U.S. State Department says Do Not Travel to 150 countries

Do Not Travel is advisory, we can still travel to one of these countries.

Many insurance policies won't support travel to 'do not travel' and there may be work medical coverage ramifications as well. And often these are due to countries with 'essential travel' only restrictions. Of course, those looking to disregard - will.

At least Liberia is still safe (2)

My approach to travel has always been information-based and cautious - never one of disregard. But the obviously incomplete and inconsistent information that we are now receiving has eroded my natural instinct to rely on the advice of the officials and experts. All of them said the solution was vaccination - so I listened and was one of the first to get in line. But this State Dept. list entirely ignores the clear health advantages that the vaccinated have over the unvaccinated. Irrespective of my location on the planet, am I now NOT vastly more safe from Covid infection and its deadly effects than I was before? And why are we being left with the decision of which government officials to trust? Even within the same agency, the messaging is a mess. The OP's linked article mentions the CDC...

Earlier this month, the CDC said fully vaccinated people could safely
travel within the United States at “low risk,” but its director,
Rochelle Walensky, discouraged Americans from doing so because of high
coronavirus cases nationwide.

I see.

The Covid concerns that give Germany it's Level 4 status are accompanied by a "terrorism" warning.

Do not travel to Germany due to COVID-19. Exercise increased caution
in Germany due to terrorism.

When you go to the details of this page, you find some paragraphs from 8 months ago about "conspiracy theories" and protests that cause "disruption and possible violence" in Germany and other nearby countries in Western Europe as a result of the antifa and BLM movements. Sounds like home. Mention was also made of April 1 security problems at the US embassy in Berlin. So for travelers, is this warning about travel to Germany on the basis of German "terrorism" more or less dangerous than these movements and similar security problems back home? If I'm supposed to just travel domestically, why? Shouldn't I be just as worried about travel safety within my own country's borders?

I might stop asking questions once the messages start to make sense, but until then, it's "question authority."

I don't know what kind of slogan it would take for Americans to understand that the world is still in a pandemic, most people are still unvaccinated and, irrespective of their lucky position, they may want to hold off a while before mixing it up with the world's (and domestic) unvaccinated folks or areas that are genuinely struggling to get things under control. Everyone is still focused on "I" and not everyone else...give them a chance to catch up, it's only polite. Or if you decide to go anyway, then be genuinely flexible and understanding that you're not going to have the same trip as pre-pandemic because many people are dealing with more important things right now. Duh.

So why are we now allowed to travel domestically? Guess US is all Level 1

(Are you kidding me LOL!)

I have traveled to Mexico recently so I went and reviewed the insurance policy I had. The "fear factor" listing posted by the "look we are doing something" government agency would not have had any impact on the policy coverage.

By the way, the listing is NOT just based on Covid. It also "considers" your personal safety risk (And we all know all the rest of the world is SO MUCH more dangerous than the US, after all they have mass shootings all over Europe weekly right?? LOL!)

@Carol, my comment about insurance wasn't meant to be 'fear factoring'...but a reminder to 'do your due diligence and know the impact'...because, for some travelers, it can be a make or break situation. Also a reminder, some travelers may have more responsibilities than retired folk.
I fully expect insurance to adapt their policies to include covid, BUT you want to read the fine print to determine it covers the travel scenerios you intend to be involved in...including travel to countries advised against. Not all policies are created equal...
....and not everyone considers the impact for work extended benefit coverage.
Each to their own.

Looking through the other end of the telescope, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office advises against all but essential travel to the whole of the US based on the current assessment of COVID-19 risks (although at present it is illegal to travel abroad anywhere from the UK for holidays).

Other sections:

Protests are commonplace across the USA, some of which can become
violent. If you do attend any peaceful protests, you should be mindful
of your surroundings, move away if there are signs of trouble, and
follow the instructions of local authorities.

Terrorists are very likely to try to carry out attacks in the USA.
Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places visited by
foreigners. You should monitor media reports and remain vigilant at
all times.

