dealtn wrote:Current infection rates might be very low, perhaps lower than other parts of the world. By the time airports are "open" again that could be much lower still.
If R=0.1 in both England and France, but R=0.5 in Scotland would you think "logically" it would be ok to have an open border between England and Scotland, but not between England and France?
Similarly if R=0.05 in general communities in England but R=2 in care homes how would you decide what is appropriate movement between those 2 communities.
Now I am not trying to be controversial, nor seeking a "discussion" on Covid, there are other places for that, this is "Airport Lounge", but I am trying to establish why some think risks are different to others, and can get quite emotive about it (such as the original post), when making judgements about practical policy responses.
I think the answer lies in your own post. "might be", "perhaps", "if", "you would think", etc.
Given a vacuum of reliable data, people are having to envisage their own scenarios** as to what the likely state of affairs is / will be, and then they are making judgements based on those.
Until such time as we have meaningful facts* and a verified method of assessing the associated risks, speculation is about all that's left.
*By "meaningful", I don't include the current testing methodology in the UK, where subjects are either already showing symptoms or at least reporting that they have them. A large, randomised sample of the general population would be more helpful, with proper follow-up and analysis to understand the factors around who is at risk and who isn't, and why, and then the policy decisions to deal with reality, accompanied by appropriate actions (whatever they might be).
**I'm not implying that you think the scenarios you describe are the most likely; I assume they are just scenarios for the purpose of discussion.