Aspen City Council to require negative COVID test within 72 hours prior to visit

Breaking news via Unofficial Networks: Link

Your thoughts?

Geez. Those negatively tested folks could pick it up five minutes after testing. A negative test does nothing to protect anyone. Not one thing.

Sorry Aspen, just suck it up like the rest of us have to. 

All the testing locations are COVID hotspots.  If anything, this likely to increase exposure to the county IMO.

People will test negative, and pick it up at the facility just to bring it to Pitkin County.

Politicians...

imagine if aspen required a negative cocaine test within 72 hours...  that would be something!

Going to aspen.  ISO/WTB negative test certificate.   Please private message.

The tests are wildly erratic too don't forget 

Oh yea, the thousands of people arriving in Aspen to ski will surely head to straight the clinic, instead of to the slopes. Where is the eye roll emoji?

Yup, they officially did it. I wonder what discriminatory impact this has on travelers.

https://covid19.pitkincounty.com/travel-affidavit/

Old lady H wrote:

Geez. Those negatively tested folks could pick it up five minutes after testing. A negative test does nothing to protect anyone. Not one thing.

Sorry Aspen, just suck it up like the rest of us have to. 

I can’t agree with you fully in this.

Sure, a negative test ONLY means that you had undetectable viral load in the swab/saliva at the time the sample was taken. You might get tested, and infected the next day.

But, from epidemiology point of view, which scenario is safer: 1) you are in the presence of 10 people, all of whom tested negative in the past 72 hrs; or 2) you are in the presence of 10people, status unknown?

Scenario 1 is unquestionably safer. Not 100% safe, but definitely safer.

My workplace tests every employee that comes to campus weekly. Back in the summer they only had capacity to test 10% of the workers randomly, every week. They have been increasing the number of tests, and Around Thanksgiving they ramped up to test everyone.

Our workplace positivity rate has remained steady at 1.6-1.7% of tests (1.66% the week after thanksgiving), while the surrounding counties, where people think work here live, have steadily grown to as high as 24% positivity rate. 

So yes, frequent repeated testing of people who don’t have symptoms absolutely helps to curb the spread.

Now, legally, I have no idea where Aspen stands. And the safest thing to do, still, is NOT to travel to Aspen. But given that people ARE traveling to Aspen, and Aspen WANTS them to come... requiring negative test will keep everyone safer. 

Okay, say you carry COVID into Aspen.  Three days later you get tested.  So how many people have you contacted in those three days?  Pointless requirement.

John Penca wrote:

Okay, say you carry COVID into Aspen.  Three days later you get tested.  So how many people have you contacted in those three days?  Pointless requirement.

The difference is, you are talking about individuals, and I am talking about groups and statistics.

But even in your example, think of it this way: 

scenario 1: you are infectious, and blithely going about, infecting however many people you might infect, who then dodo go out to infect others.

Scenario 2: you went for testing, even though you felt fine, was tested positive, and are now quarantined. The people who came in close contact with you are also now notified/quarantined/getting tested. 

The total number of people infected in the 2nd scenario is going to be lower. In both cases there will be some individuals infected. But from the POV of the city/community, situation #2 is better. 

Todd Berlier wrote:

From the article, "You will be required to sign a legal document confirming that you have received a negative COVID-19 test no more than 72hrs prior to arriving in Pitkin County (the county which Aspen resides)." 

Oopsie.  The thread title led me to think the test was required 72 hours after arrival.

I really look forward to the time when our already militarized police randomly stop us on the street and ask to see our papers.

But the Left is back in charge now, so this newfound infringement will be gleefully accepted by all. 

On a side note, how will proof of being vaccinated be done? Anybody seen the beta?

I'm sure Aspen's small businesses don't care about the loss of tourist dollars this will cause. Who needs tourists, spending a bunch of money in their town?

"Papers, please."

Edit: Will there be public health officials or police officers asking random people on their streets for documentation? How will they know if people are travelers? Go to the motels?  Out of state license plates? This is scary and probably unconstitutional.

