Re: [113attendees] queries about daily PCR test

["Scheffenegger, Richard" <[e-mail]>]

Well, yes. But actually, for entering with only 2 stabs, you still need
the PCR test within 72 hours of travel - while being more relaxed (270
vs 180 days) from when the 2nd shot was taken.

The gist of it is, that 3 shots (with certification) is much less hassle.

(BTW: PCR tests are free in the city of vienna, and results are
typically delivered within 6-9 hours after dropping of the sample at
many drugstores or supermarkets. The city of vienna performs more daily
PCR tests, than the whole of germany... Just shy of 1 mio tests/day in a
~2 mio citizen city. There are also on-site PCR labs at the airport, for
testing after arrival, afaik - but I don't know if these services are
free of charge, and timely.

Also, the testing regime is very low entry (gargling a saline solution
for 5 min, with or without video proof - depending if you need an
"official" or an "inoffical" test result). Tests are being picked up
2-4x per day from the drop-off locations and results are electronically
delivered (sms, email link to secure 2FA site).



Am 03.02.2022 um 17:14 schrieb Alexandre Petrescu:
>
>
> Le 03/02/2022 à 16:44, Scheffenegger, Richard a écrit :
>>
>> IIRC, the austrian government currently accepts 2-shots as fully
>> vaccinated up to 180 days after the 2nd shot;
>
> The 180 sounds reasonable (6 month).
>
> But for entering the country, the site still says 270 days (9 month).
> https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-information/entry-regulations
>
>
> To me this represents a problem, but sorry I will not insist.
>
> And yes, things change a lot.  There is a direction of change that could
> be discussed: there is potential that end of March will be very
> different than now.  Some things are likely to happen, based on our
> common experience in last 2 years.
>
> As we approach end of March meeting week the covid rules will freeze,
> and our ability to change the plan will also diminish.
>
> Alex
>
>   after that time period,
>> 3-shots are considered fully vaccinated.
>>
>> There are different time-frames relevant, if you have been natuarally
>> vaccinated, and given a single booster shot (possibly also depending
>> on the ordering).
>>
>>
>> To complicate things: fully vaccinated - but only with 2 shots (or one
>> natural + one shot) need a current PCR test when entering the country
>> (probably only seriously checked on non-EU arrivals -
>> flights arriving within the EU get the passengers routed slightly
>> different through the airport).
>>
>> If you have been boostered (3 shots), no current PCR test is necessary
>> when entering the country.
>>
>> In short: the most save bet, with little to no restrictions (by the
>> time the IETF will happen) is to have been vaccinated 3 (or more)
>> times with one (or more) of the EU-recognized vaccination medications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 03.02.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Alexandre Petrescu:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 03/02/2022 à 00:34, Alexa Morris a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this. Yes, the situation is changing rapidly (which
>>>> is one of the reasons we moved from attempting to paraphrase the
>>>>  requirements to referring directly to the authoritative websites).
>>>> We've added a new statement to the top of the FAQ. Also, fwiw,
>>>> anyone who registers as an onsite participant is required to
>>>> acknowledge two new statements, which are:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I confirm that I am fully vaccinated with a vaccine from the WHO
>>>> Emergency Use List.
>>>
>>> 'Fully vaccinated' could be nuanced, or clarified, in order to avoid
>>> situations that recently proved to make little sense.
>>>
>>> Some time 'fully vaccinated' meant '2-shot', later on it meant
>>> '3-shot', and later called 'fully vaccinated and boosted'.
>>>
>>> When the term 'fully vaccinated and boosted' came about, the 'fully
>>> vaccinated' became not enough.
>>>
>>> Add to that the difficulty of equating 'infection + recovered == 1
>>> dose of vaccine', and the difficulty of interpreting the dose of the
>>> one-dose vaccine.
>>>
>>> A better possibility could be to say 'vaccinated or recovered in last
>>> X months'.  That X should be 4, as far as I know.
>>>
>>> (the 'full vaccination' referred originally to the 3-week separated
>>> initial 2 doses of mRNA, Pfizer in particular.  The 'full
>>> vaccination' has nothing to do with the number of months after the
>>> vaccination.  And it is known that the vaccine effectiveness vanes a
>>> few months after.  It makes that me 'full vaccinated' in July 2021
>>> means nothing about my status in March 2022.)
>>>
>>> (the EMA on Feb. 2nd called 'primary vaccination' series and 'one
>>> booster', what appears to me clearly to be 'fully vaccinated' and
>>> 'one booster'; they called a 4th dose a 'secondary booster'; EMA
>>> waits more data before advising a 4th dose; that answer might arrive
>>> long before MArch 2022; that might lead to some people to _need_ a
>>> 4th dose, or not. at that point, again, a statement of being
>>> vaccinated in last X months would make again more sense than simply
>>> 'fully vaccinated').
>>>
>>> (the Pfizer and Moderna seem to be clinically testing
>>> omicron-specific vaccines with results soon; that again will bring
>>> back the question of what it means 'fully vaccinated).
>>>
>>> Finally, vaccination and recovery not representing any guarantee
>>> of not spreading or not catching covid, one could also declare
>>> something like this:
>>>
>>> 1.5 To the best of declarant's knowledge (PCR or auto-test
>>> results) the declarant is not carrying covid.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>> 2. I will take necessary precautions while attending IETF 113,
>>>> including complying with all COVID-related requirements that apply
>>>> to the event venue or that are otherwise communicated to
>>>> me by the IETF. While taking such precautions may reduce risk,
>>>> any in person participation includes possible exposure to, and
>>>> illness from, infectious diseases. By choosing to attend IETF
>>>> 113 in person, I knowingly and freely assume all such risks
>>>> related to illness and infectious diseases, such as COVID, even
>>>> if arising from the negligence or fault of the IETF LLC, or its
