Who isn’t confused?

By | Category: Travel tips & opinions

Recently IATA and ACI made a joint call for a consistent approach to testing international passengers as an alternative to quarantine measures.

I am confused about whether to spend money on travel in case the joke is on me if something goes awry. Cartoon – Dan Sperrin

Whether or not you think that testing passengers is the answer to quarantine what is badly needed is consistency because passengers are confused.

They are confused on which countries their governments suggest that they can fly to without facing quarantine; they are confused about which destinations will allow them unimpeded entry despite what their own governments say and they are confused about regulations.

As more countries insist on PCR testing, passengers are confused about whether their testing should be done seven days before arrival or three days or even within seventy-two or forty-eight-hours.

They are confused about whether they must take another test when they land at their destination or whether they have to just show proof of a negative test. What sort of test do I need and how many different types are there?

Confusion exists about whether they have to pay for tests on arrival and at four or seven days or ten days afterwards.

Is testing and medical treatment covered by the host destination or do they pay? What happens if there is a positive test? Does travel insurance cover these costs or does even travel insurance exist in the case of coronavirus which has now been around for ten months and travel insurance policies have altered?

If you book a flight and accommodation separately will you even know if there are flights to your proposed destination or should you rely on a travel agency to sort out these questions for you?

If you prefer not to fly and take a train or drive to the European mainland what happens if you stop in a quarantined country? Will your final destination accept you or will quarantine result?

As more destinations reject the idea of a total lockdown and seem to want to attract tourists, how safe are the sanitised measures? Just because the accommodation and attractions have signed up to health protocols how do passengers know that they will be followed day-after-day? Are premises inspected each day or every other day? Or even at all?

Now the World Health Organisation says that it doesn’t recommend lockdowns as a primary means of control – whatever that means

Countries and destinations have different rules in place and there is little consistency. Politicians in Madrid object to rules imposed by the Spanish government. Mayors in hard-hit cities in France are at loggerheads with the French government. In Australia, state premiers take decisions that are at odds with the federal government and in the UK, devolved nations and even local mayors seem to have an entirely different view from the Westminster government on how to manage things.

Ireland has a green list of countries its residents can fly to and there isn’t a single country on it! What’s the point?

In the USA, there has even been a plot to capture a state governor because she has taken a tougher lockdown line than Washington has?

Politicians bicker but they agree on one thing: science drives their decision making.

Well science drives my thinking too and my thinking is I am too confused by the creation of confusion to do anything about travelling at all.

And that can’t be good for the entire world-wide travel and tourism industry and the tens of millions of people who work in it.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Tags: , , ,