Realistically most countries are going to require a vaccine to get a visa so the airline policy won't matter.
There's already a fair bit of historic precedent on this with yellow fever and so on.
Very true.
My father worked abroad a lot in his career, and, as a boy at boarding school in England, I used to go out to spend my holidays in places, then still "British", like Singapore, Malaya, Kenya Colony and Aden. After becoming a pin-cushion for injections against all manner of diseases (most obtainable only at LSHTM in London), I had to obtain numerous certificates, from the Local Medical Officer of Health in the UK, before I could fly out by BOAC Britannia or Comet and be given entry to these colonies.
To travel, for example, from Aden to then-French Mogadishu or Addis Ababa also required stamps, visas and health certificates. Returning to the UK, as a small white British schoolboy, the entry process at Heathrow was long and complicated, and I seem to recall being kept in quarantine for a while at my grandparents' after returning from somewhere which had an outbreak of some tropical disease.
In essence, the concept is nothing new, but travel is (was?) much more extensive, health systems abroad are far better and many diseases, if not eradicated, are less frequent and better-treated.
I don't think that C19 is a disease which merits such measures, and, even if it did, then it should be the country of destination who determines what prophylaxis and paperwork is required to obtain entry.
The fact that the vaccine won't stop them getting it and may not even stop them transmitting if they do get it seems to be neither here nor there.
Irrelevant to most people - its needed to travel and live a normal life. Whether it does anything or not doesn't matter. Its ticking a box.
Also most vaccines don't prevent you getting it or transmitting it. Flu for example. Yet they're still worth it due to *reduction in symptoms*.
potentially unsafe and probably pretty ineffective vaccine just so they can get away on holiday or work.
Unsafe is nonsense.
That said, the Oxford/ZA is unlikely to work. Pfizer/Moderna have much more robust data.
Most countries *now* require a test within 72hrs of travel and another test later whilst there and/or mandatory quarantine. They'll switch to needing a vaccine as soon as practical instead.
You might think it’s relevant to more people than you think.
You feel free to take as much as you like, I’m skipping it.
The fact that the vaccine won't stop them getting it and may not even stop them transmitting if they do get it seems to be neither here nor there.
Irrelevant to most people - its needed to travel and live a normal life. Whether it does anything or not doesn't matter. Its ticking a box.
Also most vaccines don't prevent you getting it or transmitting it. Flu for example. Yet they're still worth it due to *reduction in symptoms*.
potentially unsafe and probably pretty ineffective vaccine just so they can get away on holiday or work.
Unsafe is nonsense.
That said, the Oxford/ZA is unlikely to work. Pfizer/Moderna have much more robust data.
Most countries *now* require a test within 72hrs of travel and another test later whilst there and/or mandatory quarantine. They'll switch to needing a vaccine as soon as practical instead.
I'm afraid I think Australia will adopt a compulsory vaccine-for-visa requirement, as their immigration and bio-security requirements are incredibly stringent compared even to other, western, countries. There is a general sledgehammer/nut approach in Australia which seeks to pin down in advance every possible bit of "leakage" from processes or legislation which is invasive.
Notwithstanding the immigration/bio-sec approach, the police-state style lockdown in Victoria is a good example.
To be honest, Australia has already nailed its colours to the "zero covid" mast, so the country can't go anywhere other than adopting a mandatory vaccine for visitors.
