The Biden administration will drop Covid testing requirements for international air travel into the United States

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/10/biden-a ... ravel.html

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/ ... 6965540864

For all intents and purposes, flying is back to normal.

Nice, perhaps just in time to book that last minute trip overseas? Do the airlines have the capacity to deal with the potential increase in demand?

mah584jr wrote:

Nice, perhaps just in time to book that last minute trip overseas? Do the airlines have the capacity to deal with the potential increase in demand?

I imagine most leisure travelers have already scheduled their vacations and have made their plans for the summer; this move may, however, open up more businesses to the possibility of increasing travel. Some have been concerned that sending employees overseas and then to have them test positive before returning might leave them stranded in another country for days - if not a week or longer.

FINALLY!

That requirement never made the slightest bit of sense, since they dropped testing at land and sea borders months ago.... I mean, not even the tiniest bit of sense.

But it went so far to inconvenience/ruin people's travels. In just the last month, I've had friends be stranded in both Belize and Costa Rica.

Just means more infected people will travel and increase the chances of infecting their fellow travelers be it at the airport or onboard.

The testing was a barrier that at least let people know and made them wait until they could test negative.

LAXintl wrote:

Just means more infected people will travel and increase the chances of infecting their fellow travelers be it at the airport or onboard.

The testing was a barrier that at least let people know and made them wait until they could test negative.

While highly anecdotal, none of the people I know that tested positive and could travel to US exhibited anything more than minor symptoms and tested negative within 3 days. I know more people that got sick shortly after arriving. I wonder which group was more infectious.

Regardless, this helps the airlines and will reduce strain on ground staff in Europe.

LAXintl wrote:

Just means more infected people will travel and increase the chances of infecting their fellow travelers be it at the airport or onboard.

The testing was a barrier that at least let people know and made them wait until they could test negative.

Even though there are tens of millions more domestic passengers traveling who weren’t being required to test?

Jeremy

Business and money wins over societal health after airlines cry enough about the policy.

Just from personal experience, I've known quite a few folks (such as crew members on personal travel) that thankfully were identified by the test and were able to remain isolating until well and avoid risk to others.

SESGDL wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Even though there are tens of millions more domestic passengers traveling who weren’t being required to test?
Jeremy

I would have totally supported domestic testing.

For sake of fellow man, keep the sick isolating as they should, not be out and about in society.

I travel Tuesday, GRU-IAH-MEM. This is great news!

I saw some NHL teams were flying to the border, driving across, then flying to their final destination in the US.

Seems like a good idea to align the air and ground testing requirements.

I travel to the UK in 10 days.

This news relieves so much anxiety (and potential cost) associated with the return to the U.S.

As someone who has recently travelled into the USA i at one sense recognise this as planes are relatively safe with regards air filters etc. however where is not safe is immigration halls that are crammed full of people for long periods of time with poor ventilation. I initially felt very uncomfortable in this space until I remembered that everyone should have been recently tested, now this safeguard has been removed.

Wednesdayite wrote:

I travel to the UK in 10 days.

This news relieves so much anxiety (and potential cost) associated with the return to the U.S.

Having just come from there cost not all that much it’s £25 nothing required to go. But get you with regards the anxiety

LAX772LR wrote:

FINALLY!

That requirement never made the slightest bit of sense, since they dropped testing at land and sea borders months ago.... I mean, not even the tiniest bit of sense.

But it went so far to inconvenience/ruin people's travels. In just the last month, I've had friends be stranded in both Belize and Costa Rica.

Testing at land borders? Never thought the U.S. had that. Consequently, it was never a requirement to get tested to enter the country, rather just to board a plane to do it.

mah584jr wrote:

Nice, perhaps just in time to book that last minute trip overseas? Do the airlines have the capacity to deal with the potential increase in demand?

Yes they probably do but airports in Europe do not. Witness the terrible lines at security and missed flights due mainly to lack of security vetted staff.

If the prevalence of a virus is about the same in two countries, testing travellers between the two more thoroughly than non-travellers makes no sense.

LAXintl wrote:

Just means more infected people will travel and increase the chances of infecting their fellow travelers be it at the airport or on board.

Yes. Just like with any other disease in the world.

Diseases are part of human life, as unfortunate as it is. It is high time that we started treating COVID-19, an infection of which represents a minor nuisance for most, an inability to work for most of the rest, and a serious illness for a small minority, just like any other common colds or even influenza. When has anyone needed to test negative for any one of those before boarding a plane?

I'm all for mandating airlines, or any other service industry companies, to offer protective measures such as desinfectant gel and FFP2-masks to all the passengers who those wish to have (sometimes I am personally a part of this group). I'm all against restricting freedom of movement and travel.

