29 ms·

U.S. to require negative Covid-19 tests for international air passengers

382 points by Element_ 6y ago

liquidify 6y ago
This seems like a scheme that will be ripe for gaming / outright fraud. How exactly does the U.S. verify anything? Basically the only way to do this would be to have control over some kind of verification system that comes from vetted and registered hospitals. Even then you have so many problems. There is no realistic way to even partially guarantee that forgeries won't happen regardless of your vetting system. And add to that the fact that the U.S. government has no control over regulations in foreign countries, so there is no way to force validators into compliance. This sounds half baked to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- temporalparts 6y ago
  A half-baked plan that will screen out only some COVID carriers is better than the status quo where we screen out none of the COVID carriers. In Hawaii, they have limited partnerships and Hawaii verifies the result directly with the labs. It says on the website they'll prosecute anybody that submits forgeries, but it's true that this is much easier to do when everything is within the same country.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  It doesn't need any of that to be nearly entirely effective. The vast majority of people traveling into the country are not going to attempt to falsify documents.
- a13n 6y ago
  I mean the number of people who are willing to commit forgery and lie to border patrol is probably pretty small. This is a huge step in the right direction that will prevent loads of air transmission. We don't really have time to wait years for a "fully baked" solution, and this is a solid compromise.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  When I got the PCR COVID test administered when I had a suspected case, I was required to fill out a form stating my name, DOB, email, phone, physical address, full social security number, and student ID (I'm a college student). Since these are all attributes bound to identity, I'm sure it's not too difficult to make a database of test results.
  - liquidify 6y ago
    ...Just from the thought of it, forcing other countries to store your private info would be a terrible idea considering they probably could care less about it being stolen. But, you are entirely missing the point. The U.S. cannot mandate that other countries maintain a database with U.S. citizens personal info, even if your idea didn't have massive gaping holes in it regarding security. It is simply impossible.
    - agiroth 6y ago
      Not impossible at all, just an incredibly... very.. bad... scary.. idea.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Forgeries of the international yellow fever vaccine certificate happen regularly. (For example, backpackers to Africa from Eastern European countries where the yellow fever vaccine was perennially unavailable at our local clinics printed out their own copy on yellow paper and put a fake stamp on it.) Nevertheless, the yellow-fever certificate requirement is believed to work well enough regardless. With COVID, too, one could argue that something is better than nothing.
- snakeboy 6y ago
  My experience flying from the US to France through Portugal was that an agent at the gate looks over whatever paper you give them and highlights "PCR", "NEGATIVE" and the date and then hands it back. Then in Portugal they asked for the paper and waved me through, and the same at the French border. So logistically, pretty easy to fake (unless you're stupid enough to be trying to buy the fakes in the airport like some guys who got caught in Paris a few months ago) but I agree with other commenters it's better than nothing and will almost surely improve the rates of testing/precaution around travel.
nomercy400 6y ago
Good idea. However, don't be surprised if other countries will also require negative tests for incoming US air passengers.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Most of the countries that have sane case rates and many that are doing terribly with respect to case rate already require this. Some such as the Netherlands added it relatively recently for transit passengers as well, although most only require it for arrival passengers.
- raldi 6y ago
  I should hope so.
- swampthing 6y ago
  That seems like a good thing for incoming US air passengers. It lowers the risk of infection from the flight.
FreakyT 6y ago
I'm glad it's happening (better late than never), but they really should have started doing this a year ago.
- azurezyq 6y ago
  and the current situation is that US has more cases than anywhere else in the world.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    Per capita it's really most of western Europe and the US that are struggling, and the US is doing better on vaccinations so far while it has had a higher case and death rate than most but not all of Europe. It's rather misleading to just cite a total confirmed case count. https://boogheta.github.io/coronavirus-countries/ https://boogheta.github.io/coronavirus-countries/
    - bluGill 6y ago
      There are only a handful of countries not western Europe or the US where I would trust their numbers. Of the list Vietnam is the only surprise. Trust means their official numbers within a reasonable margin of error of correct. Nobody have perfectly accurate numbers, but the ones are trust are generally not miscounting by enough to worry about.
- surge 6y ago
  Tests weren't widely available a year ago. 3-6 months ago maybe. In fact a year ago, exactly, the existence of COVID was still being denied or downplayed by the Chinese government. Very few people in the US even knew about it, and only if very plugged in to Chinese social media or non government sources.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Wrong. It was all over Reddit but people laughed over it.
disabled 6y ago
This is no surprise, although according to CDC research, this only reduces the infection rate among these passengers by 5-9%. A lot of EU countries require their own citizens of their countries to get a COVID-19 PCR test prior to entry. A lot of times, this has to be paid out of pocket abroad.
- ruste 6y ago
  Is that 5-9% of total passengers or 5-9% of those that have covid at the time?
- mortehu 6y ago
  What research is this? As far as I've been able to tell, CDC hasn't conducted a single randomized survey on any large group, but has only collected convenience samples. Also keep in mind that due to compounding (keeping these people from infecting others on the plane and at home), the effect extends beyond the people prevented from traveling. You can also speculate that detectable infections are more transmissible during the journey.
- calebm 6y ago
  I've heard that the vaccine doesn't make you less likely to transmit COVID - just less acute symptoms. So getting the vaccine doesn't really help other people - just you. From this perspective, this doesn't make much sense (unless the objective is to make $ for the corporations).
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You heard wrong. Nobody actually knows if you can transmit after getting vaccinated or not. Thus far anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. There is some evidence that some of the vaccines prevent transmissions, but we need more study before we can make a statistical determination. We know why other vaccines have failed to stop transmission. The reasons those vaccines didn't stop transmission do not apply to the covid ones. However there is a lot we don't know about biology so until we have better evidence no expert will state that the vaccine stops transmission even though many believe it will.
  - 6y ago
mikeyouse 6y ago
Just so silly. More theater. We're already seeing millions of new cases per week including the strains with mutations to the target spike proteins - what problem does this solve?
- briga 6y ago
  Probably would have solved maybe problems--that is, if it was implemented half a year ago. As it is now it seems like too little too late.
- gojomo 6y ago
  In order to stop seeing "millions of new cases", every source of new cases should be reduced. International travel is an orderly place to apply a filter, just as hospitals test all admits (even those without symptoms). Blocking all visitors from specific places – even places with lower rates of prevalence than here! – was silly theater. This is actually well-targeted to reducing the interactions of the likely-infected with the uninfected. (If a city or state/province even wanted to set up internal borders, & require on-the-spot quick antigen tests to enter regions of actual or attempted-infection control, perhaps even anonymously, that'd also be a well-targeted intervention far better than the other theater we've been fed so far.)
  - sonotmyname 6y ago
    > just as hospitals test all admits (even those without symptoms). Some may, but that's a county/state decision.
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      Even in expensive hospital systems in the SF Bay Area, it's not every patient getting a test, much to the chagrin of some of my friends working at the ones that aren't doing universal testing.
- Exmoor 6y ago
  Well, it would've decreased the chances of a more infectious strain becoming widespread in the US if it had been implemented months ago. It could decrease the chances of worse strains that might originate outside the US becoming established moving forward.
harigov 6y ago
They should have done this when there were far fewer cases. It was really surprising to hear that you don’t need any tests or quarantining when you travel from other countries. Better late than never, I guess.
- surge 6y ago
  Well, got to remember, when there were far fewer cases, tests were still in prototype phase, not widely available, and in some cases unreliable (I think a lot of the Japanese cruise passengers that got the WHO test tested negative, then later came down with it after being released).
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    We were also trying to test existing populations in busy city centers and concerned about not having enough tests.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - what_ever 6y ago
    Japan cruise case was in February 2020 which is about a year ago now. Testing became more reliable a long time ago.
    - surge 6y ago
      Didn't I just say testing wasn't reliable then, because it was very new? So it wasn't a long time ago. Reliable tests weren't available en masse until maybe summer, and even then not in all countries/areas.
      - what_ever 6y ago
        India made tests mandatory to skip institutional quarantine on August 8th i.e. more than 5 months ago. That is sounds like a long time ago to me compared to when US has decided to make this a requirement.
opwieurposiu 6y ago
