Jump to content

Travel during the continuing PANDEMIC


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rich Pulman said:

So if a drunk motorist, driving alone, makes it to their destination without happening to hurt/kill anyone, there wasn’t any risk and that makes it okay?

What if Bob had an accident during his drive home? What if he needed medical attention for other reasons during his quarantine period? There are hundreds of reasons why Bob could be forced out of his quarantine quarters and into close contact with others despite his best efforts & intentions. So if Bob makes it through his quarantine period as planned, there wasn’t any risk and that makes it okay?

Please tell me your question was rhetorical.

Your first sentence makes no sense to me. Clearly, there is an acknowledged risk to driving and doing so while impaired enhances that risk.

My postulate was that Bob arrived at his place of quarantine and remained there throughout. I acknowledge that if Bob experienced a medical emergency, others would then be exposed to Bob but you assume that notwithstanding his negative pcr tests, