train, bus and ferry. I don't know if leisure cruising would meet that definition or not. But if it does, it would be very tricky for RCCL and others to insist that all passengers have a vaccine certificate in order to board a ship.

I tried explaining this a few months back, but many just do not get the EU mentality when it comes to free movement of people.

And yes this also applies to cruise ships, this is covered in EU maritime law and Travel directives, the laws were tightened up and expanded after Costa Concordia.

Cyprus presently requires all visitors to have both vaccinations, if the EU decide that Schengen nationals do not need to prove they are vaccinated then that will be the rule and Royal Caribbean will  have two choices accept the EU's decision or pull out of the EU market. Cyprus can still set its own rules for non Schengen visitors.

Lookup what the EU does to member countries who don't tow the EU line and businesses that the EU think are not compliant.

5 hours ago, jonbgd said:

There is a certain poster on this thread that reminds me of that guy on Fox News that is is from the UK

That guy tells his opinion on what is wrong in US politics instead of what is wrong in his own country🤔

 

That guys name is Steve Hilton

and to any one wondering what a San Franciscan is doing watching Fox news

I wanted to hear what both sides are saying so i can formulate my own opinions

Let's be perfectly honest this happens the world over, I've lost count of the number of times I've heard different nationalities quote on our internal social and political matters with no real clue what they are talking about.

It's prevalent here on cruisecritic with many US posters telling other nationalities what their cruise contract, terms and conditions and laws are without reference to the fact that things are different in different markets.

3 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

I read more about the Israel study, the 8 cases of infection of the South Africa variant happened 7-13 days after the second shot.  Nothin after 14 days, which is considered fully effective.  Maybe for that variant you need the whole effectiveness.

 

“Our results show reduced effectiveness against the [South African] variant only in a short window of time (7-13 days post-second dose) since all the breakthrough cases we saw were in this time frame,” Adi Stern, a professor at Tel Aviv University and one of the co-authors, said in an email. “However, once again the caveat is that our sample size is small and this requires further research

Quite possible the experts seem to be announcing new information almost on a daily basis

Interesting to read about using mRNA technology to create a vaccine that will target more of the viruses code to provide protection against broader range of variants

56 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

 

From an article in Feb by John Hopkins.  The only vaccine mentioned is AZ, and still kept the illness to mild or moderate symptoms.  Having the virus before offered no greater protection.  The majority of people in the world believe to best way to get rid of the virus is mass vaccinations.-

 

 

The variant known as B.1.351, which was identified in South Africa, is getting a closer look from researchers, whose early data show that the COVID-19 vaccine from Oxford-AstraZeneca provided “minimal” protection from that version of the coronavirus. Those who became sick from the B.1.351 coronavirus variant after receiving the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine experienced mild or moderate illness.

The B.1.351 variant has not been shown to cause more severe illness than earlier versions. But there is a chance that it could give people who survived the original coronavirus another round of mild or moderate COVID-19.

Researchers studying placebo (non-vaccine) recipients in the South African COVID-19 vaccine trial by Novavax compared subgroups of participants who did or did not have antibodies indicating prior COVID-19. Those who did have the antibodies most likely were infected with older variants of SARS-CoV-2. They found that having recovered from COVID-19 did not protect against being sickened again at a time when the B.1.351 variant was spreading there.

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know

Thinking about it logically if you have mild/moderate symptoms from a vaccine that does not contain the virus the only thing it could be is an immunological response

This does not really answer the question as to whether they were re infected or a similar immunological response as you would have to the vaccine not containing a virus.

Here's some light reading from scientists who see things differently all are pro vaccines they just see it differently, in the UK we have been looking at booster shots against variants for a while.

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00075-8/fulltext

https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/emergex-covid-19-vaccine/

36 minutes ago, KennyFla said:

I have already been vaccinated so I don't have a side in this fight.  I would like to point out that the CDC STILL has not given a go ahead for even all vaccinated cruises.

That is the most troubling thing to me.

This is probably because the CDC are aware of the same information as Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca, UK Government Scientists, vaccine producers, various other scientists around the world and anyone else that has taken the time to read the research, that 100% vaccinated cruises are a PR stunt, offers a false sense of security and provides another opportunity for variants to spread.

Latest information from some of the vaccine manufacturers is:

The present crop of vaccines target the spike protein however your immune system is never exposed to the virus this becomes a problem later.

When exposed to covid-19 after vaccination your immune system recognises the spike protein, it goes into action reducing the risk of death, hospitalisation and serious illness in most, your immune system also teaches itself about SARS COV 2.

The probability is in favour of you having an effective immune response to other covid-19 variants this is based upon decades of research into yellow fever and other RNA viruses which showed that mutations on the outside receptors made no difference to the effectiveness of your immune system once exposed to a live virus.

If you have been vaccinated but never come into contact with the spike protein you are vaccinated against this is where the problems start. 