I value freedom over risk-free safety.

I value quality of life over life.

Personally, this decision eliminates a big worry and cause for concern over flying to the US. Luckily, I have so far passed all of the three COVID tests that I've had to take before traveling across the pond, but each and every one of those trips has carried a substantial risk of failure and money loss due to the potential of an infection (most likely without symptoms).

I'm happy that this decision eliminates any risk and worry over my upcoming trip to SEA in the beginning of July! And lucky for AS that this decision didn't come three days earlier - otherwise they would have lost $25 of additional insurance money that I bought just in case I would never be able to board the flight to the US in the first place.

madairdrie wrote:

Wednesdayite wrote:

I travel to the UK in 10 days.

This news relieves so much anxiety (and potential cost) associated with the return to the U.S.

Having just come from there cost not all that much it’s £25 nothing required to go. But get you with regards the anxiety

The issue is not the cost of the test; it is the issue of an indefinite extended stay in a foreign country at one's own expense, as well as missed days of work.

LAX772LR wrote:

That requirement never made the slightest bit of sense, since they dropped testing at land and sea borders months ago.... I mean, not even the tiniest bit of sense.

There was never a testing requirement at land borders because it would have violated international law; namely, the right of return. The U.S. government can't refuse entry to citizens at its border as long as they've demonstrated they are, indeed, citizens. They could have imposed quarantines but the optics of quarantine camps a la Hong Kong would have been extremely ugly. The testing requirement to board an international flight was always a weaselly way to get around the right of return. The government technically wasn't denying entry; they were just directing airlines to refuse you boarding. It's difficult to sue since you're in a foreign country and whom do you sue? The airline can claim the government directed them to refuse boarding, and the government will claim they didn't deny you entry.

I've always said, never miss an opportunity to test. Both myself and wife test weekly for work, and my kid test twice weekly for school.

For example at LAX alone, 66 employees tested positive this week (up from 58 last week), which through testing can now remain home isolating till they are well.

Its part of a broader safety net including vaccines and masking helping protect broader society

Unfortunately many are not very conscientious about fellow man and are more worried about their own interest be it travel, or doing other things in public when potentially sick.

ScottB wrote:

The issue is not the cost of the test; it is the issue of an indefinite extended stay in a foreign country at one's own expense, as well as missed days of work.

Good reason to always have travel insurance. Not only do good policies cover cost of any nonrefundable tickets, they also provide for expenses like hotels and food if you are stuck overseas in addition to health care.

Would never travel without such coverage, not just for Covid, but anything could happen anywhere. There are many annual policies including ones for families, at quite affordable rates.

mercure1 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

The issue is not the cost of the test; it is the issue of an indefinite extended stay in a foreign country at one's own expense, as well as missed days of work.

Good reason to always have travel insurance. Not only do good policies cover cost of any nonrefundable tickets, they also provide for expenses like hotels and food if you are stuck overseas in addition to health care.

But it still won't cover things like lost days of work... And not all travel insurance will cover being denied boarding due to a positive test.

The party is over for all those labs pocketing thousands of dollars for testing in foreign countries. I know of places in Cancun that would give out false positive results on purpose.

UPlog wrote:

Business and money wins over societal health after airlines cry enough about the policy.

Just from personal experience, I've known quite a few folks (such as crew members on personal travel) that thankfully were identified by the test and were able to remain isolating until well and avoid risk to others.

SESGDL wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Even though there are tens of millions more domestic passengers traveling who weren’t being required to test?
Jeremy

I would have totally supported domestic testing.

For sake of fellow man, keep the sick isolating as they should, not be out and about in society.

Testing for exactly how many (and which exactly) diseases should we be constantly testing?

WorldFlier wrote:

Testing for exactly how many (and which exactly) diseases should we be constantly testing?

Those that are easily spread and put innocent lives at risk. The Covid risk most certainly isn't over, and especially worth remembering it being the airlines that were largely responsible for it's spread.

[url][/url]

mugler wrote:

The party is over for all those labs pocketing thousands of dollars for testing in foreign countries. I know of places in Cancun that would give out false positive results on purpose.

I mean everywhere. Do we really think anyone ever tested positive for COVID in India prior to a US flight? Or if they did, do we really think that the result couldn't be "fixed" for a small amount of baksheesh?

I think this made sense at first but now that we have effective vaccines, paxlovid, and much milder strains, it made no sense any longer.

This is just music to my ears as I fly home from yvr sunday

LAXintl wrote:

I've always said, never miss an opportunity to test. Both myself and wife test weekly for work, and my kid test twice weekly for school.

