CDC pre-departure lawsuit cases updates?
#61
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Lame Duck Delta PM, Freshly Minted AA EXP
Posts: 226
Serious question....whose focus are you talking about? Seems whenever I dip into the media accounts or "news" from the administration the banner headline is still "Cases are Up!", which is then sometimes followed by a mention that hospitalizations and deaths aren't rising in the same fashion.
#62
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Lame Duck Delta PM, Freshly Minted AA EXP
Posts: 226
Don't know if there's much new here, but a summary of some people's thoughts on the mask-mandate case and appeal.
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...mandate-appeal
"The definition of “sanitation.” An old court case that involves an underwear manufacturer. Whether people had a fair chance to express their opinions about wearing masks on planes. These disparate factors are in the spotlight as the Biden administration challenges a U.S. District Court ruling that overturned a federal mask mandate on public transportation. The outcome could determine the limits of federal public health officials’ power not only during the COVID-19 crisis but also when the next pandemic hits."
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...mandate-appeal
"The definition of “sanitation.” An old court case that involves an underwear manufacturer. Whether people had a fair chance to express their opinions about wearing masks on planes. These disparate factors are in the spotlight as the Biden administration challenges a U.S. District Court ruling that overturned a federal mask mandate on public transportation. The outcome could determine the limits of federal public health officials’ power not only during the COVID-19 crisis but also when the next pandemic hits."
#63
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
I don't think they're necessarily connected. The focus has been on hospitalizations and deaths (rather than cases) for quite a while now.
What I'd love to see is for someone in Congress (probably the Senate, given how easy it is for one Senator to muck things up) to say, "You want the money, then drop this stupid testing rule." Probably won't happen, but I can dream, right?
What I'd love to see is for someone in Congress (probably the Senate, given how easy it is for one Senator to muck things up) to say, "You want the money, then drop this stupid testing rule." Probably won't happen, but I can dream, right?
I hope that dream comes true though!!
#64
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AS, US, Hilton, BA, DL, SPG, AA, VS
Posts: 1,628
I'm thinking, if the Administration is putting out "gloom and doom" type of messaging to lobby for funding to "fight COVID" so to speak, from an optics perspective they might be hesitant to drop the testing requirement for fear of looking inconsistent. Maybe I'm just pessimistic! lol
#65
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 112
I have two sets (from different manufacturers) of the FREE covid test kits mailed to me by the US GOV.
Before my next trip back to the USA from Europe I plan on using two covid test kits (one from each supplier) as a “dry run” before doing the real test. If I test negative on each unofficial test, but, positive on the official test would i be safe to conclude that it was a false positive?
Some airlines are more concerned with one’s submission of the “CDC attestation form” than seeing that one actually tested negative.
So, if I “attest” that I tested negative would I be making a false statement.—I was negative 2/3 on tests taken in close proximity of each other.
A general question re GOVID testing, for the supervised (via ZOOM) testing would false positives be less likely using a “cursory” swab vs deep swabbing?
Before my next trip back to the USA from Europe I plan on using two covid test kits (one from each supplier) as a “dry run” before doing the real test. If I test negative on each unofficial test, but, positive on the official test would i be safe to conclude that it was a false positive?
Some airlines are more concerned with one’s submission of the “CDC attestation form” than seeing that one actually tested negative.
So, if I “attest” that I tested negative would I be making a false statement.—I was negative 2/3 on tests taken in close proximity of each other.
A general question re GOVID testing, for the supervised (via ZOOM) testing would false positives be less likely using a “cursory” swab vs deep swabbing?
#66
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York
Posts: 788
I feel like if your overseas at this point, even if you test positive, maybe just keep testing until negative? I’m sure after a few tests one of them would come back negative
#67
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Programs: UA GS 2.6MM & Lifetime UC, Qantas Platinum, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, Bonvoy Platinum, HawaiianMiles
Posts: 8,632
#69
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AS, US, Hilton, BA, DL, SPG, AA, VS
Posts: 1,628
But how many tests would it take, and how many days/weeks would it take? If you keep testing positive for 2-3 weeks, the additional accommodation & food expenses would be significant.
#70
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York
Posts: 788
i mean if your still testing positive after 10 days, you would just use your positive test and a letter of recovery route, and in my case, id bring my laptop to work remote, which i know wont or cant work for everyone, while also staying in family in laws house, so no expenses for food, housing etc...i guess this specific "test everyday until it shows negative" route is easier in my specific situation..
