Info Here’s what happens if your US return test is positive. A second hand account.

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Divin'Papaw

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
7,194
Reaction score
5,041
Location
Florida
# of dives
500 - 999
They are readily available now. The sell for $7 and up. Finding one during big surges like this past January, though, is a different matter.
Studies show they are pretty accurate, but I know many people who got false positives. Maybe user error.

We get as many as we can and stockpile them within reason. 4 free from the Government for the 3rd time now, we also get 8 free per month from my insurance company upon request. We've used 7 so far (precautionary testing, all negative so far) and have 29 stocked up for when we need them or family/friends need them. All of those were of no cost to us.

ADDED CORRECTION: The US government provides 8 per address, not 4 as I incorrectly stated. They just opened up the 3rd round. We submitted our order immediately.
 

NW Dive Dawg

Pacific Northwest Dive Dawg
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
335
Reaction score
395
Location
Puget Sound, WA
# of dives
I just don't log dives
Except, of course, for not following the current regulations.
And the fact that you made a personal decision to remove one layer of the layered defense other people have against your possible infection. The fact that you were NOT infected is irrelevant; you had no way of knowing that when you chose to possibly jeopardize others. Hindsight does not justify lack of regard for others.
Yes, your choice not to test was equally a selfish as anyone else flying the domestic leg of your travel who decided not to self-test, with the added factor that you also chose to break the law (and announce that on a public forum). The argument that everyone else was doing it, so it must be OK if I do it too seems pretty juvenile to me.

I can completely understand not wanting to be quarantined while traveling.
I can completely understand choosing not to travel to avoid the possibility of being quarantined.
I can't understand the selfishness and lack of integrity that goes into a decision to travel, knowing the qualifications to return, and then deciding to circumvent those requirements.
Based on your statements, every time either of you go out into the public without testing yourself first you have made a personal and selfish decision to remove a layer of defense that other people have against your possible infection and you are showing a lack of regard for others. But since there is no "law" requiring you to do so, you are ok with justifying that personal decision...

IMHO......The bigger problem lies with those who choose to not be vaxed or boosted.
 

brsnow

Contributor
Messages
343
Reaction score
156
Location
Denver
# of dives
100 - 199
The recent variants tend to show false negatives until you are post symptoms with the rapid tests. Apparently they are more saliva based than nasal. Anywhere from3-7 days later than you would tested with a PCR test. So really nobody knows if they have it or not.
 

rmssetc

Contributor
Messages
347
Reaction score
287
Location
Philadelphia
# of dives
100 - 199
Based on your statements, every time either of you go out into the public without testing yourself first you have made a personal and selfish decision to remove a layer of defense that other people have against your possible infection and you are showing a lack of regard for others. But since there is no "law" requiring you to do so, you are ok with justifying that personal decision...

Getting on a plane -- which by definition means you will meet the medical criteria for "close contact" (6' or less, 15 minutes or more) with many other people, and be in a situation where those people have each been in recent contact with many people, and where many of them are strangers to you (ie., where you cannot ask their vaccination or health status, where you cannot follow-up with them after exposure, as you may with friends or relatives) is an extremely narrow instance of "going out into the public", which is why there are different rules (and sometimes laws) for responsible behavior while traveling on public transportation than while walking down the public sidewalk.

Yes, if I was going to be in close contact for an extended period with a large number of strangers with uncertain health status, I would test in advance and/or continue to apply an added layer of defense for their protection and mine.

That's being responsible for myself and others.

IMHO......The bigger problem lies with those who choose to not be vaxed or boosted.
I completely agree.

However, being vaccinated and boosted, even double-boosted, is no guarantee against getting or transmitting COVID.
 

Lorenzoid

ScubaBoard Supporter
Staff member
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
8,470
Location
USA
# of dives
I just don't log dives
Based on your statements, every time either of you go out into the public without testing yourself first you have made a personal and selfish decision to remove a layer of defense that other people have against your possible infection and you are showing a lack of regard for others. But since there is no "law" requiring you to do so, you are ok with justifying that personal decision...

