What to do if you test positive before flying home?

[ReefHound]

If you want a negative result to go home and not want to deal with managing a positive result, then always choose the more specific test to minimize the amount of false positives. If you want a positive result to avoid missing a case and the consequences of a false negative result, then always choose the more sensitive test.

The antigen test leans towards false negatives. To get an accurate result, they advise you not to eat or drink or brush your teeth a few hours before your test. Think about it. They are telling you how to get a negative test.

 

[Outbound]

Whether we agree with it or not, the government has the obligation to do what it can to protect everyone from COVID whether they choose to be vaccinated or not. If I were king I would mandate that everyone get vaccinated who doesn't have a medical reason why they shouldn't, and I would scale up vaccine production to the point where we could vaccinate the rest of the world. That would make COVID testing on Cozumel before returning to the US unnecessary, but as long as this wave of cases continues I don't see the policy changing.

Intellectually, I agree with you completely. My sister is an epidemiologist and we discuss this all the time. Publicly, she toes the line. Privately, we rail against those too selfish to see that we all sink or swim together.

 

[ReefHound]

Intellectually, I agree with you completely. My sister is an epidemiologist and we discuss this all the time. Publicly, she toes the line. Privately, we rail against those too selfish to see that we all sink or swim together.

If they want to reach more of the unvaccinated they (the medical experts and authorities) are going to need a different approach. The harder they push, the more push back they will get. So far, their idea of "let's all work together" is "we dictate, you obey". They refuse to take questions about certain things. They have been asked many times about the protection level of recovered immunity and refuse to directly answer it. They refuse to address concerns seriously. Instead of mandates and threats and such, maybe they could try saying "what is holding you back and what would you need to hear to change your mind?"

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Delete

 

[greeniguana]

Instead of mandates and threats and such, maybe they could try saying "what is holding you back and what would you need to hear to change your mind?"

Many of these same people would rather eat horse deworming paste they bought on Amazon than get a covid vaccine. Rational thought and intelligent discussions might be tough.

 

[ggunn]

Intellectually, I agree with you completely. My sister is an epidemiologist and we discuss this all the time. Publicly, she toes the line. Privately, we rail against those too selfish to see that we all sink or swim together.

The virus is the true enemy, and those who refuse to be vaccinated are not merely neutral in the fight, they have joined the other side.

 

[cozcharlie]

Keep in mind that as more people get vaccinated it is only natural that we will see higher numbers of breakthrough infections. Theoretically, if we had a population that was 100% vaccinated, then 100% of the cases would be breakthrough cases, because the vaccine is not 100% effective.

What annoys me is the rule requiring a negative test before re-entry into the US. This is especially galling for vaccinated people. Why? Because the message has been that the vaccines, while not 100% effective, are highly effective at protecting against severe disease, hospitalization, and death. The public health message has shifted -- correctly, I think -- away from "you will be highly protected from disease" to "vaccines are doing their job because you will be highly protected against hospitalization and death." If that is the message, then what is the harm in letting vaccinated people who test positive on vacation return to the States? They might transmit COVID to others, but those people will either be vaccinated or will not. If vaccinated, they will in turn be highly protected against both disease and especially against severe disease and hospitalization. Again, this is the supposed goal of the vaccination campaign. If the returning traveler spreads COVID to a non-vaccinated person, then -- with the notable exception of children under the age of 12 -- so what? I hate to say this, but by this point vaccines have been widely available to anyone who wants one in the US. So if you haven't gotten yours yet, that's your problem.

Yeah, I get that it's a larger public health issue, but it's still annoying that a vaccinated American traveler might face the possibility (however low) of having to incur additional expense and problems if he/she tests positive before their scheduled return home, all because we want to stem the spread of COVID to a population who thus far hasn't done a single thing to protect themselves or their larger communities.

I don’t know about other people, but I am just fine if they keep people with Covid off the plane. I wish they did it in both directions. Most of those studies about planes being pretty safe were with earlier less contagious variants. And yes if does matter if I get COVID 19, I am around children to young to be vaccinated and and others with weaker immune systems (not to mention I basically got no obvious immune response to my vaccines so I am likely to be higher risk than other vaccinated people , also my second shot was more than 6 months ago )

That VA data with really high percentages is misleading at best. They seem to be including all of the cases since the beginning of the pandemic , most of which occurred before there was a vaccine available to the general population so of course the people getting sick were unvaccinated. The bulk of those numbers also would have been prior variants which vaccines (if available at the time) were more effective against. One piece of relevant data for the current delta variant is the percentage of vaccinated individuals being admitted to hospitals on a daily basis relative to total Covid admissions. This is then compared to the vaccinated /unvaccinated for the general population. It is probably something like vaccinated are 5-10 percent of daily admissions and 50 percent of the population. Still a strong reason to get a vaccine , but not some 99 percent stat. Some people avoid this statistic because in a fully vaccinated population 100 percent of Covid patients would have been vaccinated (but presumably with a low absolute number of admissions). We are far from having that misleading statistical problem now.

 

[cvchief]

I always go with MiB, individuals are smart, people are dumb.

Vaccination need to be an appealing option, beyond just you know less dying and hospitals. Way less doesn't sink in. (So you are saying I still could die?)

Got a vax card, you don't have to get a test to fly home. People might like that.

 

[cvchief]

It is probably something like vaccinated are 5-10 percent of daily admissions and 50 percent of the population. Still a strong reason to get a vaccine , but not some 99 percent stat. Some people avoid this statistic because in a fully vaccinated population 100 percent of Covid patients would have been vaccinated (but presumably with a low absolute number of admissions). We are far from having that misleading statistical problem now.

Well, I have to wonder if you cut out the prior infections, what the stats look like. Vax vs unvaxxed no prior infection. AND prior infection and vaxxed. Thats seems to be a new super thing.

And this is a fine example. Its maybe 'only' 90 or 95% effective, not that 99%.

If I could go to the track and 'only' win 95% of the time right?

For me winning 90 or 99 percent of the time is the same fantastic.

 

[Outbound]

If they want to reach more of the unvaccinated they (the medical experts and authorities) are going to need a different approach. The harder they push, the more push back they will get. So far, their idea of "let's all work together" is "we dictate, you obey". They refuse to take questions about certain things. They have been asked many times about the protection level of recovered immunity and refuse to directly answer it. They refuse to address concerns seriously. Instead of mandates and threats and such, maybe they could try saying "what is holding you back and what would you need to hear to change your mind?"

I strongly disagree. Public health authorities have answered all questions to the best of their ability given the data at hand. Remember, this is a novel virus. We don't know how long natural infection confers immunity because we've only been in this pandemic for a year and a half and because we have multiple variants which have circulated in that time. We do know, however, that people who were infected with COVID should still get a vaccine for greater protection. There have been no vaccine mandates, at least not from the government. Although the government has the authority to do so if necessary (look up the Jacobson decision). Some people might be swayed by full FDA approval, so hopefully that comes soon. But for those who say this vaccine is still experimental, etc., that's just wrong. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been given these vaccines, and they are safe and effective. The side effects are generally minor, and even the more serious ones are incredibly, incredibly rare.

The main problem is that, for a sizable percent of the population, there is no amount of data, information, or assuaging that will convince them to get a vaccine. These are folks who do not want to wear masks, do not want to social distance, do not want to get vaccinated, and want to pretend that the whole pandemic is just a hoax and not nearly as bad as people say. Until they land in the hospital on a ventilator. Then they have a change of heart and say that they wish they had gotten vaccinated.