-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Covid restrictions abroad: updates & observations
- Thread starter Butts
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
While I’d like to see both tests removed, if we’re only removing one I think we chose the wrong one.
The ‘day 2’ test is a deterrent to inbound tourism for the same reason that the pre departure test is a deterrent for outbound tourism; if we’re keeping a measure, I’d argue it’s better for it to be the one that doesn’t harm the U.K. economy as much.
The ‘day 2’ test is a deterrent to inbound tourism for the same reason that the pre departure test is a deterrent for outbound tourism; if we’re keeping a measure, I’d argue it’s better for it to be the one that doesn’t harm the U.K. economy as much.
Last edited:
Bantamzen
Established Member
Don't forget that there is a large sector of UK based tourism that rely on overseas holidays.
They did remove the need to self-isolate whilst awaiting the day 2 test result, at least.
Butts
Veteran Member
I think a lot of people beat them to that sometime ago.
Be interesting to see what happens to the price of LF Test Kits.
I'm lucky in that respect because I am staying in a private residence with people I know, rather than a hotel - so if I did have to take that test, I could have isolated here and worked remotely.
Yes, that is good - for the most basic reasons. Obviously you can order food online, but it makes things easier being able to go out to the supermarket at any time.
Although tests after arrival in the UK, seem to be easier and cheaper than pre-departures in other Countries !
For what it's worth, the current (soon ending) regulations permit someone self-isolating pending the result of a day 2 test to go out to obtain basic necessities for the household if they cannot practicably obtain them any other way. (Interpretations admittedly vary.)
Nowhere soon, unless you've had a booster.
www.thetimes.co.uk
Covid booster jab refuseniks face being denied access to large venues
People who have not had a booster jab will be denied entry to large venues and the right to quarantine-free international travel
www.thetimes.co.uk
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Nowhere soon, unless you've had a booster.
Covid booster jab refuseniks face being denied access to large venues
People who have not had a booster jab will be denied entry to large venues and the right to quarantine-free international travel
Not really. You can still travel. But from what I understand, you'll have to quarantine for 10 days on arrival back in the UK.
So if you've had the two initial doses and then actually had Covid, does two doses plus natural immunity not count for anything?
I am not against the booster, but I am just questioning this policy given that, by the time these plans have been implemented (spring/summer?), many of us will have natural immunity anyway via catching Omicron, I suspect.
(Haven't had the booster yet but not for ideological reasons, just because I am currently temporarily out of the UK and haven't had time yet).
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Unfortunately not as far as I'm aware no
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,657
Which I really don't understand, and needs to be changed.
Vaccination-related travel restrictions have never really been about what would "stop the spread" - not that this is even a necessary or desirable aim at this stage of endemicity.
It's always been about "nudging" (i.e. indirectly forcing) people into getting vaccinated however many times is fashionable this week, so as to reduce the potential strain they could put on the NHS.
Which, arguably, is a legitimate aim - but of course it needs to be balanced against the significant resultant human rights implications. And there has clearly been little or not attempt at undertaking such a balancing exercise.
Ex-controller
Member
Question refund policy/rights in the event that travel advice or entry requirements change…
I’m looking at potentially going to Scandinavia in the summer. At the moment provided I return a negative LFT I’m okay to travel without quarantine. However, what if I was to book and that advice subsequently changed, either with the FCO advising against travel or my country of entry tightening controls or requiring quarantine?
Is anyone aware of whether travel insurance policies or airline refund policies will cover this scenario?
I’m looking at potentially going to Scandinavia in the summer. At the moment provided I return a negative LFT I’m okay to travel without quarantine. However, what if I was to book and that advice subsequently changed, either with the FCO advising against travel or my country of entry tightening controls or requiring quarantine?
Is anyone aware of whether travel insurance policies or airline refund policies will cover this scenario?
Travel insurance, no, I'm not aware of any policies that would cover cancellation costs in the event of further restrictions or FCO advice against travel. The risk of further restrictions is so high that, if you did find an insurer willing to take it on, you would probably be paying a premium nearly as high as what you'd be entitled to claim!