For example at LAX alone, 66 employees tested positive this week (up from 58 last week), which through testing can now remain home isolating till they are well.

Its part of a broader safety net including vaccines and masking helping protect broader society

Unfortunately many are not very conscientious about fellow man and are more worried about their own interest be it travel, or doing other things in public when potentially sick.

Respectfully that’s how you see it.
If there is no requirement for the millions flying domestically it’s hard to say you need it for international.

Most people are no longer worried about covid they have had the chance to get the shot and the boosters so they are ready to move on. It’s definitely not about not caring, and that’s a slippery slope anyway.

It’s just simply not needed, and probably wasn’t that helpful to start with.


This was like hey you all need to wear masks on a plane but you can take it off and on to eat. None of that made sense none of it. It’s either on or it isn’t pick one.

Vicenza wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Testing for exactly how many (and which exactly) diseases should we be constantly testing?

Those that are easily spread and put innocent lives at risk. The Covid risk most certainly isn't over, and especially worth remembering it being the airlines that were largely responsible for it's spread.

Ok so add in the FLU.

Personally, I'm happy that the testing mandate to enter the US will soon be over. However, I feel that a proper compromise would have been that if one is vaccinated, then no testing needed. Otherwise, one would have to take a test and obtain a negative result to permit travel.

Judge1310 wrote:

However, I feel that a proper compromise would have been that if one is vaccinated, then no testing needed. Otherwise, one would have to take a test and obtain a negative result to permit travel.

Why? Is it not more than clear at this point that the vaccine(s) don't do much to stop the spread, "only" to allay death.

What difference would that compromise make, from just dropping the testing requirement altogether?

Now I will book my trip to Germany in OCT. The testing requirement to fly was long past time to end it. I just trashed 7 at home test that the US Govt keeps sending me for free. Somehow I got on thier list. No matter I will just keep trashing the made in China test.

LAX772LR wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

However, I feel that a proper compromise would have been that if one is vaccinated, then no testing needed. Otherwise, one would have to take a test and obtain a negative result to permit travel.

Why? Is it not more than clear at this point that the vaccine(s) don't do much to stop the spread, "only" to allay death.

What difference would that compromise make, from just dropping the testing requirement altogether?

Standardisation in international requirements for travel. Customer and crew member perception. Most folks would be far more comfortable knowing that everyone travelling on board is either vaccinated or tested negative. That's the happy compromise.

Judge1310 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

However, I feel that a proper compromise would have been that if one is vaccinated, then no testing needed. Otherwise, one would have to take a test and obtain a negative result to permit travel.

Why? Is it not more than clear at this point that the vaccine(s) don't do much to stop the spread, "only" to allay death.

What difference would that compromise make, from just dropping the testing requirement altogether?

Standardisation in international requirements for travel. Customer and crew member perception. Most folks would be far more comfortable knowing that everyone travelling on board is either vaccinated or tested negative. That's the happy compromise.

But ......again....... if we're to recognize the reality that the vaccines barely do anything to stop the spread of the variants, then what does that compromise accomplish, other than an exercise in comfort-by-denial?

Either everyone's tested, or they aren't. The vaccines don't provide a middle-ground, they just statistically keep you from outright dying.

Thus, why should someone have to risk thousands in extra costs due to stranding, because others want to be comfortable in illogical compromise?

LAXintl wrote:

I've always said, never miss an opportunity to test. Both myself and wife test weekly for work, and my kid test twice weekly for school.

For example at LAX alone, 66 employees tested positive this week (up from 58 last week), which through testing can now remain home isolating till they are well.

Its part of a broader safety net including vaccines and masking helping protect broader society

Unfortunately many are not very conscientious about fellow man and are more worried about their own interest be it travel, or doing other things in public when potentially sick.

Testing positive does not mean you are unwell.

LAX772LR wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Why? Is it not more than clear at this point that the vaccine(s) don't do much to stop the spread, "only" to allay death.

What difference would that compromise make, from just dropping the testing requirement altogether?

Standardisation in international requirements for travel. Customer and crew member perception. Most folks would be far more comfortable knowing that everyone travelling on board is either vaccinated or tested negative. That's the happy compromise.

But ......again....... if we're to recognize the reality that the vaccines barely do anything to stop the spread of the variants, then what does that compromise accomplish, other than an exercise in comfort-by-denial?

Either everyone's tested, or they aren't. The vaccines don't provide a middle-ground, they just statistically keep you from outright dying.

Thus, why should someone have to risk thousands in extra costs due to stranding, because others want to be comfortable in illogical compromise?