If you are exposed to covid-19 variant where the spike has mutated enough your immune system is not primed to deal with the variant infection and so you are starting at square 1 with no immunity this will result in deaths, hospitalisations and illness. The people that survive should have immunity as your body now sees the whole virus not just the spike

The answer is booster shots to teach your immune system about the next variant, if you infected with either the original or the next variant this means your immune system will teach itself about SARS COV 2. This cycle goes on with booster shots for the next variant and so on and so on, It's an arms race until your infected with either a version of covid you are vaccinated against or you catch the variant your not vaccinated against and your back at square 1.

RNA viruses naturally mutate but they can be pressured to mutate by vaccines this becomes exacerbated when the vaccines are only targeting the spike protein which will mutate rapidly to avoid the vaccines, the probability is the virus will out run vaccine technology and the vaccine manufacturers will always be playing catch up. Eventually there will be an escape variant that is vaccine resistant.

This is why a 100% vaccinated cruise at the moment is a fallacy because if everyone is vaccinated against lets say covid A and someone gets on the ship with covid B only those that have had actual exposure to covid A will have any sort of immunity and the rest are no different to unvaccinated people and the new variant can spread.

Testing is the only real answer until such time as either a vaccine is created which sees the whole virus similar to yellow fever vaccine or enough people have been exposed to the disease for herd immunity. Research is showing that herd immunity will take a long time to achieve with the current crop of vaccines as the virus only needs to alter it's spike protein to be able to infect a person that has not already been exposed. There is research into vaccines that mimic the whole virus however covid-19 is considered too dangerous to make a live attenuated vaccine.

A re-think by Governments and social views is needed to actually combat this disease and a lot more money put into a long term vaccine solution.

Using vaccines that contribute to creating variants is not a long term solution but if i was a cynic I could say it's a good money maker

A quote from the founder of Moderna

"Vaccines were never on our radar as they do not make good business sense"

5 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

Give your droning on a rest, you cant even stay on the same subject you started, I really can't be bothered to read more twisted nonsense that suits your agenda.

 

Your right you cannot use facts to teach some people

8 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

You were the one talking about a family of 4 going on HOLIDAY, make up your mind!
The beginnings of the traffic light system are already there.

Here you go a easily understood explanation of the traffic light system as we know it now:

https://news.sky.com/story/how-will-the-traffic-light-system-for-international-travel-work-and-will-tests-get-any-cheaper-12269883

Green list countries minimum and maximum known testing costs for required testing are between £120 - £350 plus cost of test at destination to fly home per required person

Amber list countries would be similar to costs currently incurred for travelling now

Red list countries same as Amber countries plus £1750 pre payable for hotel.

The travel industry are pushing to have these costs reduced

As I am aware now, from information released, the cost on top of my holiday to a green list country could range anywhere between £600 minimum and £1000+ depending on various factors such as service providers and airport.

According to your figures the minimum I would need to pay is £726.88 + postage to visit a green list country, approximately a 14.5% increase for a £5000 cruise holiday but a 72.5% increase in a cheap £1000 apartment holiday.

1 minute ago, ziggyuk said:

 

Don't be ridiculous, you know as well as I do you are not allowed to fly internationally from the UK right now without good reason, you started this by making the difference travelling vaccinated or PCR testing.

 

I quote your original post I responded to "Adding about £1000 to your flights or holiday for a family of 4"

If you were in fact talking about now, you know full well a family of 4 can't currently legally go on holiday outside the UK.

 

It is obvious the pricing I was suggesting was for those wanting to fly once things open after 17th May and in response to you very specific example.

Why on earth would anyone be interested the way things are now, we are talking about a family of four going on holiday.

Anything can be sensationalised and you are clearly a master.

Why is there a mandatory 10 day quarantine period even for vaccinated people at the moment, this is because of the risk of importing covid variants, do you think that the risk of importing variants suddenly disappears on the 17th of May or anytime in the near to medium future.

The Government scientists all seem to agree that cases increased in the Autumn due to international travel in the summer do you think they will just ignore this come the summer?

I do expect the costs to come down and the rules to change however this is not a certainty and we can only deal with the facts as they are not how we would wish them to be.

1 minute ago, ace2542 said:

So if you need a test to board a ship in Southampton would NCL or whatever cruise line provide that test? Or would you have to pay yourself? And what in New York we are doing 3 ship package in November with days on land in NYC. Will we have to pay for a test in NYC and how much would it cost?

The rules as they stand now and obviously they can change in the future

Cruise lines are covering the cost of UK only cruises out of Southampton.

US at the moment are on the "red list" it is expected to change later this year.

So based on current requirements and assuming US goes on the green list costs would be

Fit to Fly + 2 and 8 day test around the £249 based on Gatwick pricing

If you do not fly back within 24hrs of leaving the last ship you will have to pay for a test to travel to the UK

Unsure of any US related costs our American friends would know more than me.