An issue with PCR tests is that most of them use a cycle threshold of 40, which produces way to many false positives. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...
- chadash 6y ago
  Just to clarify, the linked article isn't really talking about false positives. It's talking about people who are carrying the virus, but perhaps aren't contagious due to it being only small amounts.
- thelean12 6y ago
  Well at least false positives are much better than false negatives.
- gojomo 6y ago
  This article doesn't mention PCR tests, so perhaps we're being smart enough to accept the often-more-relevant-for-infection-control antigen tests for this purpose. (I'd not yet bet on it, given how bureaucracies have made almost every wrong choice so far, but: maybe?) But also: if PCR false-positives are a concern, the cycle standard can be reduced, or the reporting expanded to include the cycle on which a test turned positive, so that "positive" tests that are likely dubious/marginal/past-infection can distinguished from "blazing active infection".
  - learnstats2 6y ago
    The rapid antigen tests have a significant problem with false-negatives: the BMJ reported that Innova tests have 49% sensitivity. That makes it pointless to use as a border control - for every two cases, at least one gets through. (Or, potentially much worse, under this system: I throw away my positive tests and show whatever false negative one I have). You ideally want to be conservative and permit some false positives at an effective border control, because you don't want to risk infectious cases getting through and causing an untraceable national breakout.
rhacker 6y ago
I love how in the photo there's two people with their nose outside the mask. It's clear as day why infections are up everywhere.
- ralph84 6y ago
  All of the research on masks published before it became a political issue said as much. The general public doesn't wear masks properly enough for masks to have an infection control effect.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    That's fixable without telling people to not bother wearing masks.
ngngngng 6y ago
I recently had to get a negative COVID result to travel to Hawaii to see family. Hawaii only accepted tests from a very limited number of providers which complicated things, but after some effort I made an appointment and got a test. The rest of the process was very painless. We all had to keep masks on for the entire flight of course since there was no requirement that we all have a negative result before getting on the flight but it was comforting to know that nearly everyone else on the flight would have had a negative result so as to avoid the mandatory 14 day quarantine upon arrival.
- Tepix 6y ago
  If you enter Mauritius you have to get four tests in total over several weeks. Islands are taking advantage of their isolation to get this pandemic under control. Madeira has been very successful during all of 2020 with not letting it escalate.
rhodozelia 6y ago
A similar requirement has been enacted in Canada and what has happened is that Canadians with covid can't return home to Canada and are stuck abroad. It really gives some teeth to the "do not travel" recommendation - if you get covid abroad you can't come home until you test negative. If you get covid at home and then go abroad you can't come home until you test negative. I think people who previously would have travelled and just risked it will be a lot more careful now since they can't get home if they are sick with covid. Instead of dozens of flights per day entering canada with covid cases we now have zero [1]. [1] http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/public-exposures http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19...
- eloff 6y ago
  I'm totally ok with covid19 positive Canadians being stuck an unable to return home until they test negative. That's fair. But people are getting stuck because they can't get results back in the 72 hour window. That's really not cool.
  - regimeld 6y ago
    "But people are getting stuck because they can't get results back in the 72 hour window. That's really not cool." That's their problem. Should have thought of that before going on vacation, etc.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - eloff 6y ago
      Because they had a magic 8 ball to predict this outcome? Given 98% of cases are internal spread, I just don't think it's warranted.
      - graeme 6y ago
        You can pick up new variants abroad though. That’s better discouraged.
jtdev 6y ago
I'm all for this, but I'm somewhat surprised that this isn't being railed as "xenophobic"... wonder why we've suddenly had a change in heart on these topics?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mrfusion 6y ago
It Seems like a good idea but I worry about the slippery slope effect. Can they require this for flu? How will they handle false positives? What about something like HIV? What if you need to get home for medical treatment or a family emergency?
- kevinmgranger 6y ago
  None of those are really considered pandemics.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    HIV/AIDS is definitely frequently considered a pandemic, and at least a global epidemic. In any case the obvious difference is that it isn't as contagious.
    - snakeboy 6y ago
      Specifically, it's not airborne, which is the only relevant mode of spread in an airplane.
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  > Can they require this for flu? I think they should. But the flu isn't as virulent as COVID. > What about something like HIV? You can't get HIV by someone breathing on you. How many people do you usually share needles with on airplanes?
- root_axis 6y ago
  The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything. You should at least offer an explanation of why believe the slippery slope is a risk in this case. What interest would the U.S. have in requiring Flu or HIV tests for travel? The reasons for requiring a covid test are obvious unless you're a person that believes covid is equivalent to the flu.
  - 6y ago
addicted 6y ago
This makes sense. The only question is why this wasn't done as soon as travel was restarted and tests became readily available across the world. This is at least 6-9 months too late.
- baybal2 6y ago
  That's an irony. USA is pretty much a fortress for as long as border security goes, and it had the best chance of any nation to avoid Covid impact by shutting itself off from the world using mechanisms of border security only. Yet, for some completely unfathomable reason, it didn't.
  - notadev 6y ago
    Perhaps it would have been considered xenophobic?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      If implemented in a xenophobic fashion, sure. "We're testing all international travelers" is gonna be hard to tag that way. "We're banning people coming in from China but allowing in US citizens or permanent residents untested and unscreened on those same flights" looks pretty dumb from an epidemiological standpoint. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel... > “There’s no restriction on Americans going back and forth,” Klain said. “There are warnings. People should abide by those warnings. But today, 30 planes will land in Los Angeles that either originated in Beijing or came here on one-stops, 30 in San Francisco, 25 in New York City. Okay? So, unless we think that the color of the passport someone carries is a meaningful public health restriction, we have not placed a meaningful public health restriction.”
      - chris11 6y ago
        I don't really remember medical experts were saying in early 2020, but I would have supported banning specific countries if it was based on a framework that adjusted bans as the number of cases changed. I remember being unimpressed with the timing, starting the ban right after the super bowl was over was a bad idea. And the US should have immediately started working towards testing all travelers.
asah 6y ago
Which direction? /s
wzy 6y ago
This will now place a strain on the testing facilities of small countries (islands) that are a popular destination of American tourists. In Jamaica, every lab that has been approved to conduct the PCR test has been overwhelmed by a flood a Canadian tourists who now need a negative PCR test result to return home. Mind you, smaller countries have been having an uphill battle with procuring the reagents needed for the PCR tests because countries like the US is grabbing up everything COVID related, and not using them. Had the US implemented these measures 9 months ago, the entire world would have looking at the tail-end of this pandemic, instead of waiting for the US to catchup with what every other country considers as a best practice.
- raldi 6y ago
  That's not a bug; it's a feature.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Every other country? Have you looked at the recent COVID-19 case and death rates in much of western Europe? Many of those countries, one of which I live in (which still doesn't require testing arrival passengers), are still changing their policies on incoming travelers with respect to quarantining and testing. There isn't some global consensus that the US is blind to.
  - wzy 6y ago
    I am glad you picked up on the substantive point of my argument.
    - vinay427 6y ago
      It's this part that I'm responding to, which appears to be one of the main points that you made: > Had the US implemented these measures 9 months ago, the entire world would have looking at the tail-end of this pandemic I don't see how that's true given the situation in western Europe as well as several other countries and obviously the US.
- danielfoster 6y ago
f430 6y ago
Are these PCR based tests? What is the accuracy rate? I was told it is far from 100%. So is it possible that someone might test negative but then is actually asymptomatic? This is exactly what happened last year in South Korea. People were tested many times and they were negative but turned out they were asymptomatic that the test kit failed to pick up.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Nothing about the virus is going to be 100% effective. It's a matter of compositing things that are 60% effective and 90% effective and 50% effective. If they require testing which is 80% effective, and masks which are 80% effective, and get vaccination up to xx%... etc etc. You eliminate vectors for the virus one at a time and eventually there aren't enough vulnerable people contacting each other in ways that are contagious. (Percentages are guesses)
  - f430 6y ago
