Is it possible to travel responsibly (during a pandemic)?

[formernuke]

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole 34 pages of drivel so far, can someone summarize the consensus on the OPs actual question plz withput any patronizing or pontificating

Consensus is well not existent. Most say no but it's close.

 

[EdC]

Actually they said 40% of all US adults are struggling with mental health in some form AND 11% of all US adults are seriously thinking about suicide. It's not 11% of 40%. So that's 132 million struggling with mental health or substance abuse issues, and 36 million seriously thinking about suicide, double the 2019 statistics.

This mental health crisis is media inflicted, turn of the TV is the cure.

 

[drrich2]

Yesterday my wife was at Walgreens picking up a prescription for me, and the pharmacist was trying to convince an old guy to go ahead and get his COVID-19 shot, as the pharmacist had some doses that were about to expire and he'd have to throw them out.

My wife, who otherwise wouldn't have been eligible, got her 1st Moderna injection as a result! This in KY; from what I've read, how authorities demand vaccine doses be used in such scenarios varies by state. I asked Jami if they scheduled her for a second dose; she said no, the pharmacist told her call him when it got close to time.

Thing is, even one dose can provide serious protection, and getting that 2nd dose a few weeks late doesn't seem to be a problem (aside from delaying full strength response till after you do).

So, if you're not eligible but happen to be in a pharmacy, you might strike up a conversation about how the vaccination effort is going. In some places, people wait for yours to get a shot. In some others...you might get lucky.

 

[Dan]

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole 34 pages of drivel so far, can someone summarize the consensus on the OPs actual question plz withput any patronizing or pontificating

If you travel now, you are irresponsible idiot like me.

 

[100days-a-year]

If you travel now, you are irresponsible idiot like me.

Well, I am from Texas originally.
Being in Florida, not much has stopped here. Curious how many people have traveled from closed down states to vaca here. Quite a few have moved here too.

 

[tursiops]

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole 34 pages of drivel so far, can someone summarize the consensus on the OPs actual question plz withput any patronizing or pontificating

No, not in such a way that it would change your mind. So I won't bother.

 

[Jackie Treehorn]

Yesterday my wife was at Walgreens picking up a prescription for me, and the pharmacist was trying to convince an old guy to go ahead and get his COVID-19 shot, as the pharmacist had some doses that were about to expire and he'd have to throw them out.

My wife, who otherwise wouldn't have been eligible, got her 1st Moderna injection as a result! This in KY; from what I've read, how authorities demand vaccine doses be used in such scenarios varies by state. I asked Jami if they scheduled her for a second dose; she said no, the pharmacist told her call him when it got close to time.

Thing is, even one dose can provide serious protection, and getting that 2nd dose a few weeks late doesn't seem to be a problem (aside from delaying full strength response till after you do).

So, if you're not eligible but happen to be in a pharmacy, you might strike up a conversation about how the vaccination effort is going. In some places, people wait for yours to get a shot. In some others...you might get lucky.

Yeah... Google "vaccine hunters". It's pretty cool.

If you don't fit the criteria to get the shot, but have the time to wait/stalk hoping to grab a dose before it expires.... sounds like a win/win to me!

 

[drrich2]

...can someone summarize the consensus on the OPs actual question plz withput any patronizing or pontificating

COVID-19 is widespread and there is risk of contracting it wherever you go. Some dive destinations appear to have better public adherence to recommended risk mitigation strategies such as wearing masks, but travel often entails some unavoidable risk escalation such as while in aircraft.

Fastidious attention to risk mitigation, frequent testing and self-quarantine while at risk for having been exposed can reduce risk of spreading the virus to others a great deal...but not to zero.

Vaccination appears to reduce but not eliminate risk of carrying and transmitting it to others.

While that's true when you go out to Walmart or the grocery store, traveling for vacation is seen by some as non-essential and some might argue not worth the risk, if only to others.

Since the risk of moving viral variants potentially at risk for vaccine resistance between distant locations is a factor, this could spread resistant strains to infect, injure and kill more people.

The more the virus spreads and the more people it infects, the greater the risk it will mutate into a worse strain. Travel is seen as adding opportunities for that.