Are they requiring town residents to provide documentation? What if a resident is the real spreader?

I'm just sad Hunter S. Thompson isn't around to chime in on this one....

FrankPS wrote:

I'm sure Aspen's small businesses don't care about the loss of tourist dollars this will cause. Who needs tourists, spending a bunch of money in their town?

"Papers, please."

Edit: Will there be public health officials or police officers asking random people on their streets for documentation? How will they know if people are travelers? Go to the motels?  Out of state license plates? This is scary and probably unconstitutional.

Are they requiring town residents to provide documentation? What if a resident is the real spreader?

How do you know that this will result in the net DECREASE of visitors, and a loss of the tourist dollars?

Maybe it will be the opposite, for every person who tested positive and cancelled the trip, and every person who decided that they will not go to Aspen on principle, because “papers, please”, there will be two people who were not going to go, but now decided to go, because they feel safer?

If I had to choose how to find/screen visitors efficiently, I would probably focus on the areas where most visitors actually go. I’m guessing it would be something skiing-related, but hard to tell... let me do some research to find out why majority people travel to Aspen this time of the year... it might be the beaches?

The point of this requirement is obviously to increase voluntary testing, and not to catch every single guy who decided to defy the orders. Many people are already voluntarily testing and/or isolating before and after going on a trip. This rule will increase the number of people who do, and decrease the number of visitors who are infectious. It is not going to eliminate the spread, or prevent the local residents from being a super-spreader, but it will keep the infections lower.  

Lena chita wrote:

How do you know that this will result in the net DECREASE of visitors, and a loss of the tourist dollars?

Maybe it will be the opposite, for every person who tested positive and cancelled the trip, and every person who decided that they will not go to Aspen on principle, because “papers, please”, there will be two people who were not going to go, but now decided to go, because they feel safer?

If I had to choose how to find/screen visitors efficiently, I would probably focus on the areas where most visitors actually go. I’m guessing it would be somethy visiing skiing-related, but hard to tell... let me do some research to find out why majority people travel to Aspen this time of the year... it might be the beaches?

The point of this requirement is obviously to increase voluntary testing, and not to catch every single guy who decided to defy the orders. Many people are already voluntarily testing and/or isolating before and after going on a trip. This rule will increase the number of people who do, and decrease the number of visitors who are infectious. It is not going to eliminate the spread, or prevent the local residents from being a super-spreader, but it will keep the infections lower.  

We could have the ski operators checking papers before they sell lift tickets. Why not set up roadblocks into town, checking papers? And check at the airport. 

And more intense lockdowns. Require residents to show papers before entering a grocery store. Let's get serious about stopping the spread, right? If we really care about stopping the spread, why only visitors? Let's stop being half-assed about this. (this is all sarcasm, of course)

Maine did the same this summer and it helped. The only enforcement was the hotel and rental people requiring the test results before checking in. I heard few complaints, especially after everyone thought the summer was going to be a tourist free bust.

Todd Berlier wrote:

I am so sick and tired of the man telling me how to live my life. this all started when we allowed speed limits to be posted. should have had a tea party then. now we are 3/4 of the way down the slippery slope to martial law. plus, now we know the supreme court is part of the pedophile cabal...all is lost.

Don't bother responding. Ill be moving to Idaho to join a militia that knows what real America is! 

Traffic lights are tyranny. 

Without them, would you just yell 'Tally Ho!' and floor it through the intersection? 

Have you ever just sat at a red light at 3 in the morning with zero traffic anywhere and remained compliant and obedient through the cycle?

When a municipality decides to examine installing traffic circles instead of traffic lights, the issue of where the lost revenue will be made up from is always part of the discussion process. Same with removing cameras. 

Claudine Longet wrote:

Have you ever just sat at a red light at 3 in the morning with zero traffic anywhere and remained compliant and obedient through the cycle?

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Reactions in this threads go a long way in explaining how is the US one of the worst country in terms of pandemic management... Sure an inept initial response haven't helped, but at some point individuals need to step up. At the very least, it's not happening here....