    It isn't even 80% effective from the scientific journals I've read last year, the best they can do is 40% and lower, I think there is some inherent limitation in its accuracy. I'd like to point out that many countries aren't running multiple tests to make up for this low accuracy like South Korea. It is the general consensus among experts that the actual case numbers are far far higher than what is reported So if the 40% rate is true then the law of large number suggests the screening test is completely useless because it misses the 60% of the time. It's just like the Casino where the virus has a huge edge over our detection and prevention measures.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      You are missing the point. Every time you block some percentage of spreaders, you are reducing the reach of the virus. Even if a measure is only 20% effective, it's worth investing in. If it's 40% effective and masks are 40% effective, collectively they are 64% effective together. This idea that measures need to be 90% effective is bunk. Incrementally we can improve the odds significantly.
outside1234 6y ago
Serious question - is it allowed to travel to Europe or Asia right now from the US for non-relocation purposes? I'm always stunned when I see these questions because I am like "People are traveling internationally - test or no test????"
- netsharc 6y ago
  Most if not all of Europe is closed to tourism: https://reopen.europa.eu/en https://reopen.europa.eu/en But they'll let people in who have long term residency permits, or to visit long term partners, sick family members, or e.g. if their young children live there. For Switzerland I know there's even a clause that lets you in if you have to go there for business. Kanye West was spotted in the country last month, I guess he was allowed in because he's building a villa there.
  - 6nf 6y ago
    All countries have various levels of business travel, for example obviously all courier services and shipping still happens and other exceptions are made all the time depending on the situation. Diplomats can still travel. Kanye West can probably come up with a legitimate reason to travel to Switzerland even if he spends half his time on the ski slopes.
Ericson2314 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that there is enough domestic Covid that this is pointless now?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Right this second, probably, but it'll become relevant again as vaccines start to clamp down on the spread.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    I don't know, even then, the "herd resistance" (not immunity) applies to new arrivals and residents alike. Best advantage I see is perhaps plane ventilation is bad, but that would purely benefit other passengers and air transportation workers, not the general public. I doubt such narrow beneficiaries is their goal.
standardUser 6y ago
It's not clear to me how this works. What if you've recently recovered from a confirmed case of COVID-19? People can still test positive up to 90 days after recovery, even though all guidances say they stop being contagious 10 days from the onset of symptoms (assuming symptoms have improved and no fever). And what about people who have been vaccinated. Wouldn't proof of vaccination be sufficient and spare limited testing capacity?
- raverbashing 6y ago
  > What if you've recently recovered from a confirmed case of COVID-19? Then you wait until your test comes clear > People can still test positive up to 90 days after recovery In very rare cases
  - standardUser 6y ago
    A positive test result from > 10 days ago and a temperature check should be sufficient. Otherwise, we're just asking people to get tested over and over (and most guidances say don't get tested within a few months of a positive result).
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Turns out, you can fly if you have proof of a positive test in the past: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-...
- 6nf 6y ago
  The vaccine question is going to be interesting. On one hand, if I'm vaccinated then I should be able to fly right? But no vaccine is 100% effective so do I need to get tested anyway? Are we just gonna have to get used to supplying a DNA sample every time we buy plane tickets?
- karmasimida 6y ago
  Then they shouldn't go on a flight. Simple as that. Traveling to another country is not a right but a privilege, many of HN commenters always like to throw this line.
eloff 6y ago
The US is basically the center of this pandemic now. This is a joke. It's too little too late. What they should do is test people leaving the US for other countries - spare the rest of the world.
- turing_complete 6y ago
  Well, don't discard Europe too early. We just surpassed you in total deaths!
- drstewart 6y ago
  You misspelled the UK and Europe, the new centers of the pandemic for the second time
  - eloff 6y ago
    My bad. I'm behind the news cycle.
breck 6y ago
This is moronic. We have between 30M and 130M cases here. There is no mathematically possible way in hell that international passengers could bring COVID here in any noticeable way at this point. Why would they do this? I'll tell you the one and only one reason: some people are making tons of money off it. I just flew back to Hawaii from California and had to pay $170 for a COVID test, even though I'm already immune.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  We don't want to import any more new more infectious strains if we can help it
  - 6nf 6y ago
    Unless the new more infectious strain also has a much lower mortality rate?
- bitcurious 6y ago
  I think it’s more about protecting the passengers who are in an enclosed space together for 6+ hours than preventing spread within the US. I find it a big reassurance.
wendyshu 6y ago
Why wasn't this done months ago? Seriously, is there any good reason?
vondur 6y ago
Surprising it took so long. I wonder if you are going to get some sort of certificate that proves you have been vaccinated for COVID once they roll out to everyone.
balozi 6y ago
By now people can purchase negative Covid PCR test results at many international airports, sometimes for as little as $0.50. Entrepreneurial spirit is hard to tame.
tinyhouse 6y ago
Most US states already require a negative test or quarantine, with some exceptions. The only issue is that almost no one is enforcing it (maybe some airports do, I'm not sure). It makes sense if it becomes like visa where airlines wouldn't let you board the plane without it (until things are under control). It can be an issue for emergency travel though. Thinking about it, this should be of interest of airlines to protect their staff.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Right. Santa Clara County, California, has a mandatory 10-day quarantine for anyone arriving from more than 150 miles from its borders. This notice is posted in the airport but aside from that there is no framework for enforcement. It is not even all that easy to figure out what territory is outside this zone and the county does not provide a map.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Yea, we really should stop saying things like the government “requires” or “orders” something, if at the end of the day it’s not being enforced. No US state [EDIT except maybe Hawaii?] seems to have any kind of actually enforced public health rules around COVID besides business closures, where enforcement is spotty at best.
vmchale 6y ago
You'd be more likely to catch it here than pretty much anywhere else in the world lol.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  Why?
esoterica 6y ago
The infection rate in the US is so high that the average arriving international traveller has a lower chance of being infected than the average US resident. What exactly is the point of this? Constitutionality aside, you would literally make a bigger impact on mitigating the virus spread by testing random people on the street. Like DUI checkpoints or stop-and-frisk but for covid.
rodgerd 6y ago
It's interesting to that see the volume of science denial on HN surrounding COVID continues.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I get why they’re doing this, but I fear as a society we’ve learned the wrong lessons about testing. These tests have a pretty high failure rate. That’s probably ok for social level spread tracking (with wide error bars) or low volume contact tracing (where quarantining a few extra people is worth it). It’s far better than nothing of course, but it’s also far short of what we expect from something like a pregnancy test. But as a means to sign people off as safe to travel? Yeah, not so much. So many people have had the “one negative test so I can go party” only to discover what a false negative is.
- cbg0 6y ago
  > These tests have a pretty high failure rate. The rapid ones maybe, the PCR ones are quite accurate.
  - slumdev 6y ago
    PCR is sensitive, but at the cycle thresholds most labs use, it is not specific.
jedberg 6y ago
I don't understand why we don't implement the isolation procedures of countries that have gotten this under control, following these procedures for both foreign citizens AND US citizens: - When you arrive in the US, you either spend two weeks at a government approved hotel, at your expense, which is monitored by federal agents to make sure you don't leave your room. You pay for room service for two weeks to get food. This is what Singapore does. - If you don't want to stay at the government hotel, you agree to let the government track your cell phone for two weeks to make sure you stay in your home, and randomly call you twice a day to make sure you didn't ditch your phone. This is what Taiwan does. As a plus, all the hotels near airports would be so thankful for all the forced business to make up for the loss of travel business. They should have been doing this for the last nine months. Edit: And obviously combine these rules with a relief bill that helps the industries that are hurt by these rules, or you know, everyone.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s fairly straightforward: leadership matters, and a lot of people who were supposed to be helming the ship were clearly asleep at the wheel.
  - wrs 6y ago
    They were not asleep, they were deliberately letting the car drive off a cliff because they thought admitting there was a cliff there would make them look weak.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Also (to extend this metaphor to all three modes of transport), they were sure that - should any cliff present itself - the greatest nation on Earth will not fall down it, but will boost off and fly towards the sunset.
    - SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
      Probably also contributed by the fact that the opposition pointed out that they should avoid the cliff so the only option left is to intentionally drive off it.
vincentmarle 6y ago
> U.S. officials do not plan to drop restrictions that were adopted starting in March that ban most non-U.S. citizens who have been in most of Europe, the United Kingdom and Brazil as soon as possible, the sources said. Does anyone know if the EU travel ban is going to get lifted anytime this year (with the Biden administration)?
- ls612 6y ago
  I’d sure hope it would be this year. Keep in mind we should have the ability to vaccinate every American adult by the late spring so the pandemic should be reduced to very low levels.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
top_post 6y ago
The country most ravaged by COVID-19 where the spread is entirely localized, requires international passengers... good thanks.
nilkn 6y ago
I have an interesting anecdote related to this. As it happens, I currently have COVID. When I first noticed I was getting sick, I was scheduled to fly in the near future, so I got a rapid COVID test that delivers results in 15 minutes. It was negative. I got another one, and it was negative too. I had thus intended to go ahead with the trip under the assumption I had a minor cold. Later, a few days before I was to fly, I lost all smell and taste. Now I didn’t know what to think. I wasn’t particularly congested, and the loss of smell was total. I’d never experienced this before. Could both tests have been false negatives? I delayed the flight (free of charge luckily, so no big deal) and got a test that had to be sent to a lab for analysis. A week later, the positive test result came back. Take from this what you will. I'm not a scientist or a doctor and frankly there's nothing remotely intelligent I can say about the various tests out there for COVID. But if the rapid tests are as unreliable in general as they were for me, it’s sort of no wonder COVID is spreading like wildfire. I was very, very close to boarding a plane with an active case of COVID, and I would have if I hadn’t acted out of an abundance of caution.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Rapid tests are known to be unreliable and particularly have a high false negative rate. That's why all the guidance has been that rapid tests can be used to indicate infection but not rule one out, and none of the screening processes based on exposure and symptoms accept “but I also had a negative rapid test” as neutralizing a flag on any screening factor. > I would have if I hadn’t acted out of an abundance of caution. The bare minimum of caution with a rapid test is treating a positive as a true positive and a negative as an indicator that you need a regular test. That you understood your actions to be an abundance of caution demonstrates a failure to effectively communicate on some level (I'm not saying that you are culpable; the information is out there's but delivery is...mixed, even before considering how it is muddled by misinformation from various sources.)
  - nilkn 6y ago
    I definitely think there's a communication deficiency or breakdown happening, because none of the medical professionals indicated to me that the rapid tests were that unreliable when it comes to producing false negatives. I also feel personally guilty for not having been as well-informed as I should have been. I'm just glad I experienced a tell-tale symptom (loss of smell/taste) and was able to act on it before boarding a plane. Another interesting aspect of this is that prior to experiencing loss of smell/taste, I was more or less told by urgent care staff that I didn't have COVID, and they were pretty resistant to testing me -- hence I only got rapid tests. Yet I actually was right in the midst of an active case.
vermontdevil 6y ago
Cue black market negative tests for sale.
ghshephard 6y ago
I don't at all see how this is relevant to the United States in 2021, when COVID-19 is almost completely prevalent, and we require universal vaccination to exit out of the pandemic - International travel restrictions seem meaningless to me now - though they would have been invaluable in January 2020, and maybe even February 2020 - right now the major risk of COVID-19 infection is inside the United States. A handful (or heck, even hundreds) of people coming into the country won't make any difference when we have thousands of new cases a day regardless. There's a reason Epidemologists don't put much stock in travel restrictions once a pandemic is well underway around the world - they don't do much good. But - generally, having widespread (ideally very sensitive) COVID testing for any type of travel outside of the home is a good thing. We should have it universally available. Ideally <$10, something that everyone could do weekly, or even daily if they travel a lot. Just unclear what the focus on international travel is all about here.
- solarengineer 6y ago
  Some rationale for blocking international travel - preventing the spread of international variants, and preventing the destination country from being overloaded by incoming infections. Most nations aren't getting the vaccines yet. Vaccination distribution and delivery require complex logistics. Nations that don't have a good public healthcare infrastructure need time to gear up. Vaccinations have just started and are being given in a phased manner. Blocking International Travel (or at least mandating a 14 day quarantine) helps keep variants in check.
  - ghshephard 6y ago
    Ironically, it's in countries where there is partial vaccination that we haven't the greatest risk - partial pressure against the virus will select it for stronger ability to be vaccine resistant. It's why it's so important to give everyone two doses of vaccine as quickly as possible and vaccinate the entire population, so you don't have the virus spreading, mutating, and potentially evolving to become vaccine resistant and then endemic in the population. We only get one really good chance to hit herd immunity. But - longer term - agree with you - wouldn't it be awesome if we had full-viral scans of travelers, international or otherwise - would shut down flu pandemics as well (most of them are imported from other countries).
mamon 6y ago
There's one thing I do not understand: they are introducing testing requirement, but still keep travel ban for all EU citizens in place. Why?
redflame8 6y ago
How do you know the tests are legit
hikerclimber 6y ago
probably means that the flights from uk contain a more deadly version of covid. but i am no expert.
sneak 6y ago
Enforcing disease restrictions at borders is basically pointless in a country with massive uncontrolled spread inside its 300M+ population. They should do this for every bar, restaurant, uber, taxi, train station, and airport inside the US; that would solve the issue right quick. This is just xenophobia, nothing more. There's more covid danger inside the US than there is from people coming from outside of it.
Technically 6y ago
Hah, nearly a year too late.
throw03172019 6y ago
A little late?
xylophoner 6y ago
This appears to only be required for inbound passengers. I wish it was also required for outbound. I not only want to prevent more COVID from coming into the country, but also want to increase the chances of my outbound flight being COVID free.
angry_octet 6y ago
What a joke. Everyone (including Americans) should need a negative PCR test the day before they leave.
Andaith 6y ago
Not to be inflammatory, but why? The only benefit I can see is reducing the likelihood of new strains getting into the US, but to me this is like a swimming pool requiring people to be dry before they get in. It would make sense as part of a national strategy, no doubt. But on it's own, I don't see the value in this? Especially since it doesn't apply to passengers transiting through the US, so technically not everybody on the flight will have to do this, meaning you're going to spend a lot of time in an enclosed place with (as a complete guess) 80% covid negative people and 20% YOLO people. That's, err, that's exactly how covid spreads...
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Actually, I would say this is more like taking a shower before entering the pool. It reduces the chances you are going to bring in grime into the pool. Of course the pool itself is not very clean, but this way you improve the quality of the pool while you FINALLYYYYY put in some chemicals (vaccines) into the water. Agreed 100% that this needs to be part of a national strategy in which testing, vaccine deployment, and strong community guidelines are used in conjunction to really beat COVID-19
mrfusion 6y ago
I worry it sets a dangerous precedent if a country can start dissallowing citizens to return to their home country.
- snowwindwaves 6y ago
  Don't leave during a pandemic then? When healthcare resources are stretched thin all around the world who is going to be able to take care of a sick foreigner or get them back to their country without endangering others? If the world had enough N95 masks and everyone wore them this would be over, but instead we are wearing bandanas and pulling t- shirts up over our noses.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    Have they promised this will go away after the pandemic is over? What criteria determines when it’s over? Is an available vaccine for the vulnerable not enough?
    - snowwindwaves 6y ago
      When you are vaccinated it is over for you. When everyone who wants to be vaccinated is vaccinated then it should be over for everyone. I would say the vaccine currently exists but is not widely available. I know vulnerable people with a lot of living left to do that can't wait to get out of the house. It will be everyone's responsibility to ensure unnecessary restrictions are lifted.
sershe 6y ago
Interesting, what exactly are they going to do if someone doesn't have one? IANAL, but as far as I recall from "what if they want you to unlock your phone/mount your encrypted drive/... on the border and threaten to not let you in" articles that purported to be written by lawyers, they cannot not let a citizen in.
- sershe 6y ago
  Answering my own question... CDC page has better information - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-... this is basically at the point of departure, so the airline won't let you board in the first place, and the awkward issue of not letting citizens into their own country won't arise. Most places in the world don't have reliable means of getting a test done within the 3-day return time. I guess when I go visit my family abroad, I am going to fly back to somewhere like Tijuana, cross the border, then fly domestic back home. I'd encourage as many people as possible to do the same.
forgingahead 6y ago
Long overdue! Really sad why this wasn't done earlier. Regardless of false negatives, this will certainly dent imported case numbers, though it would have had much more impact earlier on in the pandemic.
knolax 6y ago
Hawaii has already required passengers of all incoming flights to get tested for a while now.
mbrodersen 6y ago
A bit like making it hard for potential arsonists to enter an already burning building.
chubaka 6y ago
No one laughs at USA government for doing this too late? And this news sounds like, only not-yet-infected people are welcome to USA. So you can bring some gifts back. HN readers always criticize on other countries but so lenient to USA.

