Cayman possible border reopening without quarantine by April or May!

[tridacna]

Sad… but quite true (and no Covid test required)!

1. You still need a test from Mex to the USA but I suppose that obviates the PCR retest requirement…

2. Are there any non-stop flights from GCM to Mexico?

 

[Joneill]

1. You still need a test from Mex to the USA but I suppose that obviates the PCR retest requirement…

2. Are there any non-stop flights from GCM to Mexico?

You are missing the subtext of the posts?

However, there is no test required if you are not flying back to the US (as our leaders have determined COVID magically can’t cross land borders)… will leave it at that to avoid derailing the thread .

 

[rongoodman]

1. You still need a test from Mex to the USA but I suppose that obviates the PCR retest requirement…

2. Are there any non-stop flights from GCM to Mexico?

He was trying to make a political point, not address the issue at hand.

 

[tridacna]

He was trying to make a political point, not address the issue at hand.

ROTFL.

 

[bmorescuba]

For anyone who has been to CI since they entered Phase 5 of reopening, is any time the day before arrival OK to get the AZOVA or PCR test? The official wording is a little confusing:

All inbound travellers age 5 and older must take a certified rapid test or a pre-arrival polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test the day before departure. Proof of a negative certified rapid test or PCR test result must be presented upon check-in at the airport.

"Departure" is defined by the departure of any connecting fight or transit flights to the Cayman Islands, where the layover between flights is no more than twelve hours. This means a traveller should have proof of a negative test result twelve hours prior to their take off time to arrive in the Cayman Islands. We suggest that travellers check for rapid testing sites within the airports they are travelling through.

The phrase "the day before" is used frequently on the site now. My group will be arriving at different times on a Saturday. So, is any time on the Friday before the Saturday acceptable for the test? Is the 12-hour clause to cover those cases where someone might have a travel itinerary that spanned multiple days?

If there's anyone who can clarify from actual experience, that would be great. Also, if you can comment on how things went with the AZOVA at-home video monitored test. Thanks!

 

[tursiops]

So having vaccinated people doing an expensive PCR test to board the plane, and then the instant test after arrival makes little sense.

The reason it makes sense is the incubation period if you are infected. At the time you take the PCR test, you might have just gotten exposed....but a day or two or 3 later, boom. Positive. It is a layered defense.

 

[Manatee Diver]

The reason it makes sense is the incubation period if you are infected. At the time you take the PCR test, you might have just gotten exposed....but a day or two or 3 later, boom. Positive. It is a layered defense.

That comment is a year old when we were told that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of getting the virus at all.

But was still found to be pointless because Omicron swept through the Caymans just like it did everywhere else.

Heck New Zealand which had little international travel for the last two years still got hit with Omicron.

 

[tursiops]

That comment is a year old when we were told that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of getting the virus at all.

But was still found to be pointless because Omicron swept through the Caymans just like it did everywhere else.

Heck New Zealand which had little international travel for the last two years still got hit with Omicron.

What I said was the two successive tests makes sense, in the sense of a layered defense for something that develops with time. It was a good idea, in other words, but it did not work well enough.
Now we know more. Your "pointless" comment made back then is only now true in retrospect; at the time it was not pointless, it had a very good -- but not good enough -- point. Hindsight is wonderful, but is a really poor way to address an evolving pandemic while it is happening. You've got to make decisions with a lot of uncertainty attached to them...but that is usually better than doing nothing.

 

[Joneill]

What I said was the two successive tests makes sense, in the sense of a layered defense for something that develops with time. It was a good idea, in other words, but it did not work well enough.
Now we know more. Your "pointless" comment made back then is only now true in retrospect; at the time it was not pointless, it had a very good -- but not good enough -- point. Hindsight is wonderful, but is a really poor way to address an evolving pandemic while it is happening. You've got to make decisions with a lot of uncertainty attached to them...but that is usually better than doing nothing.

What’s pointless is that you replied to a post that was made over a year ago - Cayman no longer requires the post arrival tests so why dredge up stuff that is no longer relevant?

 

[Manatee Diver]

You've got to make decisions with a lot of uncertainty attached to them...but that is usually better than doing nothing.

Except doing nothing might have gotten the same result epidemiological perspective but with better results from a legal and economic perspective.

And governments often doubled down even when it was clear that it wasn't working and the models being used to make those decisions didn't even remotely match reality.