Vaccines do not prevent spread, but there is no statistical basis to say that they do or do not reduce spread of Omicron. Vaccines reduce severity of infection, which leads to the hypothesis infectiousness goes down. Tough to prove though.

Could have done with this last week on my return from the UK to Boston, what a cluster… couldn’t check in, even though we both had negative tests, had to go to the airport the day before to get the test because it was the bank holiday.
Apparently the issue with the check in was they wanted to see our vaccination cards.

Utterly frustrating and thank goodness it’s going away. It’s completely pointless when sharing aircraft with those who had to do nothing.

Finally! Time to book those held off visits to YYZ and PVR!

LAXintl wrote:

I've always said, never miss an opportunity to test. Both myself and wife test weekly for work, and my kid test twice weekly for school.

For example at LAX alone, 66 employees tested positive this week (up from 58 last week), which through testing can now remain home isolating till they are well.

Its part of a broader safety net including vaccines and masking helping protect broader society

Unfortunately many are not very conscientious about fellow man and are more worried about their own interest be it travel, or doing other things in public when potentially sick.

Kids still testing twice weekly for school? No wonder there has been net migration OUT of California. Folks, this is endemic. Living with the virus doesn't mean low risk factor people need to forever mask and test to enjoy societal freedoms. CDC estimates every American now has cellular (B cell) immunity to COVID. With essentially no one imunmo-näive, infections arent important measurements when the nearly all are mild reinfections or breakthroughs. Especially in young, healthy demographics like children. The mask mandates and testing requirements expiring ARE following the sceince. They just finally overcame the conservative public health inertia that all too often statifies risk in an effort to mold group behavior, while running rough shod over common sense at the individual health level.

Any news on dropping the vaccine-mandate for non-US citizens to enter?

Not wanting a debate about the merits of it (it was already covered quite well above!) but there seems to be no news on that front unless this means all restrictions of any kind are dropped?

BA777FO wrote:

Any news on dropping the vaccine-mandate for non-US citizens to enter?

Not wanting a debate about the merits of it (it was already covered quite well above!) but there seems to be no news on that front unless this means all restrictions of any kind are dropped?

Tbe CDC is more likely to introduce testing for those not vaccinated before dropping the requirememt to be vaccinated. Lots of other countries followed this route before dropping all entry requirements.

mercure1 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

The issue is not the cost of the test; it is the issue of an indefinite extended stay in a foreign country at one's own expense, as well as missed days of work.

Good reason to always have travel insurance. Not only do good policies cover cost of any nonrefundable tickets, they also provide for expenses like hotels and food if you are stuck overseas in addition to health care.

Would never travel without such coverage, not just for Covid, but anything could happen anywhere. There are many annual policies including ones for families, at quite affordable rates.

Travel insurance is completely illogical. If you can't afford to lose the money you paid for a trip it is irresponsible to be traveling. The insurance companies are profitable. That means over a lifetime of traveling you will pay more to them then they pay to you, unless you are cheating.

Home insurance and medical insurance make sense because the financial loss could be life altering, but if an unexpected week in a hotel will ruin you, just stay home.

Aliqiout wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

The issue is not the cost of the test; it is the issue of an indefinite extended stay in a foreign country at one's own expense, as well as missed days of work.

Good reason to always have travel insurance. Not only do good policies cover cost of any nonrefundable tickets, they also provide for expenses like hotels and food if you are stuck overseas in addition to health care.

Would never travel without such coverage, not just for Covid, but anything could happen anywhere. There are many annual policies including ones for families, at quite affordable rates.

Travel insurance is completely illogical. If you can't afford to lose the money you paid for a trip it is irresponsible to be traveling. The insurance companies are profitable. That means over a lifetime of traveling you will pay more to them then they pay to you, unless you are cheating.

Home insurance and medical insurance make sense because the financial loss could be life altering, but if an unexpected week in a hotel will ruin you, just stay home.

You really underestimate costs that can be accrued overseas. Medivac for one.

If I am traveling over seas I buy travel insurance. The medical portion of the insurance is well worth if you need it. On my trip from PHX to LAS for 4 nights I am not going to buy travel insurance.

sxf24 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

Standardisation in international requirements for travel. Customer and crew member perception. Most folks would be far more comfortable knowing that everyone travelling on board is either vaccinated or tested negative. That's the happy compromise.

But ......again....... if we're to recognize the reality that the vaccines barely do anything to stop the spread of the variants, then what does that compromise accomplish, other than an exercise in comfort-by-denial?

Either everyone's tested, or they aren't. The vaccines don't provide a middle-ground, they just statistically keep you from outright dying.

Thus, why should someone have to risk thousands in extra costs due to stranding, because others want to be comfortable in illogical compromise?

