Hotel Accommodation for Coronavirus isolation

[GrahamPlatt]

Two snippets from the recent news. In the push to house the homeless, charities are now paying for hotel accommodation. In one deal (IIRC) they have managed to get 4 star accommodation for £25 a night. Now that HMG are proposing to insist on hotel quarantine for 10 days for citizens returning from SA, Brazil & Portugal, the costs of such hotel accommodation are being estimated at £1500.

Moderator Message:
Moved to Coronavirus Board from the Snug.
Please don't start Coronavirus discussions elsewhere.
Also changed the thread title to something more meaningful.
Gryffron

[swill453]

the costs of such hotel accommodation are being estimated at £1500.

Being estimated by journalists, who take one look at hotels.com and do a quick sum on their calculator.

No story here.

Scott.

[servodude]

Two snippets from the recent news. In the push to house the homeless, charities are now paying for hotel accommodation. In one deal (IIRC) they have managed to get 4 star accommodation for £25 a night. Now that HMG are proposing to insist on hotel quarantine for 10 days for citizens returning from SA, Brazil & Portugal, the costs of such hotel accommodation are being estimated at £1500.

"Charge what the market will bear"

-sd

[servodude]

the costs of such hotel accommodation are being estimated at £1500.

Being estimated by journalists, who take one look at hotels.com and do a quick sum on their calculator.

No story here.

Scott.

Perhaps but it's pretty close to what you're charged in Aus https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/mandatory-quarantine-contribution-fee

I think it's being justified as it's meant to be a deterrent and there's associated biosecurity costs involved

Still must be a right pain to pass your test within three days of flying, and then quarantine, and then show up positive and be banned from playing tennis! ......and be charged for it

-sd

[swill453]

Perhaps but it's pretty close to what you're charged in Aus https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/mandatory-quarantine-contribution-fee

I think it's being justified as it's meant to be a deterrent and there's associated biosecurity costs involved

Sure. But the implication in the OP was that the hotels here are going to be "gouging" by overcharging. There's no evidence whatsoever of this (yet).

Scott.

[servodude]

Perhaps but it's pretty close to what you're charged in Aus https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/mandatory-quarantine-contribution-fee

I think it's being justified as it's meant to be a deterrent and there's associated biosecurity costs involved

Sure. But the implication in the OP was that the hotels here are going to be "gouging" by overcharging. There's no evidence whatsoever of this (yet).

Scott.

Ah! I didn't read it that way.... just that there was a huge difference between the prices possible.

Wouldn't surprise me though if the hotels involved aimed for as close to "rack rate" as possible given the outlook for customers in the near future.

So perhaps I'm agreeing with both of you

-sd

[88V8]

....charities ........£25............hotel quarantine .....£1500.

£25.... empty hotels virtue signalling?

£1,500 and why not, hotels are profit-making organisations, plus there is extra security, bio and guards. And it's a deterrent, we don't want people coming here........ especially people who can't afford £1,500.

V8

[UncleEbenezer]

....charities ........£25............hotel quarantine .....£1500.

£25.... empty hotels virtue signalling?

£1,500 and why not, hotels are profit-making organisations, plus there is extra security, bio and guards. And it's a deterrent, we don't want people coming here........ especially people who can't afford £1,500.

V8

Best Western has been notably media-friendly dealing with covid needs.

Can you see the seriously-rich (who are still flying) checking in to the chain that makes Travelodge look like luxury?

And just to be a bit pedantic, is anyone trying to suggest that £25 buys you a 10-day quarantine stay with full board and service?

[bungeejumper]

And just to be a bit pedantic, is anyone trying to suggest that £25 buys you a 10-day quarantine stay with full board and service?

Not pedantic at all - the night rate and the ten day rate are being liberally juxtaposed.

Although, yes, £25 a night does smell of desperation tactics. Even twice that sum wouldn't get you an AirBnBloodywellputthatmask on.

BJ

[Lootman]

....charities ........£25............hotel quarantine .....£1500.

£25.... empty hotels virtue signalling?

£1,500 and why not, hotels are profit-making organisations, plus there is extra security, bio and guards. And it's a deterrent, we don't want people coming here........ especially people who can't afford £1,500.

I am not sure I believe the £1,500 for 10 nights number either, unless it is in central London. The Heathrow hotels on the Bath Road are usually quite cheap - I got one for £35 a night last year.

But the price presumably also includes 30 room service meals, and hotel food tends to be expensive even in the restaurant.

