PlowJockey

Given the existence of Delta breakthrough cases for vaccinated individuals, it's not crazy to continue the blanket testing requirement. As a vaccinated individual, I certainly feel better if others flying with me have been tested. But fortunately or unfortunately, I'm not in charge of CDC or pandemic policy...

nomiiiii

Incorrect. I know people who aren't getting vaccinated because not much (enforceable) requirements change for them, like airline masks and international return test rules

If CDC wants to increase vax rates, restrictions for vaxxed folks need to be lifted like this testing restriction

PlowJockey

I'll leave the public health policy questions to the experts and to other forums. My own opinion, however, is that we should not rely on the possible future actions of individuals too selfish or short-sighted to get vaccinated merely because they might still have to take the occasional COVID test anyway.

As to *requiring a test for international arrivals*, which is this forum and the basis for my comment, how can you dispute that barring flyers who test positive makes the flights safer for those who don't? False positives exist but that's not going to INCREASE the risk of contamination on the flights.

nomiiiii

Safety is not only covid-safety. Financial insecurity and poverty leads to very bad health outcomes also. Lots of people are stuck outside USA right now in less than ideal conditions, and have lost monies because of our shutting down of borders and reduced immigrant inflow. And more importantly, lots of tourist dollars are not flowing right now to developing communities due to testing rules worldwide (from US and elsewhere), which makes people hesitant to travel and spend their monies in struggling communities. You can discuss this more in omni, but if you've seen the poverty that has struck tourist-dependent economies, resulting in poorer health outcomes (i.e. less safer), we can absolutely make the case that covid rules have made us less safe overall.

The US response is incredibly selfish and supporting restrictive travel policies is basically an endorsement of deepening poverty in struggling communities.

kac2138

Nah, it doesn't make sense to me. If there were no community transmission of COVID in the US, fine, makes sense. Ban travelers and screen all citizens returning. But let's say you are in...I dunno, Poland, and you test positive. You can't come home. To what benefit? To stop 1 person with COVID from coming home? You're not stopping or reducing the spread of COVID in the United States in any real or meaningful fashion.

That the ban doesn't apply to land crossings makes this all the more farcical. I actually think this is unconstitutional-- it feels like a 14th amendment thing to me-- but no one is challenging it because it just seems like it could vanish at any time.

michael1023

or it could just be a money grab for testing...

Xyzzy

Preventing a COVID-infected person from getting on a plane to the US absolutely reduces the spread of COVID in the US. Such a person can spread it on a plane, in an airport, on the way to a home or hotel, etc. It's not just stopping one person from coming home, It's potentially stopping many others from being infected. Infection -- just like vaccination -- happens one person at a time. The fact that there is already community spread in the US is nt relevant. We need to stop the spread however we can and a test within 72hrs of departure to the US is not an onerous requirement.

kac2138

Of course it is relevant (I agree it isn't onerous, I think it's just potentially infringing to people who enter the country in a different scenario completely arbitrarily). You can complete a land crossing without the negative test! Boarding the plane is a test case easily nullified by just creating a hypothetical where you're the only person on the plane. Better ways to stop the spread would be something like mandatory vaccination, not letting certain states ban vaccine passports, not telling the country to get rid of their masks, etc. I think requiring a test for international returns is in some very legally murky water. And I think it doesn't make sense to ban transit of people given the general flow of trade.

nomiiiii

If a US citizen tests positive abroad, instead of taking the direct flight back to home to jfk, the most common process now is to take a flight to Mexico City (no tests required), then fly to Tijuana, walk into US then fly San Diego to jfk.

For people who have jobs and a life, it's better to do this technical loophole long route (or bribe to get a negative test and fly) than wait around in some godforsaken country abroad for 2-3 weeks till you pass a test.

How is that safer?

Xyzzy

There are workarounds to almost any rule / procedure. ne would hope that if someone gets a positive test result that that person would quarantine until such time as they were retested to determine if the first test was a false positive. And I'd prefer if tests were required to cross the border by land. IIRC a test is required to enter Canada by both land oandby air (it was that way until recently).

OSSYULYYZ

It is still in effect. After 9 August, Day 1 Arrival Testing will be 'random', but a Pre-Arrival Molecular Test is still required. Exemptions for Truck Drivers and other Essential Travellers have been in effect for a while though.

eerickson7

I know about the land border loophole, but absent going that route, what happens? How long do you have to wait to fly after a positive test and who determines this? Is this a US rule, an airline rule, or an origin country rule?

Could I just keep taking antigen tests daily? Those are not real sensitive, so I'd think a vaccinated person may get a negative antigen test relatively quickly.

Just getting slightly nervous about overseas travel with all these unknowns.

CKBA

Flying back to the US on Saturday (31st). Have a Qured test kit, but no appointments available, so as good as useless. Collinson (who we've used before) at LHR T5 only show bookings available for Tues/Wed/Thursday - anyone know if this is a 3-day advance booking thing which will open up for Fri/Sat later?

MSPeconomist

I'd be concerned about the delay language. What if the flight (or a connecting flight) is cancelled and the passenger is rebooked? In fact, what if the "delayed" flight is assigned a different flight number, for example as a special section when it departs the next day?

michael1023

I’m confused, the flight number now has something to do with this now?