Vaccines do not prevent spread, but there is no statistical basis to say that they do or do not reduce spread of Omicron. Vaccines reduce severity of infection, which leads to the hypothesis infectiousness goes down. Tough to prove though.

Are we talking about the virus I am observing? Since late last year with Omicron and increasingly so as 2022 unfolds with Omicron sub-variants, none of the vaccines reduce the risk of transmission / infection or appreciably reduce the risk of death. This is so because Omicron is already an order of magnitude less virulent than Delta for example, so the risk of death was already miniscule to begin with. Time to get on with life and open up all travel and treat like we do the flu. COVID-19 is here to stay and is behaving as viruses typically behave getting more transmissible but less virulent. Trying to use vaccines against RNA viruses was an exercise in futility and was bound to eventually fail as we are currently observing. Note the poor performance of vaccines for the flu for example, often being less than 30% effective in a year. Coronaviruses are even more problematic and any immunity wanes even more quickly, now estimated to be measured in weeks.

Aliqiout wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

The issue is not the cost of the test; it is the issue of an indefinite extended stay in a foreign country at one's own expense, as well as missed days of work.

Good reason to always have travel insurance. Not only do good policies cover cost of any nonrefundable tickets, they also provide for expenses like hotels and food if you are stuck overseas in addition to health care.

Would never travel without such coverage, not just for Covid, but anything could happen anywhere. There are many annual policies including ones for families, at quite affordable rates.

Travel insurance is completely illogical. If you can't afford to lose the money you paid for a trip it is irresponsible to be traveling. The insurance companies are profitable. That means over a lifetime of traveling you will pay more to them then they pay to you, unless you are cheating.

Home insurance and medical insurance make sense because the financial loss could be life altering, but if an unexpected week in a hotel will ruin you, just stay home.

Righto. So we can all afford the cost of ending up in a hospital whilst travelling.

NTLDaz wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Good reason to always have travel insurance. Not only do good policies cover cost of any nonrefundable tickets, they also provide for expenses like hotels and food if you are stuck overseas in addition to health care.

Would never travel without such coverage, not just for Covid, but anything could happen anywhere. There are many annual policies including ones for families, at quite affordable rates.

Travel insurance is completely illogical. If you can't afford to lose the money you paid for a trip it is irresponsible to be traveling. The insurance companies are profitable. That means over a lifetime of traveling you will pay more to them then they pay to you, unless you are cheating.

Home insurance and medical insurance make sense because the financial loss could be life altering, but if an unexpected week in a hotel will ruin you, just stay home.

Righto. So we can all afford the cost of ending up in a hospital whilst travelling.

Most medical insurance will cover you in any country up to the amount the treatment would cost in the U.S. since almost every treatment in almost every country is cheaper than the U.S. it shouldn't be a problem. Read your policy.

If yours doesn't there are plenty of credit cards that offer $500,000 in medical travel insurance.

Aliqiout wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

Travel insurance is completely illogical. If you can't afford to lose the money you paid for a trip it is irresponsible to be traveling. The insurance companies are profitable. That means over a lifetime of traveling you will pay more to them then they pay to you, unless you are cheating.

Home insurance and medical insurance make sense because the financial loss could be life altering, but if an unexpected week in a hotel will ruin you, just stay home.

Righto. So we can all afford the cost of ending up in a hospital whilst travelling.

Most medical insurance will cover you in any country up to the amount the treatment would cost in the U.S. since almost every treatment in almost every country is cheaper than the U.S. it shouldn't be a problem. Read your policy.

If yours doesn't there are plenty of credit cards that offer $500,000 in medical travel insurance.

Australian Health Insurance ( where I'm from ) will not cover health costs outside of Australia and not all CC's offer travel insurance.

Frankly, if I'm going to the expense of travelling overseas I'm paying the relatively small cost for travel insurance.

I've never done the travel insurance thing, but I tend to stay domestic.

We are planing on a SXM vacation this summer which requires a IDP. Went to the AAA office and another guy was there for the same. The dropping of testing was a hot topic. He was very relived over the possibility of getting stuck overseas. Said finding travel insurance that covered a positive COVID test was impossible to find.

For my wife and I we are fully vaxed and have medical coverage that is good for overseas. My budget for this vacation is good for the days we are planning, but while we could afford an extended hotel stay, I would rather not take on that cost. Not to mention the anxiety of possibly making last minute accommodations for an extended stay.

As a airline employee I am very glad this has been lifted. International traffic now has a chance to rebound. The US was an outlier in this test requirement. Back in March of 2020 when we needed the test requirement to keep the virus tamped down we didn't have it. Now that we have better tools against it the need isn't there.