382 points by Element_ 6y ago

This seems like a scheme that will be ripe for gaming / outright fraud. How exactly does the U.S. verify anything? Basically the only way to do this would be to have control over some kind of verification system that comes from vetted and registered hospitals. Even then you have so many problems. There is no realistic way to even partially guarantee that forgeries won't happen regardless of your vetting system. And add to that the fact that the U.S. government has no control over regulations in foreign countries, so there is no way to force validators into compliance. This sounds half baked to me.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
temporalparts 6y ago
A half-baked plan that will screen out only some COVID carriers is better than the status quo where we screen out none of the COVID carriers. In Hawaii, they have limited partnerships and Hawaii verifies the result directly with the labs. It says on the website they'll prosecute anybody that submits forgeries, but it's true that this is much easier to do when everything is within the same country.
mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
It doesn't need any of that to be nearly entirely effective. The vast majority of people traveling into the country are not going to attempt to falsify documents.
a13n 6y ago
I mean the number of people who are willing to commit forgery and lie to border patrol is probably pretty small. This is a huge step in the right direction that will prevent loads of air transmission. We don't really have time to wait years for a "fully baked" solution, and this is a solid compromise.
jackson1442 6y ago
When I got the PCR COVID test administered when I had a suspected case, I was required to fill out a form stating my name, DOB, email, phone, physical address, full social security number, and student ID (I'm a college student). Since these are all attributes bound to identity, I'm sure it's not too difficult to make a database of test results.
- liquidify 6y ago
  ...Just from the thought of it, forcing other countries to store your private info would be a terrible idea considering they probably could care less about it being stolen. But, you are entirely missing the point. The U.S. cannot mandate that other countries maintain a database with U.S. citizens personal info, even if your idea didn't have massive gaping holes in it regarding security. It is simply impossible.
  - agiroth 6y ago
    Not impossible at all, just an incredibly... very.. bad... scary.. idea.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Forgeries of the international yellow fever vaccine certificate happen regularly. (For example, backpackers to Africa from Eastern European countries where the yellow fever vaccine was perennially unavailable at our local clinics printed out their own copy on yellow paper and put a fake stamp on it.) Nevertheless, the yellow-fever certificate requirement is believed to work well enough regardless. With COVID, too, one could argue that something is better than nothing.
snakeboy 6y ago
My experience flying from the US to France through Portugal was that an agent at the gate looks over whatever paper you give them and highlights "PCR", "NEGATIVE" and the date and then hands it back. Then in Portugal they asked for the paper and waved me through, and the same at the French border. So logistically, pretty easy to fake (unless you're stupid enough to be trying to buy the fakes in the airport like some guys who got caught in Paris a few months ago) but I agree with other commenters it's better than nothing and will almost surely improve the rates of testing/precaution around travel.

nomercy400 6y ago

Good idea. However, don't be surprised if other countries will also require negative tests for incoming US air passengers.

vinay427 6y ago
Most of the countries that have sane case rates and many that are doing terribly with respect to case rate already require this. Some such as the Netherlands added it relatively recently for transit passengers as well, although most only require it for arrival passengers.
raldi 6y ago
I should hope so.
swampthing 6y ago
That seems like a good thing for incoming US air passengers. It lowers the risk of infection from the flight.

FreakyT 6y ago

I'm glad it's happening (better late than never), but they really should have started doing this a year ago.

azurezyq 6y ago
and the current situation is that US has more cases than anywhere else in the world.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Per capita it's really most of western Europe and the US that are struggling, and the US is doing better on vaccinations so far while it has had a higher case and death rate than most but not all of Europe. It's rather misleading to just cite a total confirmed case count. https://boogheta.github.io/coronavirus-countries/ https://boogheta.github.io/coronavirus-countries/
  - bluGill 6y ago
    There are only a handful of countries not western Europe or the US where I would trust their numbers. Of the list Vietnam is the only surprise. Trust means their official numbers within a reasonable margin of error of correct. Nobody have perfectly accurate numbers, but the ones are trust are generally not miscounting by enough to worry about.
surge 6y ago
Tests weren't widely available a year ago. 3-6 months ago maybe. In fact a year ago, exactly, the existence of COVID was still being denied or downplayed by the Chinese government. Very few people in the US even knew about it, and only if very plugged in to Chinese social media or non government sources.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Wrong. It was all over Reddit but people laughed over it.

disabled 6y ago

This is no surprise, although according to CDC research, this only reduces the infection rate among these passengers by 5-9%. A lot of EU countries require their own citizens of their countries to get a COVID-19 PCR test prior to entry. A lot of times, this has to be paid out of pocket abroad.

ruste 6y ago
Is that 5-9% of total passengers or 5-9% of those that have covid at the time?
mortehu 6y ago
What research is this? As far as I've been able to tell, CDC hasn't conducted a single randomized survey on any large group, but has only collected convenience samples. Also keep in mind that due to compounding (keeping these people from infecting others on the plane and at home), the effect extends beyond the people prevented from traveling. You can also speculate that detectable infections are more transmissible during the journey.
calebm 6y ago
I've heard that the vaccine doesn't make you less likely to transmit COVID - just less acute symptoms. So getting the vaccine doesn't really help other people - just you. From this perspective, this doesn't make much sense (unless the objective is to make $ for the corporations).
- bluGill 6y ago
  You heard wrong. Nobody actually knows if you can transmit after getting vaccinated or not. Thus far anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. There is some evidence that some of the vaccines prevent transmissions, but we need more study before we can make a statistical determination. We know why other vaccines have failed to stop transmission. The reasons those vaccines didn't stop transmission do not apply to the covid ones. However there is a lot we don't know about biology so until we have better evidence no expert will state that the vaccine stops transmission even though many believe it will.
- 6y ago

mikeyouse 6y ago

Just so silly. More theater. We're already seeing millions of new cases per week including the strains with mutations to the target spike proteins - what problem does this solve?

briga 6y ago
Probably would have solved maybe problems--that is, if it was implemented half a year ago. As it is now it seems like too little too late.
gojomo 6y ago
In order to stop seeing "millions of new cases", every source of new cases should be reduced. International travel is an orderly place to apply a filter, just as hospitals test all admits (even those without symptoms). Blocking all visitors from specific places – even places with lower rates of prevalence than here! – was silly theater. This is actually well-targeted to reducing the interactions of the likely-infected with the uninfected. (If a city or state/province even wanted to set up internal borders, & require on-the-spot quick antigen tests to enter regions of actual or attempted-infection control, perhaps even anonymously, that'd also be a well-targeted intervention far better than the other theater we've been fed so far.)
- sonotmyname 6y ago
  > just as hospitals test all admits (even those without symptoms). Some may, but that's a county/state decision.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    Even in expensive hospital systems in the SF Bay Area, it's not every patient getting a test, much to the chagrin of some of my friends working at the ones that aren't doing universal testing.
Exmoor 6y ago
Well, it would've decreased the chances of a more infectious strain becoming widespread in the US if it had been implemented months ago. It could decrease the chances of worse strains that might originate outside the US becoming established moving forward.

harigov 6y ago

They should have done this when there were far fewer cases. It was really surprising to hear that you don’t need any tests or quarantining when you travel from other countries. Better late than never, I guess.

surge 6y ago
Well, got to remember, when there were far fewer cases, tests were still in prototype phase, not widely available, and in some cases unreliable (I think a lot of the Japanese cruise passengers that got the WHO test tested negative, then later came down with it after being released).
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  We were also trying to test existing populations in busy city centers and concerned about not having enough tests.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- what_ever 6y ago
  Japan cruise case was in February 2020 which is about a year ago now. Testing became more reliable a long time ago.
  - surge 6y ago
    Didn't I just say testing wasn't reliable then, because it was very new? So it wasn't a long time ago. Reliable tests weren't available en masse until maybe summer, and even then not in all countries/areas.
    - what_ever 6y ago
      India made tests mandatory to skip institutional quarantine on August 8th i.e. more than 5 months ago. That is sounds like a long time ago to me compared to when US has decided to make this a requirement.

opwieurposiu 6y ago

An issue with PCR tests is that most of them use a cycle threshold of 40, which produces way to many false positives. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...

