Originally Posted by
racedo
I don't disagree as that is a reasonable position. Rather than spending significant amounts of money and potentially infecting people on a flight back then "stay put" in the short term, aided by Embassy personnel in country seems also realistic position.
Bringing 200 people who could be infected by 2 people on a flight adds to NHS. Where as keeping them where ever they are isolated / safe and providing them with funds to see it out limits potential spread. China worried about people bringing it back in now in flights from Europe.
I have zero criticism of what people have done on holiday, it is their choice but asking them to stay away and providing support in doing so is a probably more realistic option. Some will complain poor FiFi the cat will be stuck in kennels for a month longer. In the whole scheme of things bringing people back into a country where the virus is still growing does not make a lot of sense.
If it was Oz or NZ or another civilised country, I'd agree (indeed my stepdaughter is on her gap year in Oz and we have encouraged her to stay put) but there are many other countries in the world I would not want to be stuck in.
Of course testing of individuals prior to repatriation would be a good idea so that no-one suspected of being infected got on board but then the tests don't seem to be that effective (~75%) but as long as anyone returning went into strict self-isolation for the minimum necessary period, I'm not sure it would be so difficult. BA are still flying, as are Qantas and a few others and I'm sure they've completed their due diligence so I guess it's up to them, not a bunch of bored keyboard warriors.