However the stuff about cargo being included is really odd. As if he was freestyling rather than reading.
Other than that; I fail to see the point of this. There is already community spread in the US and the UK. The ban seems arbitrary and politicized.
Or as if he had problems reading, which we know he likely has.
Normally I would take "midnight on Friday" as an instant to mean 2400, since if you're somewhere at 1am on Saturday morning you wouldn't consider it a problem to say "we were out partying on Friday night", but if you were there at 11pm on Friday night you would consider it a problem to say "we were out partying on Saturday night.
However in the particular case of something beginning, I would normally take take it to mean "the very start of Friday according to legal time".
Likewise, in the particular case of something ending, I would normally take it to mean "the very end of Friday according to legal time".
For those that live in the US and de-boarded because of this "missing detail", I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two they don't feel like they dodged a massive bullet.
I'm guessing you didn't mean this to be a double negative? In other words:
> I would be surprised if in a week or two they feel like they dodged a massive bullet
but I suspect you meant the opposite?
Even in formal writing, double negatives are common using “nor”. Consider the sentence, “He is not satisfied at all with the recommendations of Mr. Trump, nor with those of Mrs. Clinton.” If you change “nor” to “or”, the meaning remains identical. This shows the negative “nor” reiterates rather inverts the prior negation. Note the “nor” version is no less formal or professional in tone because of its double negative.
Negative concord even has precedent in Shakespeare: “I never was, nor never will be” from Richard III.
Most would suggest avoiding negative concord in a formal writing (excepting “nor”), but colloquially it’s been part of the language for hundreds of years. In a conversational context, the line you quoted is standard English with or without the “don’t”.
Most people would just accept it as getting confused about the number of negatives in a sentence - as indeed did the op.
Not everything is simply informal grammar; real fleshy human beings do get confused when they try complicated sentences like double negatives.
You have a misplaced trust in your instincts. The following examples of this exact double-negative construction (“...wouldn’t be surprised if ... didn’t...”) are quoted from newspapers and BBC specials:
> But the seeds have been sown and I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't try, once she's feeling more confident herself, to persuade him into the deep end.
> "I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see there are a couple of days with some good news and very, very positive market news," Houge said, noting potential days of 10 percent spikes.
> "I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't lose $157,000 in taxes," Van Tuinen said.
> It was late, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't leave some of his audience back down the road somewhere impaled on point number 10 or 11.
Here’s a quote of John F. Kennedy using this construction in a recorded interview:
> President Kennedy: That's what I think. I would have been impeached. I think they would have moved to impeach. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't move to impeach right after this election, on the grounds that I said … and didn't do it … and let … I mean, I'd be …
I Googled these examples in five seconds. You could have too, but instead you chose to lob insults and embarrass yourself.
Let it stand as a reminder of how good we have it, and how fragile things actually are. It's a pandemic. There's going to be some bumps.
Also, 4 hour turnaround testing is really hard and I don't know of anywhere other than South Korea has managed it. They basically have to process the tests on site after collecting samples to achieve that, which is no easy feat as it requires not only specialised equipment and trained staff but also a carefully set up positive pressure room to prevent sample contamination. Plus, one of the key things that makes South Korea's approach so effective is that people drive up, get a sample taken, then immediately drive home to avoid spreading the disease to anyone else rather than waiting around for results.
I haven't even seen any examples of countries with substantial travel from Europe that routinely test people who've been there recently and developed mild potential symptoms. South Korea probably could but I haven't seen any confirmation that they do; they mostly seem to be focused on contact tracing and the large local outbreak. The UK and Europe don't. Maybe China does? Again, the American media has been running stories making it sound like the fact the US isn't testing everyone with a cough and a sniffle puts them massively behind the rest of the world and confusing people about what the rest of the world is actually doing.
>Nearly 20,000 people are being tested every day for coronavirus in South Korea, more people per capita than anywhere else in the world.
>The whole process from test tube to test result is about five to six hours.
The only meaningful way I can imagine (not doable in practice) is having travelers lodged at a departure airport hotel, and be tested before taking the flight.
Air recilculated on the airplane goes through a HEPA filter and the whole air is exchanged every 3 minutes. HEPA filters are able to catch the virus as far as I know.
source: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/630300-coved-19-recircul...
But I guess the ethical will follow the rules and be uncomfortable, and the unethical won't, as per standard operating procedure.
On Edit: Why the downvote?
At least I work from home and my wife has been told they have to start wfh tomorrow.
Just because nobody's being tested in the US, doesn't mean nobody's infected; there are unquestionably tens of thousands of undiagnosed cases.