#71
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,837
Ad hominem aside, I personally wouldn't fly when sick at all - COVID or otherwise - unless it was a dire emergency.
#72
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
Don't know if there's much new here, but a summary of some people's thoughts on the mask-mandate case and appeal.
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...mandate-appeal
"The definition of “sanitation.” An old court case that involves an underwear manufacturer. Whether people had a fair chance to express their opinions about wearing masks on planes. These disparate factors are in the spotlight as the Biden administration challenges a U.S. District Court ruling that overturned a federal mask mandate on public transportation. The outcome could determine the limits of federal public health officials’ power not only during the COVID-19 crisis but also when the next pandemic hits."
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...mandate-appeal
"The definition of “sanitation.” An old court case that involves an underwear manufacturer. Whether people had a fair chance to express their opinions about wearing masks on planes. These disparate factors are in the spotlight as the Biden administration challenges a U.S. District Court ruling that overturned a federal mask mandate on public transportation. The outcome could determine the limits of federal public health officials’ power not only during the COVID-19 crisis but also when the next pandemic hits."
The bigger issue, one that has blown up in a lot of places over the course of the pandemic, is that "emergency" clauses aren't generally intended to cover multi-year situations. They're intended to cover things for a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two (as was arguably justifiable in early 2020, as it took time to get rules and infrastructure set up for remote meetings), before the legislature can come back into session. Please pardon the turn of phrase, but at some point the "emergency" is no longer "emergent" and regular processes have to be allowed to come back into play at least as far as standing rules go. In this case, that means that the CDC really should have initiated public comment at some point last year (I'd say after the August extension would have been a good point for that), even if only with an eye towards a rule which would produce metrics by which to revise the mask mandate. This at least creates an impression that a given agency or executive "doesn't want to be bothered" with legislative processes, and that's a problem.
#73
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
I mean, I feel like there's a strong case that the initial imposition of the rule was within the government's power. It's the continual extensions of it with no formal consultation process where I think they went afoul of the rules. Put differently, I think they stretched the "good cause" exception until it broke.
The bigger issue, one that has blown up in a lot of places over the course of the pandemic, is that "emergency" clauses aren't generally intended to cover multi-year situations. They're intended to cover things for a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two (as was arguably justifiable in early 2020, as it took time to get rules and infrastructure set up for remote meetings), before the legislature can come back into session. Please pardon the turn of phrase, but at some point the "emergency" is no longer "emergent" and regular processes have to be allowed to come back into play at least as far as standing rules go. In this case, that means that the CDC really should have initiated public comment at some point last year (I'd say after the August extension would have been a good point for that), even if only with an eye towards a rule which would produce metrics by which to revise the mask mandate. This at least creates an impression that a given agency or executive "doesn't want to be bothered" with legislative processes, and that's a problem.
The bigger issue, one that has blown up in a lot of places over the course of the pandemic, is that "emergency" clauses aren't generally intended to cover multi-year situations. They're intended to cover things for a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two (as was arguably justifiable in early 2020, as it took time to get rules and infrastructure set up for remote meetings), before the legislature can come back into session. Please pardon the turn of phrase, but at some point the "emergency" is no longer "emergent" and regular processes have to be allowed to come back into play at least as far as standing rules go. In this case, that means that the CDC really should have initiated public comment at some point last year (I'd say after the August extension would have been a good point for that), even if only with an eye towards a rule which would produce metrics by which to revise the mask mandate. This at least creates an impression that a given agency or executive "doesn't want to be bothered" with legislative processes, and that's a problem.
More pressure on ending the testing requirement...which will likely fall on deaf ears; but can't hurt to try:
https://thegate.boardingarea.com/urg...m=BoardingArea
Greater than 260 entities — which include airlines, airport authorities multinational lodging companies, cruise lines, national associations, convention and visitors bureaus, and companies — have sent a joint open letter to the coronavirus response coordinator of The White House asking for the requirement of testing inbound international passengers who have been fully vaccinated to be terminated as soon as possible.
#74
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AS, US, Hilton, BA, DL, SPG, AA, VS
Posts: 1,628
Something that popped into my head (I have no evidence whatsoever to support this): Perhaps the requirement will be dropped around Memorial Day? That's the start of the summer travel season, and dropping it around then would give Biden an opportunity to crow about how he's saving your summer vacation.
#75
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 69
Something that popped into my head (I have no evidence whatsoever to support this): Perhaps the requirement will be dropped around Memorial Day? That's the start of the summer travel season, and dropping it around then would give Biden an opportunity to crow about how he's saving your summer vacation.