IMHO......The bigger problem lies with those who choose to not be vaxed or boosted.
Any thoughts on my response a few posts above? When we simply "go out into the public" at home in the US, we're not under the impression that everyone around us just tested negative, the way we might (if naive, like me) be under such an impression when traveling by air back to the US.
 

drrich2

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
10,074
Reaction score
8,504
Location
Southwestern Kentucky
# of dives
500 - 999
An interesting thought exercise to get at the issue of whether one is complying out of concern for risk mitigation toward others vs. out of a belief in following rules for its own sake:

1.) What if nothing changes in the current situation except that pre-flight testing requirements are abolished? Not unlike when a Judge overturned a CDC requirement for masks here not long ago. Perhaps the CDC recommends everyone get tested, but it is no longer required. If you are basically feeling okay and due to depart from your foreign destination back to the U.S. tomorrow, will you get a COVID-19 antigen screening test today for the sake of others even when you are not required to do so? If positive, you will be turned away from the flight and face whatever quarantine measures are currently in place now.

If you would get tested even when not required were our situation otherwise unchanged, putting yourself at risk of major trip disruption, extended stay and added cost, then you are acting out of concern for others.

If you would not get tested, and think that's quite alright as long as there's no rule mandating it (even though the real work situations on which the rules are based hasn't changed at all), then your practice has other roots.

The issue of whether, when and to what extent it is morally obligatory to follow rules just because they're rules is one I doubt everyone agree on, and I'm not 'voting' as to which side is right. Just exploring what drives decisions to aid understanding.
 

tursiops

Marine Scientist and Master Instructor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Messages
14,199
Reaction score
12,927
Location
U.S. East Coast
# of dives
2500 - 4999
An interesting thought exercise to get at the issue of whether one is complying out of concern for risk mitigation toward others vs. out of a belief in following rules for its own sake:
Local observation: masks are no longer required locally in supermarkets, hardware stores, etc. But most seem to still wear them. Notable exceptions -- no masks -- are older guys and younger guys.
The issue of whether, when and to what extent it is morally obligatory to follow rules just because they're rules is one I doubt everyone agree on, and I'm not 'voting' as to which side is right. Just exploring what drives decisions to aid understanding.
If someone doesn't want to follow the rules, that is their decision. But perhaps they should also be willing to take the criticism, any penalties, and in general the consequences of that decision.
 

NW Dive Dawg

Pacific Northwest Dive Dawg
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
335
Reaction score
395
Location
Puget Sound, WA
# of dives
I just don't log dives
This is exactly why it's wise to bring your own "self" tests (which we did) that are easy and light to pack... Even though the self tests are not an accepted test when it comes to the government law / requirements, it's well worth the few bucks to at least know what your self test results are. Our self tests seem to me to be basically the exact same test as the online proctored we had to do going into the BVI's.

When we first left on this last trip on a Thursday night red eye from Seattle to Miami.....wife and I both did self tests that afternoon knowing that if either came out pos that there was basically no point in even driving to the airport. Did the same thing on the return but the day before travel back to STT. Came out neg.....but we all did go out to the bar that last evening on Tortola so I guess we could have been infected there...even after the self test and the doctor test...

Hell.... for all I know I have COVID right now and just don't know it..
 

Centrals

Contributor
Messages
12,362
Reaction score
4,856
Location
Hong Kong
# of dives
I can see they require a negative test from country of origin to enter, I can’t find any requirements to leave. Do you have a link? Seems illogical they would want to keep positive people in their country. Be interesting to read the logic. Singapore doesn’t require one , they are relying on you to follow the rules of your destination.

RT-PCR+ Antigen(not required by HK but for additional safety measure for PAL)


Going to china and Macau.
 

Lorenzoid

ScubaBoard Supporter
Staff member
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
8,470
Location
USA
# of dives
I just don't log dives
What if nothing changes in the current situation except that pre-flight testing requirements are abolished? Not unlike when a Judge overturned a CDC requirement for masks here not long ago. Perhaps the CDC recommends everyone get tested, but it is no longer required. If you are basically feeling okay and due to depart from your foreign destination back to the U.S. tomorrow, will you get a COVID-19 antigen screening test today for the sake of others even when you are not required to do so? If positive, you will be turned away from the flight and face whatever quarantine measures are currently in place now.

If you would get tested even when not required were our situation otherwise unchanged, putting yourself at risk of major trip disruption, extended stay and added cost, then you are acting out of concern for others.

If you would not get tested, and think that's quite alright as long as there's no rule mandating it (even though the real work situations on which the rules are based hasn't changed at all), then your practice has other roots.
It could be a bit of both. I would like to do my part to protect others by getting tested, but if I start thinking that other people are not interested in protecting me by getting tested, and if the consequences of a positive test are being turned away from my flight, I might just say f___ it and not get tested before my flight.
 

Top Bottom