We brought the Abbott test with us, and followed the instructions and it worked fine. There also were quick testing sites immediately outside our airport hotel and within the airport itself. This was at Milan/Malpensa.
My understanding is that she, and anyone else this happens to, is stuck there only until she tests negative.
Interesting that the EU standard continues to be a negative test OR proof of vaccination/booster. Flying my daughter from Malpensa to Paris and got a note saying an up-to-date vax card will suffice.
Your colleague can fly to Canada or Mexico and cross the border by car without a test.
She may have to wait more that ten days, particularly if she self tested. The ten day period requires proof of a positive test to start the clock running. I self tested when I found out I was positive there, and although I had evidence an the date that I reached out to my doctor after my positive test and in spite of the fact that I had a letter from my doctor clearing me to fly, no dice. If that’s the case, she’ll have to wait for a negative test
Either is fine as you can show it when you check in for your flight.
I hate surprises, so I elected pre-clearance
I just used the eMed in St. Lucia last week and it was easy and very convenient.
1 Like
The annoyance with this isn’t getting a test done
Emed is $25 and takes 20 mins from ur hotel. It’s super easy
The annoyance is the nagging concern u catch something, or even have a false positive and get stuck. And having to scramble to find places to live. Arrange things at home with family. Kids. Work. Etc.
Covid has been far more than annoyance for millions of less-fortunate people.
Certainly the case, but the entry testing is a nonsensical requirement
2 Likes
Not nonsensical in a big international travel hub like NYC.
So do I. Just giving info-options as requested.
Sure it is. Is the point to keep COVID out? It working. Is the point to keep COVID off planes? Require tests for outbound flights as well
Nope, you’re wrong. Keeping Covid out vs minimizing are 2 different things. Definitely minimized it in my city. Outbound flights … not our concern.
I’d love to see some statistics on that. There is a shit ton of Covid in the country already. I can’t imagine there is a significant difference between foreign and domestic travel spreading the virus, particularly since our infected population smokes almost everywhere else. I suppose we should also reestablish tests for land border crossings as well
Wrong again! Shit ton of covid is an understatement. Also, this is a question about requirement for inbound foreign travel only. Smoking… wtf is that? Too narrow.
No statistics, but only anecdotal publishing, some are common sensical, by so-called health policy experts. You’ll just have to google the NYTimes, Washington Posts links to read for yourself. In summary:
- Definitely decreased # of infected people that flew in. OK, duh!
- some cancelled last-minute flights after testing + and, god knows, prevented infecting others in airports and airplanes had policy not been in place.
- some didn’t bother to fly because they were already sick.
- Other “experts” say delayed (not prevented) arrival of new variants.
We’ll take the anecdotal benefits.
Agree with you - would love to see how to effectively we can establish tests for land travel into my state.
There is no testing for domestic flights. How do your points make a difference if say someone is traveling from Florida to New York. From a covid risk standpoint its no different than traveling from Paris to NYC…except one of those trips still has a testing requirement.
I’m learning that it’s not easy to develop/enforce the optimal travel policies for all.
My simplistic take is that domestic travelers are subjected to CDC policies because they’re in our borders, and I’m in the camp that the policies were designed with the goal of lowering national Covid infection. I’m not going to go into how many adheres to it or not.
I would rather implement more stringent measures to prevent the probability of infection with foreign travelers coming from everywhere whose country policies are, well, foreign to us and are likely suited only to their own respective nationals.
Sorry, but it saved the US from what exactly? Yes, it stopped some people infected coming in.
But I am unconvinced that it lowered the overall numbers given our weak adherence to basic mitigation in the US.
For the argument that it stops infections, the domestic flights from any one of the majors carry far more people on a given day than ALL the international flights. It’s just typical US anti foreigner approach.
I wish it were simple. But the fact remains that the US has done a terrible job of managing the pandemic and continues to trend in the wrong direction. I’d argue that having folks come in from another country could only improve the situation. I mean how can they be worse than some covid denier from Mississippi?