Violent crime, including gun crime, rarely involves tourists, but you
should take care when travelling in unfamiliar areas. Avoid walking
through less travelled areas alone, especially at night.

Look at the bright side......while the State Department is warning us about going to most western countries by putting them at Level 4, we can all go to Rwanda or Zimbabwe since both are at Level 2.

Sure, let's make fun of Rwanda, even though they appear to punch above their weight...
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/07/15/889802561/a-covid-19-success-story-in-rwanda-free-testing-robot-caregivers

Any insinuation by anyone on this forum that they know more about what is best for the people of another country, than they, themselves do, indicates that they are blatantly irresponsible. If a country like Croatia or Iceland established rules that by the mere fact of the publication of those rule, encourages tourism then it must be assumed those rules are predicated upon circumstance, known to the people and governments of those countries, that have led the governments to establish those rules.

Stay home if thats what you feel best for your health or safety, and that is valid and requires no defense; but don't imagine you are doing it for the welfare of the citizens of those countries, because in fact you probably aren't.

Different possible reasons for State Dept "Do Not Travel" advisories. One is that is may not be safe to travel in the designated country. Another is that the designated country may not be accepting Americans. For example:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/new-zealand-travel-advisory.html

Reconsider travel to New Zealand without prior authorization from the
New Zealand government. Entry restrictions are in place to prevent the
introduction and spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand.

I wonder what level a lot of mainstream European travel destinations were over the past 20 years. Have a lot of European countries been a 2 or 3 for a long time, or was everything a 1, until recently?

US government warnings/restrictions on Americans traveling abroad inherently focus on the well-being of "I" - the American traveler. Their purpose is not to protect Europe's citizens from traveling Americans and other foreigners; Europe's citizens are protected from inbound foreign travelers by their own European restrictions on inbound travel. It is these European restrictions that give Europeans a "chance to catch up."

I am pretty certain that Europe's rules for outbound European travelers (to the USA or Canada for example) will not be guided by a concern for the health impact on Americans or Canadians of said travel - but rather by a concern for what happens to the European traveler and to the European public when that European traveler comes back home.

Our distinct governments have distinct constituencies, as they should.

Once governments in Europe start relaxing restrictions on inbound foreigners - as Greece plans to do 3 weeks from now - I plan to make travel vs. not travel decisions as before, not as moral decisions or as matters of "health courtesy." I plan to behave as a courteous tourist, as I always do, but I will leave European health decisions to the Europeans and their duly-elected governments.

@Russ - I agree with you. Personally, I don't think public health related policies are in the purview of the State Department, but (as an aside) many people complained about the lack of alignment between (travel-related) government directives coming from different agencies. More people are familiar with State Department warnings than the CDC (which, prior to this, I bet many haven't heard of before). I think this is an attempt to unify messaging and send a stronger signal. My comment was that no matter what government signal people get, it will go over their head and they'll figure out how to discount it or pick it apart. Their view is very much centered in what's going on the the US, their own state and locality, and how the travel industry is or isn't catering to their needs. If they're vaccinated or their life is pretty much unencumbered and normal, they assume the rest of the world should be back to normal too.

Just felt a need to clarify how to read these advisories after seeing Russ's response. I spend a lot of time reading them in a normal year for work, apologies if this is pedantic!

More than one reason to proceed with caution can be listed for a country, and each has its accompanying "risk level" that you can see based on the language used. So for the example of Germany, covid-19 is the reason that elicited a level 4 "Do not travel," whereas the terrorism threat is listed as "increased caution," which corresponds to level 2.

However, that threat is not listed as being related to "antifa and BLM." It's listed as a more generalized warning seen below:

Credible information indicates terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Europe. European governments are taking action to guard against terrorist attacks; however, all European countries remain potentially vulnerable to attacks from transnational terrorist organizations.