chadash 6y ago
Just to clarify, the linked article isn't really talking about false positives. It's talking about people who are carrying the virus, but perhaps aren't contagious due to it being only small amounts.
thelean12 6y ago
Well at least false positives are much better than false negatives.
gojomo 6y ago
This article doesn't mention PCR tests, so perhaps we're being smart enough to accept the often-more-relevant-for-infection-control antigen tests for this purpose. (I'd not yet bet on it, given how bureaucracies have made almost every wrong choice so far, but: maybe?) But also: if PCR false-positives are a concern, the cycle standard can be reduced, or the reporting expanded to include the cycle on which a test turned positive, so that "positive" tests that are likely dubious/marginal/past-infection can distinguished from "blazing active infection".
- learnstats2 6y ago
  The rapid antigen tests have a significant problem with false-negatives: the BMJ reported that Innova tests have 49% sensitivity. That makes it pointless to use as a border control - for every two cases, at least one gets through. (Or, potentially much worse, under this system: I throw away my positive tests and show whatever false negative one I have). You ideally want to be conservative and permit some false positives at an effective border control, because you don't want to risk infectious cases getting through and causing an untraceable national breakout.

rhacker 6y ago

I love how in the photo there's two people with their nose outside the mask. It's clear as day why infections are up everywhere.

ralph84 6y ago
All of the research on masks published before it became a political issue said as much. The general public doesn't wear masks properly enough for masks to have an infection control effect.
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  That's fixable without telling people to not bother wearing masks.

ngngngng 6y ago

I recently had to get a negative COVID result to travel to Hawaii to see family. Hawaii only accepted tests from a very limited number of providers which complicated things, but after some effort I made an appointment and got a test. The rest of the process was very painless. We all had to keep masks on for the entire flight of course since there was no requirement that we all have a negative result before getting on the flight but it was comforting to know that nearly everyone else on the flight would have had a negative result so as to avoid the mandatory 14 day quarantine upon arrival.

Tepix 6y ago
If you enter Mauritius you have to get four tests in total over several weeks. Islands are taking advantage of their isolation to get this pandemic under control. Madeira has been very successful during all of 2020 with not letting it escalate.

rhodozelia 6y ago

A similar requirement has been enacted in Canada and what has happened is that Canadians with covid can't return home to Canada and are stuck abroad. It really gives some teeth to the "do not travel" recommendation - if you get covid abroad you can't come home until you test negative. If you get covid at home and then go abroad you can't come home until you test negative. I think people who previously would have travelled and just risked it will be a lot more careful now since they can't get home if they are sick with covid. Instead of dozens of flights per day entering canada with covid cases we now have zero [1]. [1] http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/public-exposures http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19...

eloff 6y ago
I'm totally ok with covid19 positive Canadians being stuck an unable to return home until they test negative. That's fair. But people are getting stuck because they can't get results back in the 72 hour window. That's really not cool.
- regimeld 6y ago
  "But people are getting stuck because they can't get results back in the 72 hour window. That's really not cool." That's their problem. Should have thought of that before going on vacation, etc.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - eloff 6y ago
    Because they had a magic 8 ball to predict this outcome? Given 98% of cases are internal spread, I just don't think it's warranted.
    - graeme 6y ago
      You can pick up new variants abroad though. That’s better discouraged.

jtdev 6y ago

I'm all for this, but I'm somewhat surprised that this isn't being railed as "xenophobic"... wonder why we've suddenly had a change in heart on these topics?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mrfusion 6y ago

It Seems like a good idea but I worry about the slippery slope effect. Can they require this for flu? How will they handle false positives? What about something like HIV? What if you need to get home for medical treatment or a family emergency?

kevinmgranger 6y ago
None of those are really considered pandemics.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  HIV/AIDS is definitely frequently considered a pandemic, and at least a global epidemic. In any case the obvious difference is that it isn't as contagious.
  - snakeboy 6y ago
    Specifically, it's not airborne, which is the only relevant mode of spread in an airplane.
BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> Can they require this for flu? I think they should. But the flu isn't as virulent as COVID. > What about something like HIV? You can't get HIV by someone breathing on you. How many people do you usually share needles with on airplanes?
root_axis 6y ago
The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything. You should at least offer an explanation of why believe the slippery slope is a risk in this case. What interest would the U.S. have in requiring Flu or HIV tests for travel? The reasons for requiring a covid test are obvious unless you're a person that believes covid is equivalent to the flu.
- 6y ago

addicted 6y ago

This makes sense. The only question is why this wasn't done as soon as travel was restarted and tests became readily available across the world. This is at least 6-9 months too late.

baybal2 6y ago
That's an irony. USA is pretty much a fortress for as long as border security goes, and it had the best chance of any nation to avoid Covid impact by shutting itself off from the world using mechanisms of border security only. Yet, for some completely unfathomable reason, it didn't.
- notadev 6y ago
  Perhaps it would have been considered xenophobic?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    If implemented in a xenophobic fashion, sure. "We're testing all international travelers" is gonna be hard to tag that way. "We're banning people coming in from China but allowing in US citizens or permanent residents untested and unscreened on those same flights" looks pretty dumb from an epidemiological standpoint. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel... > “There’s no restriction on Americans going back and forth,” Klain said. “There are warnings. People should abide by those warnings. But today, 30 planes will land in Los Angeles that either originated in Beijing or came here on one-stops, 30 in San Francisco, 25 in New York City. Okay? So, unless we think that the color of the passport someone carries is a meaningful public health restriction, we have not placed a meaningful public health restriction.”
    - chris11 6y ago
      I don't really remember medical experts were saying in early 2020, but I would have supported banning specific countries if it was based on a framework that adjusted bans as the number of cases changed. I remember being unimpressed with the timing, starting the ban right after the super bowl was over was a bad idea. And the US should have immediately started working towards testing all travelers.

asah 6y ago

Which direction? /s

wzy 6y ago

This will now place a strain on the testing facilities of small countries (islands) that are a popular destination of American tourists. In Jamaica, every lab that has been approved to conduct the PCR test has been overwhelmed by a flood a Canadian tourists who now need a negative PCR test result to return home. Mind you, smaller countries have been having an uphill battle with procuring the reagents needed for the PCR tests because countries like the US is grabbing up everything COVID related, and not using them. Had the US implemented these measures 9 months ago, the entire world would have looking at the tail-end of this pandemic, instead of waiting for the US to catchup with what every other country considers as a best practice.

raldi 6y ago
That's not a bug; it's a feature.
vinay427 6y ago
Every other country? Have you looked at the recent COVID-19 case and death rates in much of western Europe? Many of those countries, one of which I live in (which still doesn't require testing arrival passengers), are still changing their policies on incoming travelers with respect to quarantining and testing. There isn't some global consensus that the US is blind to.
- wzy 6y ago
  I am glad you picked up on the substantive point of my argument.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    It's this part that I'm responding to, which appears to be one of the main points that you made: > Had the US implemented these measures 9 months ago, the entire world would have looking at the tail-end of this pandemic I don't see how that's true given the situation in western Europe as well as several other countries and obviously the US.
danielfoster 6y ago

f430 6y ago

Are these PCR based tests? What is the accuracy rate? I was told it is far from 100%. So is it possible that someone might test negative but then is actually asymptomatic? This is exactly what happened last year in South Korea. People were tested many times and they were negative but turned out they were asymptomatic that the test kit failed to pick up.

ogre_codes 6y ago
Nothing about the virus is going to be 100% effective. It's a matter of compositing things that are 60% effective and 90% effective and 50% effective. If they require testing which is 80% effective, and masks which are 80% effective, and get vaccination up to xx%... etc etc. You eliminate vectors for the virus one at a time and eventually there aren't enough vulnerable people contacting each other in ways that are contagious. (Percentages are guesses)
- f430 6y ago
  It isn't even 80% effective from the scientific journals I've read last year, the best they can do is 40% and lower, I think there is some inherent limitation in its accuracy. I'd like to point out that many countries aren't running multiple tests to make up for this low accuracy like South Korea. It is the general consensus among experts that the actual case numbers are far far higher than what is reported So if the 40% rate is true then the law of large number suggests the screening test is completely useless because it misses the 60% of the time. It's just like the Casino where the virus has a huge edge over our detection and prevention measures.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    You are missing the point. Every time you block some percentage of spreaders, you are reducing the reach of the virus. Even if a measure is only 20% effective, it's worth investing in. If it's 40% effective and masks are 40% effective, collectively they are 64% effective together. This idea that measures need to be 90% effective is bunk. Incrementally we can improve the odds significantly.

outside1234 6y ago

Serious question - is it allowed to travel to Europe or Asia right now from the US for non-relocation purposes? I'm always stunned when I see these questions because I am like "People are traveling internationally - test or no test????"

netsharc 6y ago
Most if not all of Europe is closed to tourism: https://reopen.europa.eu/en https://reopen.europa.eu/en But they'll let people in who have long term residency permits, or to visit long term partners, sick family members, or e.g. if their young children live there. For Switzerland I know there's even a clause that lets you in if you have to go there for business. Kanye West was spotted in the country last month, I guess he was allowed in because he's building a villa there.
- 6nf 6y ago
  All countries have various levels of business travel, for example obviously all courier services and shipping still happens and other exceptions are made all the time depending on the situation. Diplomats can still travel. Kanye West can probably come up with a legitimate reason to travel to Switzerland even if he spends half his time on the ski slopes.