The absolute risk for an individual seems low with mitigation strategies, but if thousands do it, the cumulative risk might be serious. The adage - 'No single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood' comes to mind.

The ethical issue is you're putting other people's lives in danger. The counter argument is we do that every time we drive, outside the pandemic we could acquire and spread strains of the flu that could injure and kill people, and we don't normally live lives committed to maximum risk mitigation.

A secondary issue is the need for service providers to have customers come do business. The health of businesses and economies is important, just as the health of individuals and groups is important.

So, where do you draw the line between excessively risking the lives of others for self-indulgence vs. getting out and enjoying life responsibly but not excessively inhibited while contributing to the economic well-being of others?

We don't all agree and have spent around 35 pages drawing different lines.

Did I miss anything?

 

[tursiops]

COVID-19 is widespread and there is risk of contracting it wherever you go. Some dive destinations appear to have better public adherence to recommended risk mitigation strategies such as wearing masks, but travel often entails some unavoidable risk escalation such as while in aircraft.

Fastidious attention to risk mitigation, frequent testing and self-quarantine while at risk for having been exposed can reduce risk of spreading the virus to others a great deal...but not to zero.

Vaccination appears to reduce but not eliminate risk of carrying and transmitting it to others.

While that's true when you go out to Walmart or the grocery store, traveling for vacation is seen by some as non-essential and some might argue not worth the risk, if only to others.

Since the risk of moving viral variants potentially at risk for vaccine resistance between distant locations is a factor, this could spread resistant strains to infect, injure and kill more people.

The more the virus spreads and the more people it infects, the greater the risk it will mutate into a worse strain. Travel is seen as adding opportunities for that.

The absolute risk for an individual seems low with mitigation strategies, but if thousands do it, the cumulative risk might be serious. The adage - 'No single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood' comes to mind.

The ethical issue is you're putting other people's lives in danger. The counter argument is we do that every time we drive, outside the pandemic we could acquire and spread strains of the flu that could injure and kill people, and we don't normally live lives committed to maximum risk mitigation.

A secondary issue is the need for service providers to have customers come do business. The health of businesses and economies is important, just as the health of individuals and groups is important.

So, where do you draw the line between excessively risking the lives of others for self-indulgence vs. getting out and enjoying life responsibly but not excessively inhibited while contributing to the economic well-being of others?

We don't all agree and have spent around 35 pages drawing different lines.

Did I miss anything?

Good job summarizing the parts that are not alternative facts and wild conjectures.

 

[100days-a-year]

COVID-19 is widespread and there is risk of contracting it wherever you go. Some dive destinations appear to have better public adherence to recommended risk mitigation strategies such as wearing masks, but travel often entails some unavoidable risk escalation such as while in aircraft.

Fastidious attention to risk mitigation, frequent testing and self-quarantine while at risk for having been exposed can reduce risk of spreading the virus to others a great deal...but not to zero.

Vaccination appears to reduce but not eliminate risk of carrying and transmitting it to others.

While that's true when you go out to Walmart or the grocery store, traveling for vacation is seen by some as non-essential and some might argue not worth the risk, if only to others.

Since the risk of moving viral variants potentially at risk for vaccine resistance between distant locations is a factor, this could spread resistant strains to infect, injure and kill more people.

The more the virus spreads and the more people it infects, the greater the risk it will mutate into a worse strain. Travel is seen as adding opportunities for that.

The absolute risk for an individual seems low with mitigation strategies, but if thousands do it, the cumulative risk might be serious. The adage - 'No single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood' comes to mind.

The ethical issue is you're putting other people's lives in danger. The counter argument is we do that every time we drive, outside the pandemic we could acquire and spread strains of the flu that could injure and kill people, and we don't normally live lives committed to maximum risk mitigation.

A secondary issue is the need for service providers to have customers come do business. The health of businesses and economies is important, just as the health of individuals and groups is important.

So, where do you draw the line between excessively risking the lives of others for self-indulgence vs. getting out and enjoying life responsibly but not excessively inhibited while contributing to the economic well-being of others?

We don't all agree and have spent around 35 pages drawing different lines.

Did I miss anything?

Sweet, thanks. That seems a nice summation of valid concerns.
After the first couple pages I just got sick of condescension, patronizing, passive aggressive bents and logical fallacies.