This is a continent sized country with states larger than most individual countries. Day to day life in the largest and densest economic centers follows decent distancing measures and lockdown restrictions.
Maybe in your country - in my country we don't even know if people will be able to visit their parents on Christmas day.
And the meeting the author wanted to attend was several years ago, so it's not like he has anything vital to do in the US any more. Why go to the hassle when the US will be there in a year or two anyway?
1. you might need to wait for results for 4-5 days, while most destinations require taking it at most 72 hours before the arrival
2. if you turn out to be asymptomatic, but test positive, then you instantly get into at least 10 day quarantine (you cannot take tests anonymously). You have no time to cancel your travel plans.
Also, if you choose not do do it, but instead take test at your destination, you might get stuck in quarantine in the foreign country
So I would never travel to a country that requires tests. Only those which require just written statement, or location form, and maybe temperature check.
It is easy to get in this circumstance in the US, it is also easy to not get in this circumstance in the US.
Huge range of service level. Money helps!
Its not that the consensus doesn't have its merits sometimes, it is just a unique position to be in where the infinite resources and infrastructure are available.
Personally I wouldn't take a transatlantic flight at the moment simply because I don't want to be infected on the flight itself.
I haven't seen any figures for flight infection risk, so I'm left with intuition. And my intuition says it's a small metal box with recirculating air, filled densely with people for 8+ hours, almost all of whom have not met before and won't meet again.
I wouldn't mix with people like that on the ground at the moment even with the windows open, so I'm not enthused about doing it in the air.
I personally think about the viral load, which I think isn't well researched.
My intuition is that the measures currently in play help reduce the viral load well enough. Flight attendants are decently vigilant about enforcing mask wearing or have been enough so that the threat of them enforcing it is real enough, even with the glaring exceptions for food service.
So that means exposure is likely, but too much exposure is mitigated in a variety of ways. If you want to totally avoid exposure at all, you should not fly, just as it has been.
If you want to take your chance, and focus more so on not spreading it further, trying to help keep your local R0 below 1, then I think it this is very practical.
With the "of course" I am wondering if people are really concerned about being "COVID shamed"?
Aren't we at "rapid test and move on"? As in, take a test one to two days before you board a flight, take a test during or after your trip? Results in 18 - 48 hours? It is a far cry from the mess of unavailable tests and the infinite delays if you managed to get a test that was occurring back in Spring and Summer.
And no, some false negatives aren't a rebuttal. All public policy measures are to get the R0 below 1 on average. The rapid tests in conjunction with the already existing measures are good enough for that. All we are doing here is skipping the need for 14 day quarantines on arrival.
Granted, he is 50, and is more likely to consider himself an at risk group. I was still wondering what he really thinks.
It really depends on what you are optimizing for. If you are optimizing more for not getting it, nothing has changed. If you are optimizing more for not spreading it, a lot has changed.