negative testing

The local Costalegre Facebook pages have been alive with speculation about Canada's new rule, effective 7 January, requiring international passengers to show proof of a negative coronavirus test within three days of flying.

The questions were to be expected. How much would the test cost? Where could the test be obtained? Would any particular certificate be required? How would the time frames to be measured?

After a lot of Facebook guessing, the Canadian government clarified all the questions. And, as most of us anticipated, our area could easily meet the requirements. Despite what some people seem to think, the area is not a technological backwater.

Test results could be obtained at my pal Beny's lab for 1500 pesos. The results would be available within two hours. And, best of all, the certificate she would issue would be acceptable to The Powers That Be.

With a little bit of planning, fliers would have what they need to board a jet plane to Canada -- until the government changes its requirements, of course.

As an American, I always enjoy watching these foreign bureaucratic requirements work their way across the stage of reality. It is just the opposite of schadenfreude.

But I am glad I paid attention because I am now in the same airplane with the Canadians. Yesterday the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that effective 26 January all international passengers boarding flights to the United States will be required to provide proof of a negative viral test before boarding their flight. The requirement appears to be almost identical to the Canadian restriction.

Mexico has announced that it is not currently considering a similar requirement of international passengers headed to Mexico. That, of course, can change in the future.

This seems to be a very easy requirement to meet. Tests are readily available at a moment's notice for $75 (US). My problem, in the past, has been trip planning. During the past five months, my flights north to deal with family matters often did not give me three-days notice to fly. That urgency is now over. I hope.

Will the restrictions help quell the infection? I am not qualified to answer that question. Everyone can come up with criticisms concerning weaknesses in the program. They are rather obvious. Interestingly, a lot of those reasons are simply reprises of the same arguments that airport security is nothing more than street theater. But we manage to deal with that without dwelling on it.

This restriction seems to have some utility. There is no doubt that the virus has spread through people going about their daily duties. The milkman delivering his bottles. The long-haul trucker bringing groceries to the supermarket. The international banker flying to parts afar to ensure the stability of your investments.

Because we need people to travel to supply the needs of our lives, restricting people from boarding an aircraft who have tested positive for the disease will at least present a modicum of forestalling some infection. It cleverly balances two simultaneous social needs.

For that reason alone, this strikes me as a rather good idea that does not add much to the cost of flying. 

My current schedule has me returning to Oregon in mid-March. When I check in, I will have Beny's negative test in hand. And I will be on my masked and socially-distanced way.