Now that’s what I call quarantine: Splendid isolation in the South Pacific

“The Cook Islands requires anyone wishing to enter the Cook Islands to self-isolate for 14 days in New Zealand before travelling.”

Yes, you read that right. The government of the Pacific archipelago scattered between American Samoa and French Polynesia outsources the traveller’s obligation to show it is coronavirus-free.

Now that’s what I call quarantine.

The allure of the Cook Islands is clear. No hotel may be taller than a coconut palm. “Soon after landing in Rarotonga you can be kayaking on the crystal-clear lagoon, sipping on your first cocktail or relaxing poolside at your beautiful resort,” the tourist board promises.

“The islands are yours to enjoy at your leisure.”

But anyone raring to go to Rarotonga must first spend two weeks in New Zealand – a country that describes itself as “closed to almost all travellers.” It adds helpfully: “This includes superyachts.”

The chances of being allowed onboard a plane to Auckland are vanishingly low for people who are not citizens or residents of New Zealand. Even they must spend a fortnight in “managed isolation”.

Arrivals are assigned a hotel room and provided with meals, with one highlight being “able to do two bags of laundry during their stay”. Not quite the Kiwi experience many of us yearn for.

Only after spending 14 days in coronavirus-free New Zealand, and passing a Covid-19 test to be on the safe side, will the Cook Islands even consider you as a prospective arrival.

The UK’s approach is, like its geographical position, diametrically opposed to what is happening in the South Pacific.

On Monday, when Britain’s first blanket quarantine policy was imposed, I cycled to Heathrow airport to meet (from a suitable social distance) new arrivals.

Sophie from Norway had flown in unaware that she was supposed to fill out an online form in advance saying where she would stay for the following two weeks, apart from the odd shopping trip, just as soon as she had travelled there on public transport.

Anyone concluding this is the very definition of a half-baked policy imposed months too late on the insistence of Dominic Cummings in a desperate bid to distract attention from the unfolding scandal of care-home deaths is mistaken, at least according to the home secretary.

“These measures are informed by science, backed by the public and will keep us all safe,” says Priti Patel.

The big airlines are unconvinced. On Friday, British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair launched a legal challenge to quarantine, saying: “There was no consultation and no scientific evidence provided for such a severe policy.”

In fact, the move was backed by Professor John Aston, who said: “As the number of infections within the UK drops, we must now manage the risk of transmissions being reintroduced from elsewhere.”

But Professor Aston happens to be the Home Office chief scientific adviser.

Ms Patel did not seek wider views from Sage, the scientific advice group for emergencies, nor from Sir Patrick Vallance – chief scientific adviser for the whole government, and therefore rather more senior.

When asked about quarantine at a Downing Street daily briefing, Sir Patrick said: “Measures like this are most effective when the number of cases is very low, and they’re most effective when they’re applied to countries from higher rates.”

BA, easyJet and Ryanair, which normally compete ferociously, say they want quarantine limited to passengers from “high risk” countries, of whom there are precious few.

“The UK government’s flawed quarantine will have a devastating effect on British tourism and the wider economy and destroy thousands of jobs,” they say.

Those made redundant because of the government’s new policy at least deserve to know why.