And then all that extra security has to be paid for to stop the inmates escaping, and of course the government doesn't want to pay for that. In fact it fascinates me to see how people will be stopped from leaving the hotel, given that fire doors cannot be locked. Will the inmates be rugby tackled if they try? Tasered? Will dogs be used? Will barbed wire be deployed along with watchtowers?

[AF62]

And just to be a bit pedantic, is anyone trying to suggest that £25 buys you a 10-day quarantine stay with full board and service?

Not pedantic at all - the night rate and the ten day rate are being liberally juxtaposed.

Although, yes, £25 a night does smell of desperation tactics. Even twice that sum wouldn't get you an AirBnBloodywellputthatmask on.

BJ

Well I was in Madeira in December and for £35 a night I got a very nice 4* hotel with half board including a choice of restaurants around Funchal. Rather wish I hadn't come back.

[Mike4]

In fact it fascinates me to see how people will be stopped from leaving the hotel, given that fire doors cannot be locked. Will the inmates be rugby tackled if they try? Tasered? Will dogs be used? Will barbed wire be deployed along with watchtowers?

Yes, hopefully. If that's what it takes to make people take this thing seriously.

[gryffron]

In fact it fascinates me to see how people will be stopped from leaving the hotel, given that fire doors cannot be locked. Will the inmates be rugby tackled if they try? Tasered? Will dogs be used? Will barbed wire be deployed along with watchtowers?

Most modern hotels have adequate security cameras in the corridors. If you leave your room, the 10 day clock restarts!

Given how many hotels are empty at the moment, there should be no shortage of available accommodation. I'm sure the government can negotiate a bulk discount from typical pre-covid rates, as the charities have apparently managed.

Gryff

[Lootman]

In fact it fascinates me to see how people will be stopped from leaving the hotel, given that fire doors cannot be locked. Will the inmates be rugby tackled if they try? Tasered? Will dogs be used? Will barbed wire be deployed along with watchtowers?

Most modern hotels have adequate security cameras in the corridors. If you leave your room, the 10 day clock restarts!

The 10-day clock could restart but by that time you would be outside the hotel and gone.

[gryffron]

The 10-day clock could restart but by that time you would be outside the hotel and gone.

I see. You are assuming anyone would deliberately try to escape from quarantine. Since that is potentially the manslaughter of tens of thousands, personally I would lock you in solitary and throw away the key - forever.

I was assuming anyone who was that opposed to the idea of compulsory quarantine would simply choose not to travel. Which would still achieve the same objective.

Gryff

[Lootman]

The 10-day clock could restart but by that time you would be outside the hotel and gone.

I see. You are assuming anyone would deliberately try to escape from quarantine. Since that is potentially the manslaughter of tens of thousands, personally I would lock you in solitary and throw away the key - forever.

I was assuming anyone who was that opposed to the idea of compulsory quarantine would simply choose not to travel. Which would still achieve the same objective.

No, you completely missed my point, and I assumed nothing of the sort.

My point was that it is near impossible to imprison these numbers of people outside of prisons. So someone could, if they wanted to, "escape" from these hotels fairly easily. Now maybe if they did they would be fined, locked up or whatever, if they were later caught. But the point is that they got out and spread the virus, potentially. Meaning that this strategy is flawed unless you are literally going to put in a impenetrable perimeter, and hotels are not well set up to do that.

To your second point, many people have to travel. Your idea is not realistic.

Better to focus these imposed quarantines on a small number of people who represent most of the risk, and get that right.

[zico]

The 10-day clock could restart but by that time you would be outside the hotel and gone.

I see. You are assuming anyone would deliberately try to escape from quarantine. Since that is potentially the manslaughter of tens of thousands, personally I would lock you in solitary and throw away the key - forever.

I was assuming anyone who was that opposed to the idea of compulsory quarantine would simply choose not to travel. Which would still achieve the same objective.

No, you completely missed my point, and I assumed nothing of the sort.

My point was that it is near impossible to imprison these numbers of people outside of prisons. So someone could, if they wanted to, "escape" from these hotels fairly easily. Now maybe if they did they would be fined, locked up or whatever, if they were later caught. But the point is that they got out and spread the virus, potentially. Meaning that this strategy is flawed unless you are literally going to put in a impenetrable perimeter, and hotels are not well set up to do that.

To your second point, many people have to travel. Your idea is not realistic.

Better to focus these imposed quarantines on a small number of people who represent most of the risk, and get that right.

But you did assume that people would deliberately try to escape from quarantine!
The alternative is that people accidentally escape from quarantine, presumably by accidently pushing past the security guards on the entrances, or by accidentally opening the security doors and running away.