Ericson2314 6y ago

I'm pretty sure that there is enough domestic Covid that this is pointless now?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Right this second, probably, but it'll become relevant again as vaccines start to clamp down on the spread.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  I don't know, even then, the "herd resistance" (not immunity) applies to new arrivals and residents alike. Best advantage I see is perhaps plane ventilation is bad, but that would purely benefit other passengers and air transportation workers, not the general public. I doubt such narrow beneficiaries is their goal.

standardUser 6y ago

It's not clear to me how this works. What if you've recently recovered from a confirmed case of COVID-19? People can still test positive up to 90 days after recovery, even though all guidances say they stop being contagious 10 days from the onset of symptoms (assuming symptoms have improved and no fever). And what about people who have been vaccinated. Wouldn't proof of vaccination be sufficient and spare limited testing capacity?

raverbashing 6y ago
> What if you've recently recovered from a confirmed case of COVID-19? Then you wait until your test comes clear > People can still test positive up to 90 days after recovery In very rare cases
- standardUser 6y ago
  A positive test result from > 10 days ago and a temperature check should be sufficient. Otherwise, we're just asking people to get tested over and over (and most guidances say don't get tested within a few months of a positive result).
- standardUser 6y ago
  Turns out, you can fly if you have proof of a positive test in the past: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-...
6nf 6y ago
The vaccine question is going to be interesting. On one hand, if I'm vaccinated then I should be able to fly right? But no vaccine is 100% effective so do I need to get tested anyway? Are we just gonna have to get used to supplying a DNA sample every time we buy plane tickets?
karmasimida 6y ago
Then they shouldn't go on a flight. Simple as that. Traveling to another country is not a right but a privilege, many of HN commenters always like to throw this line.

eloff 6y ago

The US is basically the center of this pandemic now. This is a joke. It's too little too late. What they should do is test people leaving the US for other countries - spare the rest of the world.

turing_complete 6y ago
Well, don't discard Europe too early. We just surpassed you in total deaths!
drstewart 6y ago
You misspelled the UK and Europe, the new centers of the pandemic for the second time
- eloff 6y ago
  My bad. I'm behind the news cycle.

breck 6y ago

This is moronic. We have between 30M and 130M cases here. There is no mathematically possible way in hell that international passengers could bring COVID here in any noticeable way at this point. Why would they do this? I'll tell you the one and only one reason: some people are making tons of money off it. I just flew back to Hawaii from California and had to pay $170 for a COVID test, even though I'm already immune.

selimthegrim 6y ago
We don't want to import any more new more infectious strains if we can help it
- 6nf 6y ago
  Unless the new more infectious strain also has a much lower mortality rate?
bitcurious 6y ago
I think it’s more about protecting the passengers who are in an enclosed space together for 6+ hours than preventing spread within the US. I find it a big reassurance.

wendyshu 6y ago

Why wasn't this done months ago? Seriously, is there any good reason?

vondur 6y ago

Surprising it took so long. I wonder if you are going to get some sort of certificate that proves you have been vaccinated for COVID once they roll out to everyone.

balozi 6y ago

By now people can purchase negative Covid PCR test results at many international airports, sometimes for as little as $0.50. Entrepreneurial spirit is hard to tame.

tinyhouse 6y ago

Most US states already require a negative test or quarantine, with some exceptions. The only issue is that almost no one is enforcing it (maybe some airports do, I'm not sure). It makes sense if it becomes like visa where airlines wouldn't let you board the plane without it (until things are under control). It can be an issue for emergency travel though. Thinking about it, this should be of interest of airlines to protect their staff.

jeffbee 6y ago
Right. Santa Clara County, California, has a mandatory 10-day quarantine for anyone arriving from more than 150 miles from its borders. This notice is posted in the airport but aside from that there is no framework for enforcement. It is not even all that easy to figure out what territory is outside this zone and the county does not provide a map.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Yea, we really should stop saying things like the government “requires” or “orders” something, if at the end of the day it’s not being enforced. No US state [EDIT except maybe Hawaii?] seems to have any kind of actually enforced public health rules around COVID besides business closures, where enforcement is spotty at best.

vmchale 6y ago

You'd be more likely to catch it here than pretty much anywhere else in the world lol.

umanwizard 6y ago
Why?

esoterica 6y ago

The infection rate in the US is so high that the average arriving international traveller has a lower chance of being infected than the average US resident. What exactly is the point of this? Constitutionality aside, you would literally make a bigger impact on mitigating the virus spread by testing random people on the street. Like DUI checkpoints or stop-and-frisk but for covid.

rodgerd 6y ago

It's interesting to that see the volume of science denial on HN surrounding COVID continues.

ashtonkem 6y ago

I get why they’re doing this, but I fear as a society we’ve learned the wrong lessons about testing. These tests have a pretty high failure rate. That’s probably ok for social level spread tracking (with wide error bars) or low volume contact tracing (where quarantining a few extra people is worth it). It’s far better than nothing of course, but it’s also far short of what we expect from something like a pregnancy test. But as a means to sign people off as safe to travel? Yeah, not so much. So many people have had the “one negative test so I can go party” only to discover what a false negative is.

cbg0 6y ago
> These tests have a pretty high failure rate. The rapid ones maybe, the PCR ones are quite accurate.
- slumdev 6y ago
  PCR is sensitive, but at the cycle thresholds most labs use, it is not specific.

jedberg 6y ago

I don't understand why we don't implement the isolation procedures of countries that have gotten this under control, following these procedures for both foreign citizens AND US citizens: - When you arrive in the US, you either spend two weeks at a government approved hotel, at your expense, which is monitored by federal agents to make sure you don't leave your room. You pay for room service for two weeks to get food. This is what Singapore does. - If you don't want to stay at the government hotel, you agree to let the government track your cell phone for two weeks to make sure you stay in your home, and randomly call you twice a day to make sure you didn't ditch your phone. This is what Taiwan does. As a plus, all the hotels near airports would be so thankful for all the forced business to make up for the loss of travel business. They should have been doing this for the last nine months. Edit: And obviously combine these rules with a relief bill that helps the industries that are hurt by these rules, or you know, everyone.

ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s fairly straightforward: leadership matters, and a lot of people who were supposed to be helming the ship were clearly asleep at the wheel.
- wrs 6y ago
  They were not asleep, they were deliberately letting the car drive off a cliff because they thought admitting there was a cliff there would make them look weak.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Also (to extend this metaphor to all three modes of transport), they were sure that - should any cliff present itself - the greatest nation on Earth will not fall down it, but will boost off and fly towards the sunset.
  - SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
    Probably also contributed by the fact that the opposition pointed out that they should avoid the cliff so the only option left is to intentionally drive off it.

vincentmarle 6y ago

> U.S. officials do not plan to drop restrictions that were adopted starting in March that ban most non-U.S. citizens who have been in most of Europe, the United Kingdom and Brazil as soon as possible, the sources said. Does anyone know if the EU travel ban is going to get lifted anytime this year (with the Biden administration)?

ls612 6y ago
I’d sure hope it would be this year. Keep in mind we should have the ability to vaccinate every American adult by the late spring so the pandemic should be reduced to very low levels.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

top_post 6y ago

The country most ravaged by COVID-19 where the spread is entirely localized, requires international passengers... good thanks.

nilkn 6y ago

I have an interesting anecdote related to this. As it happens, I currently have COVID. When I first noticed I was getting sick, I was scheduled to fly in the near future, so I got a rapid COVID test that delivers results in 15 minutes. It was negative. I got another one, and it was negative too. I had thus intended to go ahead with the trip under the assumption I had a minor cold. Later, a few days before I was to fly, I lost all smell and taste. Now I didn’t know what to think. I wasn’t particularly congested, and the loss of smell was total. I’d never experienced this before. Could both tests have been false negatives? I delayed the flight (free of charge luckily, so no big deal) and got a test that had to be sent to a lab for analysis. A week later, the positive test result came back. Take from this what you will. I'm not a scientist or a doctor and frankly there's nothing remotely intelligent I can say about the various tests out there for COVID. But if the rapid tests are as unreliable in general as they were for me, it’s sort of no wonder COVID is spreading like wildfire. I was very, very close to boarding a plane with an active case of COVID, and I would have if I hadn’t acted out of an abundance of caution.

dragonwriter 6y ago
Rapid tests are known to be unreliable and particularly have a high false negative rate. That's why all the guidance has been that rapid tests can be used to indicate infection but not rule one out, and none of the screening processes based on exposure and symptoms accept “but I also had a negative rapid test” as neutralizing a flag on any screening factor. > I would have if I hadn’t acted out of an abundance of caution. The bare minimum of caution with a rapid test is treating a positive as a true positive and a negative as an indicator that you need a regular test. That you understood your actions to be an abundance of caution demonstrates a failure to effectively communicate on some level (I'm not saying that you are culpable; the information is out there's but delivery is...mixed, even before considering how it is muddled by misinformation from various sources.)
- nilkn 6y ago
  I definitely think there's a communication deficiency or breakdown happening, because none of the medical professionals indicated to me that the rapid tests were that unreliable when it comes to producing false negatives. I also feel personally guilty for not having been as well-informed as I should have been. I'm just glad I experienced a tell-tale symptom (loss of smell/taste) and was able to act on it before boarding a plane. Another interesting aspect of this is that prior to experiencing loss of smell/taste, I was more or less told by urgent care staff that I didn't have COVID, and they were pretty resistant to testing me -- hence I only got rapid tests. Yet I actually was right in the midst of an active case.

vermontdevil 6y ago

Cue black market negative tests for sale.

ghshephard 6y ago

I don't at all see how this is relevant to the United States in 2021, when COVID-19 is almost completely prevalent, and we require universal vaccination to exit out of the pandemic - International travel restrictions seem meaningless to me now - though they would have been invaluable in January 2020, and maybe even February 2020 - right now the major risk of COVID-19 infection is inside the United States. A handful (or heck, even hundreds) of people coming into the country won't make any difference when we have thousands of new cases a day regardless. There's a reason Epidemologists don't put much stock in travel restrictions once a pandemic is well underway around the world - they don't do much good. But - generally, having widespread (ideally very sensitive) COVID testing for any type of travel outside of the home is a good thing. We should have it universally available. Ideally <$10, something that everyone could do weekly, or even daily if they travel a lot. Just unclear what the focus on international travel is all about here.

solarengineer 6y ago
Some rationale for blocking international travel - preventing the spread of international variants, and preventing the destination country from being overloaded by incoming infections. Most nations aren't getting the vaccines yet. Vaccination distribution and delivery require complex logistics. Nations that don't have a good public healthcare infrastructure need time to gear up. Vaccinations have just started and are being given in a phased manner. Blocking International Travel (or at least mandating a 14 day quarantine) helps keep variants in check.
- ghshephard 6y ago
  Ironically, it's in countries where there is partial vaccination that we haven't the greatest risk - partial pressure against the virus will select it for stronger ability to be vaccine resistant. It's why it's so important to give everyone two doses of vaccine as quickly as possible and vaccinate the entire population, so you don't have the virus spreading, mutating, and potentially evolving to become vaccine resistant and then endemic in the population. We only get one really good chance to hit herd immunity. But - longer term - agree with you - wouldn't it be awesome if we had full-viral scans of travelers, international or otherwise - would shut down flu pandemics as well (most of them are imported from other countries).

mamon 6y ago

There's one thing I do not understand: they are introducing testing requirement, but still keep travel ban for all EU citizens in place. Why?

redflame8 6y ago

How do you know the tests are legit

hikerclimber 6y ago

probably means that the flights from uk contain a more deadly version of covid. but i am no expert.

sneak 6y ago

Enforcing disease restrictions at borders is basically pointless in a country with massive uncontrolled spread inside its 300M+ population. They should do this for every bar, restaurant, uber, taxi, train station, and airport inside the US; that would solve the issue right quick. This is just xenophobia, nothing more. There's more covid danger inside the US than there is from people coming from outside of it.

Technically 6y ago

Hah, nearly a year too late.

throw03172019 6y ago

A little late?

xylophoner 6y ago

This appears to only be required for inbound passengers. I wish it was also required for outbound. I not only want to prevent more COVID from coming into the country, but also want to increase the chances of my outbound flight being COVID free.

angry_octet 6y ago

What a joke. Everyone (including Americans) should need a negative PCR test the day before they leave.

Andaith 6y ago

Not to be inflammatory, but why? The only benefit I can see is reducing the likelihood of new strains getting into the US, but to me this is like a swimming pool requiring people to be dry before they get in. It would make sense as part of a national strategy, no doubt. But on it's own, I don't see the value in this? Especially since it doesn't apply to passengers transiting through the US, so technically not everybody on the flight will have to do this, meaning you're going to spend a lot of time in an enclosed place with (as a complete guess) 80% covid negative people and 20% YOLO people. That's, err, that's exactly how covid spreads...

darkwizard42 6y ago
Actually, I would say this is more like taking a shower before entering the pool. It reduces the chances you are going to bring in grime into the pool. Of course the pool itself is not very clean, but this way you improve the quality of the pool while you FINALLYYYYY put in some chemicals (vaccines) into the water. Agreed 100% that this needs to be part of a national strategy in which testing, vaccine deployment, and strong community guidelines are used in conjunction to really beat COVID-19

mrfusion 6y ago

I worry it sets a dangerous precedent if a country can start dissallowing citizens to return to their home country.

snowwindwaves 6y ago
Don't leave during a pandemic then? When healthcare resources are stretched thin all around the world who is going to be able to take care of a sick foreigner or get them back to their country without endangering others? If the world had enough N95 masks and everyone wore them this would be over, but instead we are wearing bandanas and pulling t- shirts up over our noses.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  Have they promised this will go away after the pandemic is over? What criteria determines when it’s over? Is an available vaccine for the vulnerable not enough?
  - snowwindwaves 6y ago
    When you are vaccinated it is over for you. When everyone who wants to be vaccinated is vaccinated then it should be over for everyone. I would say the vaccine currently exists but is not widely available. I know vulnerable people with a lot of living left to do that can't wait to get out of the house. It will be everyone's responsibility to ensure unnecessary restrictions are lifted.

sershe 6y ago

Interesting, what exactly are they going to do if someone doesn't have one? IANAL, but as far as I recall from "what if they want you to unlock your phone/mount your encrypted drive/... on the border and threaten to not let you in" articles that purported to be written by lawyers, they cannot not let a citizen in.

sershe 6y ago
Answering my own question... CDC page has better information - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-... this is basically at the point of departure, so the airline won't let you board in the first place, and the awkward issue of not letting citizens into their own country won't arise. Most places in the world don't have reliable means of getting a test done within the 3-day return time. I guess when I go visit my family abroad, I am going to fly back to somewhere like Tijuana, cross the border, then fly domestic back home. I'd encourage as many people as possible to do the same.

forgingahead 6y ago

Long overdue! Really sad why this wasn't done earlier. Regardless of false negatives, this will certainly dent imported case numbers, though it would have had much more impact earlier on in the pandemic.

knolax 6y ago

Hawaii has already required passengers of all incoming flights to get tested for a while now.

mbrodersen 6y ago

A bit like making it hard for potential arsonists to enter an already burning building.

chubaka 6y ago

No one laughs at USA government for doing this too late? And this news sounds like, only not-yet-infected people are welcome to USA. So you can bring some gifts back. HN readers always criticize on other countries but so lenient to USA.