scubadu

Come on... there is almost no way something like this would be explicitly mentioned in a State of the Union address, particularly with everything going on in the country/world. There may be discussion about a "return to normality" but not specific detailed travel policies.

The United States has a population of approximately 332.5 million people. A very, very tiny, minuscule portion of that travels internationally. Heck, most of my own family has never had and likely never will have a passport. The average American on the street likely doesn't even know this policy exists.

Obviously, it's something deeply important to those of us who love/need to travel, but likely not "State of the Union" worthy for the country writ large.

Regards

michael1023

well there goes my hope

friedablass

I'm not sure what your definition of very, very tiny, minuscule portion is. If you do a cursory Google search for statistics, in 2019 over 44 million people (~13%+) traveled out of the USA excluding to Canada and Mexico (if you include those it's over 99 million which is almost a third of our population). It obviously plummeted in 2020 but we all know it picked up in 2021 for which I couldn't find data yet and is continuing full force ahead in 2022.

Although we for sure aren't at pre pandemic levels, it's certainly heading there and currently all those millions of people including those traveling by air from Mexico and Canada are currently effected by this rule and I just wouldn't toss them all to the wayside saying "you guys are such a tiny percentage, the heck with you". And this doesn't even include all the non US citizens who are vaccinated that are subject to this rule as well. There are also US citizens living abroad who this rule applies to when they come back home and they're not included in outbound tourist statistics. To me it's not such a negligible portion of people at all and this rule should definitely be up for reconsideration.

scubadu

So, in doing some further research its rather unclear if those 44 million are discreet, different individuals or if they are simply international trips, thus counting multiple trips by the same individuals as though they are different people. That would obviously over inflate the number. The number may very well be correct, but I'm finding it difficult to find specifics on the methodology of the numbers (other than cursory headlines).

Furthermore, I'm not at all saying "you guys are such a tiny percentage, the heck with you" I did not say that. You put that in "quotes" as though you are quoting me and I certainly did not at all say those words.

What I am saying, in response to a specific question that was asked, is that whether we like this requirement or not, the maintaining or removal of this requirement is almost assuredly not going to be mentioned by the President of the United States in his annual State of the Union address to the nation this evening. Particularly given inflation, the war in Ukraine, etc. That is what I said, and I'm completely comfortable with that prediction, though would be happy to be proved wrong.

No need to use my response to that specific question to restart an endless debate about whether the test requirement should be removed or not.

Regards

friedablass

I'm not either sure if the number is trips or individuals but I took the number from this site and it said "the number of United States residents traveling overseas peaked at 44.81 million in 2019."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...s-from-the-us/

I understood that to mean individuals but I may very well be wrong. I don't think there are millions of people who take multiple international trips every year but again, I don't have the data so can't say.

The sentence I put in quotes was just to show what I personally wouldn't say, I didn't mean to attribute it to you.

I completely agree with you that the testing requirement is almost certainly not going to be addressed by the President.

I was just saying that it should be revisited at this point, not attempting to start any debates .

Take care.

84fiero

Indeed. Iceland has dropped all COVID border controls, no more testing or even vaccination requirement. Even Jordan has dropped all testing requirements. And that's a country that doesn't have the healthcare infrastructure that the US does and has been very cautious throughout the pandemic with its border restrictions.

I don't expect anything to be said during the SOTU. But the war in Ukraine shouldn't preclude a change in the testing policy. The CDC has nothing substantive to do with Ukraine, defense, or foreign affairs. Sure, the White House still has to give the thumbs-up but the government should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The Administration had time to finish choosing and announcing the new Supreme Court Justice nominee, for example. I'm sure most Federal agencies' work has continued along as normal, other than the State Dept and Dept of Defense. At the very least the timeline should've been moved back to the previous 3 days for vaccinated citizens before now, with Omicron having arrived, spread, become dominant, and peaked in most areas of the country.

scubadu

I certainly don't disagree with the thesis of your post. However, this likely has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the government "having time" to address this. This is all about optics. There seems to be concern within the administration regarding mixed messages (e.g. substantial ramp up in asking people to test more frequently, giving citizens free test kits, etc. vs. simultaneously removing an in place test requirement). Additionally, there is often a bureaucratic way of thinking that concludes removing the requirement makes them look like they were wrong to begin with and they want to avoid that at all costs (similar to the countless "security theater" things we have in place post 9/11). These, of course, are similar considerations regarding the masking on airplanes requirements.

And then of course there remains a contingent within the US that fall in the "what about the children" camp.

Let me be very clear; I'm not arguing in favor of the reasoning I've laid out, not at all. As a traveler, I'd obviously like to see these requirements dropped for vaccinated travelers. I'm just saying, the US Govt marches to the beat of its own drum and it usually isn't logic and it certainly ain't "following the science"

Regards

84fiero

I think you're right on target with all of your points!

chrisny2

For US citizens, at this point - order Binax tests, get 100 percent reimbursement from your insurance - move on. It's so easy!

SamirD

This can also backfire when the reports have some slight differences that a counter agent can quickly assess but that their online systems cannot. My wife ran across this recently when her mom's vaccination report had some initials while others did not--tripped up the system bad and everything had to be done at the airport.

seawolf

Reimbursement is up to $12 per test not 100%. Anything above that is done because your insurance voluntarily offered it not because it is required.

84fiero

The point isn't about the cost or ease of getting tested - I think everyone here has a good handle on the options available. It's about the risk of getting delayed returning home for some period of time, the added direct and indirect costs, and often the hassle of getting a recovery document...all for what, at this point, is little more than hygiene theater - particularly for vaccinated people. While I factor those possible risks in to my trip planning, it would be wonderful to stop doing so.

GUWonder

The 3 days requirement was more characteristically theater than the 1 day requirement. If the idea is to not go in for more theater, they should either keep it at 1 day or just scrap the test requirement. If anything, Omicron remains reason enough to keep it at 1 day instead of putting it back at 3 days.

Other than the issues around the possibility of getting infected by other travelers or not recognizing an infection early enough to improve healthcare outcomes, the real disruption from testing "isn't about the cost or ease of getting tested..... It's about the risk of getting delayed returning home for some period of time, the added direct and indirect costs, and often the hassle of getting a recovery document".

nomiiiii

It is not so easy if you're flying out from countries with spotty internet access. Yes, the majority of US travellers are from Europe/Mexico, but I'm concerned that when flying out of Sierra Leone next week I won't have good wifi for the binax test (which I did carry with myself), and there is no fast antigen testing available in the entire country, while the pcr test in the countries come at a steep cost and even then are not really guaranteed to get results within 24 hours (traveller reports usually say about 48 hours).

So at this point I'm praying that my hotel in Sierra Leone will have good wifi for my pcr test, otherwise I'll have to change my flight from going to the US to somewhere in Europe/UK instead (no test needed, just show vax), and once in Europe I can use the good wifi for binax.

So yeah, not easy at all if you're flying out of some remote island or country with spotty internet. This 1-day test requirement by the US has by far been the worst I've encountered while travelling across dozens of countries during covid. And with no benefit to show for it.

GUWonder

Or just get a different internet connection in Sierra Leone.

People from around DC use the internet for video calling with relatives back in Sierra Leone every day. And there are even gamers from Sierra Leone who play online games that are best done with high-speed connections.

If one connection isn't good enough for the remotely proctored test, find a different connection in the country.