Obviously imposing proper quarantine (to be served in hotels) rather than "scout's honour quarantine" will drastically reduce the number of people travelling to the UK (or travelling out and then back) probably by at least 90% (including certain posters on here!). Back in October, we planned to visit Germany for a second time, but decided against it when they introduced a requirement to stay at a government hotel until a negative Covid test was produced.

[Lootman]

I see. You are assuming anyone would deliberately try to escape from quarantine. Since that is potentially the manslaughter of tens of thousands, personally I would lock you in solitary and throw away the key - forever.

I was assuming anyone who was that opposed to the idea of compulsory quarantine would simply choose not to travel. Which would still achieve the same objective.

No, you completely missed my point, and I assumed nothing of the sort.

My point was that it is near impossible to imprison these numbers of people outside of prisons. So someone could, if they wanted to, "escape" from these hotels fairly easily. Now maybe if they did they would be fined, locked up or whatever, if they were later caught. But the point is that they got out and spread the virus, potentially. Meaning that this strategy is flawed unless you are literally going to put in a impenetrable perimeter, and hotels are not well set up to do that.

To your second point, many people have to travel. Your idea is not realistic.

Better to focus these imposed quarantines on a small number of people who represent most of the risk, and get that right.

But you did assume that people would deliberately try to escape from quarantine!
The alternative is that people accidentally escape from quarantine, presumably by accidently pushing past the security guards on the entrances, or by accidentally opening the security doors and running away.

Obviously imposing proper quarantine (to be served in hotels) rather than "scout's honour quarantine" will drastically reduce the number of people travelling to the UK (or travelling out and then back) probably by at least 90% (including certain posters on here!). Back in October, we planned to visit Germany for a second time, but decided against it when they introduced a requirement to stay at a government hotel until a negative Covid test was produced.

I did not assume that everyone quarantined against their will would try and escape. Probably not even a majority.

But some would if the alternative prospect is slowly going insane in a hotel room. People could plan for it by flying only with a backpack, bribing a security guy, having an accomplice on the outside to pick you up in a car etc.

If the real idea here is to reduce the numbers arriving then explicitly make that the policy, rather than an imprisonment strategy that almost definitely cannot be 100% enforced on a population that has already tested negative (so not really "victims" at all.)

[Arborbridge]

I find the discussion about quarantine quite interesting, particularly those who are consider one would go "mad" in a hotel and need to escape. What nonsense - this would just be a rationalisation of breaking the rules. And if these people are so untrustworthy or half mad, what chance is there that they would obey a gentleman's agreement to isolate at home? None whatever, so they need to be properly quarantined.

The discussion turns around the earlier one about public health measures taken in various countries - the most draconin of which according to some can only be caried out in a dictatorship. But there is clearly spectrum of acceptances of rules for the public good, which runs from the US where it seems almost de rigeur to be rebellious and be proud of it (personally I'd find that a rather ugly society to be in), to other countries which I believe all share our liberal values and freedom, but accept tighter rules. NZ and Aus for example where the population is as free as we are, but perhaps have more sense of doing the right thing for the publlic good. Italy and France which are also free societies but accept that one needs a written itinerary if you are on a journey or a curfew at 6pm (in France at the moment) - or Denmark where there is a lockdown at last now, but one can have gatherings of unrelated guests in a house, below certain number. I can't speak for South East Asia, but I suspect that these are within the definition of free societies, but the public will comply if necessary which led to the low infection rate in the first wave.

There are many variations, and it seems strange when one sees one free society where people just obey the rules, and another where a certain percentage bitch like heck and question everything their government tries to impose to help them.

Arb.

[Lootman]

it seems strange when one sees one free society where people just obey the rules, and another where a certain percentage bitch like heck and question everything their government tries to impose to help them.

So we should just accept what the government says is needed? Even though that same government keeps changing its mind about what is needed?

My criticism of this idea is purely pragmatic. I do not think it is feasible unless the numbers arriving are much smaller. Maybe it would be if this were introduced, but that is a backhanded way of achieving that.

The imprisonment idea might work for a few hundred arrivals a day. Even a few thousand with some luck. But tens of thousands of people as envisaged? Not a chance.

And as I keep saying these are people who will have just been tested negative. They are less of a risk factor than your neighbours, friends and people who walk along your street every day.

So if what I have been hearing in the last 24 hours is correct, this will only be for those arriving from high-risk locations. The rest will self-quarantine for 10 days, or 5 days with a second negative test. Additionally you will need a written declaration of why you need to travel in order to depart in the first place. It is enough.