What we will do is follow any prevailing rules.
I think everyone is OK with that as a plan, and I generally agree with your concerns. What we need, then, is a *clear and explicit* description of whatever rules will be in place, long before the fact, so we can make informed decisions, pro or con, as to whether it is either safe enough or unrestricted enough to make such a trip worth the (extreme) effort.
But going to all the effort to get there, then finding it to be an unacceptable or unworkable plan, maybe announced at the pilot's meeting, is far, far too late.
In any case, it is *not your problem* if someone gets sick, as long as they have accepted a risk. There is an *extremely high* likelihood that doing this, will, in fact, result in someone getting exposed and maybe sick from it. No solution will be entirely free of risk, you might have someone who gets it at the gas station on the way out of town to get there. Every single NATS(and all other human endeavor) has accepted some risk of something similar or worse - infectious disease was not invented 2 months ago, this isn't even wildly out of the ordinary (aside from the reaction to it), or the most frightening (polio), or the most likely (a car crash on the way to or from).
If someone is not willing to accept that risk, or you and the AMA aren't willing to face any risk at all, call it off right now, because "no risk" is not one of the options, any more than any other year.
Don't get me wrong, there is a real risk, higher-than-normal, and if that is unacceptable, we should not proceed. If it will only go on with elaborate work-arounds, then let us know in time to make a decision one way or another.
Brett