I'm wondering if what the Russ was seeing was a past demonstration alert instead of the explanation of the terrorism threat issue. The alerts tend to be for more specific events (although I've been looking in various parts of the site and so far have only found specific demonstration references to lockdown protests). The possibility of protests shows up often in advisories or in alerts as a "demonstration alert," but they aren't the same thing as terrorism, and that's an important distinction in my mind.

Amy's quoted passage on terrorism demonstrates how vague and non-specific the terrorism warning in Europe (and in Germany) actually is. That's because actual acts of terrorism tend to be so scarce and extremely small-scale. Rumors can result in a Level 2 terrorism warning. So why is "terrorism" flashed boldly on the same page right next to the Covid Level-4 "Do Not Travel" warning? Because sadly, our government's messaging is so inconsistent and confusing that the average Joe needs a primer on reading State Department alerts. They seem to be just fine with this kind of sensationalism - and any reader looking to justify a heightened terrorism alert - or looking for actual evidence that Germany has had any recent terrorism problems at all - will not easily find the tiny number of isolated incidents that might be loosely terror-related. All they will come up with are those protests mentioned.

The bad messaging almost seems intentional. If the Covid Level 4 warning isn't enough to deter travel on the part of Americans who have developed a resistance to Covid warnings, then keep 'em home by invoking the prospect of terrorism??

I agree with James.

Please remember that what the State Department has put out are "Advisories." Not rules, not laws.

ad·vi·so·ry
/ədˈvīzərē/

adjective:
having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them.
"an independent advisory committee"

noun:
an official announcement, typically a warning about bad weather conditions.
"a frost advisory"

Cyn, I remember two years ago when France was 3 because of terrorism and Uzbekistan was 2.

I don’t know, but sometimes the travel advisories in these times might be about the beds/ ICU units/health care available for travelers with non-covid illness.

The CBS Thursday Evening News reported this situation about the 150 countries, and said that just a week ago, only 30 countries had that rating. Now 80% of the world is “don’t go there.” The suggestion was this development was due to Covid-19 issues in those 150 countries.

As Frank Ii said, this can all change in the blink of an eye. List could be reduced, or maybe increased. Hopefully it will be the former.

I refer to myself in the first person plural.

Agnes' observation was brilliant:

My comment was that no matter what government signal people get, it will go over their head and they'll figure out how to discount it or pick it apart. Their view is very much centered in what's going on the the US, their own state and locality, and how the travel industry is or isn't catering to their needs.

There's a lot of perhaps purposeful misreading of what is actually in these official pronouncements, versus third-party interpretations.
Reading deeper into things than social media, what has changed is the State Department has decided to give medical and public health issues a higher value in the system of evaluating threats. The Alert Level system, which was developed in the days when everyone considered terrorism the number one threat, is intended to cover several areas of potential problems. So the boilerplate language is broad enough to cover multiple areas. But that doesn't meant that any new terrorism threat is behind this current alert.

The State department is required as part of their mission too make these assessments, and since they also have a mission to assist US travelers abroad its very pertinent to their business to discourage travel that may impact their operations. As grmurphy astutely observed, part of medical intelligence is an assessment of the availability and quality of medical support abroad, not your personal vaccination status. The public health business has to be conservative by design, to be protective, not reactive. The impacts of Alerts on insurance, business travel, and inter-government travel are significant, and make it not a capricious decision just to impact impatient tourists. And most of those countries dont want us right now anyway.

I see it continues.....

Those who are against travel will spin information in their favor.

Those who are pro travel will spin information in their favor.

The smart ones ignore both and make their own decisions. They use real information, not opinion on a travel board or items from social media.

This is the same as every issue out there.....two sides who both think they are right and the other is wrong.

When I post information, I check the source and then double check to find it somewhere else. If all I can get is someone's personal website with information, I tend to ignore it until I can get either official word or information from a reputable news source. I may not like what I'm reading but at least I know it's as close to the truth as we are going to get.