A few insurers will cover you to travel against FCO advice, and many will cover you if you have to cancel due to catching Covid (or costs you incur if you catch it whilst abroad). Some will extend that to if you have to self-isolate as a close contact. It's worth checking the policy wording on this point as there is significant variance between insurers.
Most airlines don't offer fully refundable tickets - or where they do exist, they tend to be ludicrously expensive - however many airlines are offering flexibility in being able to change your flights to another date or route, or being able to exchange them for a voucher for future bookings. Policies do vary so it's worthwhile looking up the details before deciding who to fly with.
I'm also interested in this. I suspect airlines will be more strict as if people can still travel, they will still fly. I mean it's not their fault if a country was to change its policies and make fewer people eligible to travel. Only if a country totally closed up and they had to cancel flights would they be likely to refund at this stage.
I'd suggest seeking out a good travel insurance policy, one which covers such events, and making sure you take it out ASAP. That way if the rules change after you purchased the tickets and the policy, you'd be covered.
Though one does have to question some of the contradictions that arise from the relative mildness of Omicron versus the pressure governments are putting on people to take the booster jab immediately.
It seems to be well established now that Omicron is less serious than the previous versions. By implication, that ought to suggest that for fit and healthy people, particularly those who have had Covid recently, there is perhaps no need for any great urgency to take the booster jab.
Also saw something last night about Germany apparently requiring either a booster or a negative test for doubly-vaccinated people to eat in restaurants. Again, is this an appropriate response?
It seems to me that as we approach Covid becoming endemic, governments are becoming more and more heavy-handed with things like vaccine passports, and one might question whether this is actually necessary. The mood also seems to suggest that these are not just temporary measures for Omicron/winter. The legitimate question that must logically follow, then, is "at what stage will it end?" I would think that really strong measures, like outright travel bans, will disappear by spring but vaccine passports, probably not.
Last edited:
Travel insurance will usually cover you if your illness (such as COVID-19) prevents you from travel.
Some insurance will cover cancellation costs if FCO advises against travel, usually within 2 or 4 weeks before departure; a subset will also help if rule changes at your destination mean your trip is adversely affected. Very few providers will cover you if you travel against FCO advice. As always, read policy wordings carefully.
Most travel providers will allow you to roll bookings forward more or less indefinitely as well.
I would agree with this advice though one would hope that by the summer, with Omicron behind us and virus levels naturally lower due to the season anyway, I would guess the chances of restrictions being harsher than now would be very low. Certainly if you have the booster jab (given the way countries are going), I would guess you would be OK.
Unless some new mutation comes along which is as contagious as Omicron but more deadly, any country tightening things up between now and summer would be killing its tourist industry for no apparent purpose. Europe (including the UK) has had two very poor summer seasons already, can it afford a third without good reason?
I've been researching travel insurance and it seems almost all of them will cover you for cancellation due to illness or isolation, but very few cover changing restrictions. Certainly the cheaper ones make it clear the won't cover any claims from reintroduction of quarentine at either end. Some are more vague and make it clear they won't pay out if the Foreign Office, or other equivalent body abroad, forbid travel to a certain place, but that's normal. Some of them will pay out if you go to a red list country, but not for Covid restriction related claims, only for illness. The more expensive ones don't specifically state they will cover you in the event of cancellations arising from changing restrictions, but they also don't specifically rule it out either.
I think with some countries the lost tourism money doesn't seem to matter. Back in 2020, when we lost that summer, I thought no way would they let it continue to ruin the winter ski season, but they did...and that rolled into 2021, then we had a lackluster summer with last minute red lists, PCR tests etc. Then I thought winter would be fine, but it wasn't, so this summer will hopefully be different, but it seems that tourism/leisure travel is very much the sacrificial goat in all of this.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Back in the UK. Returned at Gatwick, and just like I returned from Spain, no PLF or proof of vaccination checks when arrived. But I did get asked for these documents when leaving Naples in Italy.
One interesting aspect is that on departure from Naples, is that you first scan your passport on the e-passport gate, and then, after that, you go through a manned passport control so that the officer then puts the exit stamp on the passport.
EDIT: in addition, I forgot to say, at check-in in Naples, the lady also asked my confirmation email for the day 2 test. Why, if that's already written on the Passenger Locator Form?