2 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

Except you can have it done in the comfort of you own home for just £72 via post with Randox health
£72 so all that is nonsense.

https://www.randoxhea
lth.com/covid-19-home-testing-kit/
using code eJh2021

 

That's £72 + Є40 per person using Cyprus as an example.

And when its made even more sensational by using "family of four" most countries don't even need a test for a child to fly.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding the rules as they stand now for travel so let me break it down for you using your example

Fit to fly cost = £72 + postage and packaging

Cyprus cost = £34.72 (40 Euros)

Legally required 2+8 Day test Gatwick price at their drive through center = £189

Price per required person = £295.72 + postage and packaging

The best price I have seen is from Gatwick £283.72

For my family of 4 with 2 teenage boys £1,134.88 and it rises from there depending on the airport or services you use.

If you want to be released early from mandatory home quarantine from day 5 cost between £100 - £175 based on a private provider recognised by UK government

However Gatwick is offering a combo package 2+8 testing and 5 day early release £249

Test requirements are based on age in some countries it's 11 and in others it is 6 like Spain.

You seem to have missed the rules for flying back into the UK on page 2 of the link I posted so here it is

Travelling to the UK

55 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

Only because it's being extremely exaggerated in the press like the Daily Fail which gullible people are sucked into, all the main UK airports are doing £60 PCR test and Cyprus for example are doing Є40 tests (Grease Є50) making the cost £380 for the return journey for 4 people to Cyprus.

Actually it all depends, which test, which airport, what destination, how long you need be in quarantine, do you want to pay to get tested to get out of quarantine earlier and whole range of factors.

Gatwick recently dropped the price of the PCR test to £60 for drive through

Cardiff Airport last price I seen was £155 just checking now best price I can find is "From £99" dependent on how quick you need it back and some labs are charging between £125 - £175

Some of the cost of testing comes in way over a £1000 some come back cheaper

BA recommended one from Heathrow "From £99" or at some of their labs £166 

Under the present rules you need to have a test to fly out, a test to fly in, pre-book a 2 and 8 day test ( Gatwick pricing at their drive through £189) and pay privately for a 5 day early release.

So based on Gatwick £60 + £189 plus cost in destination  more than £1000 for a family of 4 under current rules

Only the gullible fail to read all the rules and regulations 

https://www.gatwickairport.com/at-the-airport/coronavirus/covid-testing/

11 minutes ago, GOTTODOIT said:

If they put unvaccinated customers on other airlines they will still not be allowed to enter Australia.

The government is looking at making Singapore the entry hub to Australia and everyone will have to show a negative result on testing in Singapore before boarding.  Anyone coming to australia and all returning citizens currently have a 2 week mandatory hotel quarantine, paid for by the traveller, with further testing when arriving in Australia and on a daily basis whilst in quarantine. Incoming passengers are bused directly to the quarantine hotel from the airport.  Doesn't matter where you land in australia, all cities have quarantine hotels and there is no exception.

There is also talk that everywhere we go, restuarants, hotels, etc in the future will require proof of vaccination. 

It shows how the world has changed it was not so long ago that the airlines were so excited about non stop flights from the UK to Australia

The UK were late introducing a covid hotel system here but it seems to modeled on the Australian model.

Talk here of a domestic vaccine passport but after a resounding no from publicans, restaurant owners and hoteliers , the opposition parties and a fair number of the government threatened to vote it down which would lead to a government defeat, all has gone quite.

Though a vaccination passport to travel seems to be well supported.

2 minutes ago, sugcarol said:

CVS and clinics will test for free if exposed to Covid or have symptoms. If you lie and say you were exposed they want tracing. For travel it has to be the PCR  and need to upload to a special app. This just came out today, maybe they will give better info later. I thought having the vaccine would be enough but i was fooling myself.

In the UK and EU airlines are lobbying various governments to only use the inexpensive antigen tests not the expensive PCR as they believe expensive tests will hurt travel industry.

When we can finally travel a £750 holiday to Spain for 4 will now cost me £1750 with the rules currently in place.

1 minute ago, Heymarco said:

CDC not requiring PCR test, rapid results from Royal will meet entry requirements for US.

From Royal

Q

Currently, the U.S. requires proof of a negative COVID-19 test result for those arriving into the U.S. by international air. Will Royal Caribbean administer this test? Who pays for it?

A

Royal Caribbean will administer an antigen test onboard the ship, and cover the related cost, should it be required for re-entry into the United States. The test will be administered just before the end of the cruise, and guests will be provided a copy of their test result. Current U.S. requirements stipulate that returning international travelers must get tested no more than 3 days before re-entering the United States. Therefore, cruise guests should plan to fly home within 24 hours of departing the ship, for the test result to be within the valid window. Otherwise, guests re-entering the U.S. at a later date will need to secure their own test, at their expense, closer to their re-entry date.