I gave up for the most part on the numbers game. Talk about political. Now we are encouraging people to have death certificates "revised". It comes down to to three factors. 1) does the country accept tourists? Simple, Yes or No. 2) Do I personally feel safe being one of those tourists? Yes or No. and 3) Do I think I will enjoy the trip? Yes or No. Three Yes' and I go. Of course I will be mindful of the rules, regulations, and conditions.

Yes, I suppose there is subjectivity in those questions, but its subjectivity imposed upon myself and not telegraphed to anyone else, nor is it judgment of anyone else either through word or virtue signaling. I respect everyone's decision to choose for themselves; they neither need nor do they deserve judgment from me or anyone else. Nor do I.

As for the State Department rankings. No matter how they do it someone will know better and be critical. They are what they are, deal with it. But would be nice if it is about COVID that the publish the bench marks. At least people would understand that, and still probably disagree. What is the definition of "safe"?

As for the State Department rankings. No matter how they do it someone will know better and be critical. They are what they are, deal with it. But would be nice if it is about COVID that the publish the bench marks. At least people would understand that, and still probably disagree. What is the definition of "safe"?

The State Department Advisories do cite the CDC’s travel advisory level for each country. If you go to this CDC website, they show you the metrics that are used to determine the level.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/how-level-is-determined.html

Just an aside …. we traveled through Australia a couple years coming back from NZ - at the airport in Sydney the Australian government had a travel advisory against the US due to all the gun violence. The advisory didn't say they Australian citizens couldn't travel to the US but they strongly advised against it. Made me think perception is everything. Not sure this really fits in this thread but it popped into my mind reading through all the comments.

Maybe one should review the definition of “Pandemic”?
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/#:~:text=A%20pandemic%20is%20defined%20as,are%20not%20considered%20pandemics.

Laura, that's excellent. Thank you. I stand corrected. Maybe the state department should reference back to the CDC and state that their rank is based on the CDC rank .... or maybe they do and I just missed it. Since they have one rank for vaccinated and unvaccinated travel, I guess it's safe to assume the risk is equal for both. Also good to know.

Also of interest is the CDC has a lower concern for traveling to Michigan (about the worst state right now) than they do to Israel (among the best of countries right now) Facinating.

Maybe the state department should reference back to the CDC and state that their rank is based on the CDC rank

I don’t think it is so cut and dried. For example, CDC assigns a level 1 to New Zealand but the State Department has a level 3 which seems to derive from the current entry restrictions. So practically, many countries are going to be at least a 3 because we can’t travel to them. Here is what the State Dept site says about New Zealand:

New Zealand - Level 3: Reconsider Travel. Reconsider travel to New Zealand without prior authorization from the New Zealand government. Entry restrictions are in place to prevent the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand. Read the Department of State’s COVID-19 page before you plan any international travel. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a Level 1 Travel Health Notice for New Zealand due to COVID-19, indicating a low level of COVID-19 in the country.

So while the CDC levels have defined metrics, the criteria for theState Dept levels are less transparent.

U.S. Gov’t. employees are sworn to defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That presumably includes microscopic enemies. But we’re relying on governments of foreign locations to allow us to visit their countries. So there is an impact from the government, one way or another, but advisories are one thing, refusals another. In the near term, we may be relying on medical testing workers more than government employees. I guess we’ve been reliant on rank-and-file people all along - runway workers, electricians keeping the power going at airports, those who fuel trains, cleaning crews who change the sheets, the gelato scooper ...

If the metrics used in the travel advisory scale are not transparent, then it becomes less trustworthy based on our cultural characteristics. In its current form, this scale means very little to me.

I agree Laura - I live in NZ - and I can assure you that unless you are a citizen or permanent resident you won't be allowed to board a flight for NZ without a special visa. You won't get that visa unless you have a VERY good reason - dying relatives aren't a very good reason, being a medical professional with a job offer will probably get you one. WE are closed to tourism from the US

what is druk asia?

It's called a spam posting and it has been reported.