One interesting aspect is that on departure from Naples, is that you first scan your passport on the e-passport gate, and then, after that, you go through a manned passport control so that the officer then puts the exit stamp on the passport.
EDIT: in addition, I forgot to say, at check-in in Naples, the lady also asked my confirmation email for the day 2 test. Why, if that's already written on the Passenger Locator Form?
Last edited:
The officer will go away later this year when the Schengen Entry-Exit System goes live; right now the different Schengen members' computers don't speak to one another so the stamps are the only way to establish whether an individual has gone over their 90 days.
I have to confess I don't get the rationale for this 90-day thing, particularly when applied to countries with a low security risk such as the UK and many other examples around extra-Schengen Europe and the rest of the world. It seems to be going back to the days when countries (in this case, Schengen vs. the rest of the world) were constantly at war with each other and didn't trust each other.
If you spend say 100 days in a series of EU countries, you are contributing money to the economy by spending locally. You are paying local VAT. That is surely a good thing?
Is it also true that the restrictions are harsher than pre-EU days? For example, pre-EU and pre-Schengen, could you have spent 90 days in France, then 90 days in Germany, then 90 days in Switzerland etc - resulting in theoretically much more freedom than now?
Of course, regarding the UK's rights in particular, I blame 'Boris' and May more than the EU, as both 'Boris' and May insisted on an immigrant-hostile version of Brexit.
Last edited:
It's a bit of a crude measure, but the principle is that as a visitor you should spend less time in the area than outside the area. If you wish to spend more time inside the area than outside the area you are no longer a short-term visitor, and need a long-stay / residence visa. The longer someone wishes to stay, the more likely it is that they will need to work to support themselves, which is not allowed as a visitor. People who do not need to work may qualify to stay longer, but they have to prove they can support themselves before travelling by applying for a visa.
The "security risks" are not really the issue, if there was a security risk you would be denied entry at the border, or, once ETIAS is working, you would be prevented from travelling.
The EU has decided that they want it to be strictly 90 days in any 180 day period, other countries have chosen differently, for example the UK doesn't actually have any absolute criteria except that on each entry as a visitor you can stay for up to 6 months. If you leave and re-enter it is possible to be granted another 6 months, if you can satisfy the immigration officer you are a genuine visitor (although you do stay for 12 continuous months, your worldwide income and gains may become taxable by the UK). The US gives visitors 90 days but includes time spent in Canada, Mexico and some Caribbean islands as part of the 90 days if one travels there after entering the US then attempts to enter the US again.
Yes, in the past it would have been possible to spend an extended period of time in individual countries which are now part of Schengen as they all had their own criteria. Australian and New Zealand citizens can still do this, as some individual Schengen countries allow 90 days as a visitor in that country only, without counting time spent in other Schengen countries. Some individual Schengen countries also allow up to 6 months at a time in that country only.
New Zealand citizens can theoretically spend over 3 years without leaving Schengen by staying 90 days in each of the countries that permits it, travelling directly to the next country, and keeping very clear records of their travels. Some people have tried it and blogged about their experiences. Most border guards will not be familiar with the old agreements that were not cancelled when those countries acceded to Schengen, so there will probably be some hassle at the end of the stay, and during the covid era probably some hassle when crossing the internal borders of Schengen too.
They should stamped have unless you have some sort of EU residence rights.
However, as recently as 2018, it was a toss-up as to whether you would get your non-EU passport stamped when entering Schengen at certain EU ports, notably when entering through Italy and occasionally Spain and France. US, Canadian and Australian citizens were likely to not be stamped. If exiting Schengen through a stricter country such as the Netherlands, Germany or Switzerland, this could cause problems without proof of when you entered.
I went on a day trip to France with an American back in 2012 and his passport wasn't stamped at all, in fact, the Juxtaposed French border controls at Dover port were not even open. Coming back, the French exit controls waved through my car and only the Juxtaposed UK border control stamped his passport, so his only record of being in the Schengen zone is a stamp for a non-Schengen country!
There were no fusses about being double or triple vaccinated and the isolation periods to go along with that in 2020.
- Status