>>>> agents or partners. Further, I waive and release IETF LLC, and its
>>>> contractors, agents and partners from and against claims arising
>>>> from injury, loss, sickness or death from contraction or spread of
>>>> COVID or other communicable disease due to travel to
>>>> or attendance at an event hosted by the IETF.
>>>>
>>>> We've now added this information to the FAQ as well so that people
>>>> can review it prior to registering as an onsite participant.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Alexa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 2, 2022, at 11:55 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]
>>>>>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 13:29 -0800 Alexa Morris
>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Michael Richardson
>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jay Daley <[e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Good to know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked a friend who is visiting there now, and he
>>>>>>>>> says that the gargle test is:  a) accepted by airlines
>>>>>>>>> for travel. b) valid for returning/re-entering to
>>>>>>>>> Canada.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (He is there, has to wait two weeks to become negative again
>>>>>>>>> before returning to Canada)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It certainly sounds far more pleasant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for finding that out Michael.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As John Scrubber wrote to me privately,  it may be that the
>>>>>>> paperwork associated with the tests we receive will not cut
>>>>>>> mustard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, my friend says that he travelled just fine on the test
>>>>>>> that is widely available in Vienna.  I'm just asking that we find
>>>>>>> out officially...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have staff traveling to Vienna later this week for a
>>>>>> pre-meeting visit. We should know more by next week, and
>>>>>> will update the online FAQ accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexa,
>>>>>
>>>>> While I think the information Michael provided is useful and that
>>>>> whatever your staff figures out will be even more so (and
>>>>> definitely worth incorporating into the FAQ), I think it is
>>>>> important to keep in mind that things continue to change. sometimes
>>>>> on short notice.  Picking three non-European countries more or less
>>>>> at random, a test that does not meet Canada's standards for
>>>>> returning nationals today might meet those of some of the US,
>>>>> Japan, or Australia.  If there is enough research to indicate
>>>>> reliability of the Austrian tests or paperwork, the latter three
>>>>> might consider them acceptable by March 25.  On the other hand, if
>>>>> the research goes the
>>>>> other way, all of those countries (and others) might consider
>>>>> that test and documentation unacceptable by the third week in
>>>>> March... and perhaps, by then, Austria might have changed its own
>>>>> testing and/or documentation rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I think several of the comments that have been made in the
>>>>> last few weeks add up to this, I don't think it has been said
>>>>> explicitly: Things change.  The pandemic ebbs and flows, the
>>>>> science develops, and governments change their minds and rules.
>>>>> While I think it is safe to guess that countries that are requiring
>>>>> vaccines of certain varieties will not cease requiring them in the
>>>>> next six or seven weeks, the lists of acceptable vaccines may get
>>>>> longer, and testing and quarantine requirements (both for entry
>>>>> into Austria and, probably more important, for returning home to
>>>>> wherever "home" is) may
>>>>> change in either direction based on perceptions of risk or
>>>>> changes in politics ... and, in a nightmare scenario, might
>>>>> even change between when people arrive in Vienna and when they
>>>>> try to return home.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way that I can imagine for the Secretariat (or the LLC
>>>>> or other leadership bodies) to make guarantees now about what the
>>>>> conditions will be in mid-March and especially not about what the
>>>>> many countries IETF participants come from will encounter when they
>>>>> try to return home.   The quality of information will probably get
>>>>> progressively better in the next six weeks, but, still no guarantees.
>>>>>
>>>>> With regard to the particular question of this thread, I note that
>>>>> the current last question in the FAQ is about sharing of results
>>>>> and their form, but, unless you propose to track, publish, and
>>>>> regularly update the return requirements for
>>>>> every country from which people might come, you are not going
>>>>> to answer the question. Personally, I think not answering it
>>>>> is reasonable -- people need to take some responsibility for making
>>>>> queries to their own national authorities and may be much more
>>>>> likely than non-residents to get straight answers about what might
>>>>> change and what considerations they might get if they do (noting
>>>>> that many countries have different requirements for returning
>>>>> residents or citizens than they
>>>>> have for other travelers).
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that questions continue to be asked that sound (at least to
>>>>> me) to be about what guarantees the IETF is making, it may be time
>>>>> to attach a disclaimer to the FAQ (and perhaps even to notes sent
>>>>> out in an "official" capacity) that indicates that "updated
>>>>> frequently" and "current process" are not guarantees of what the
>>>>> situation may be immediately before, during, or immediately after
>>>>> the meeting.   Of course, if I took a flight to an IETF meeting a
>>>>> few years ago and the plane fell out of the sky, I wouldn't expect
>>>>> the IETF to compensate my survivors for that, but the perceptions
>>>>> about this seem to be somewhat different even if the circumstances
>>>>> associated with any last-minute changes are not much more under the
>>>>> IETF's control.
>>>>>
>>>>> best, john
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 113attendees mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>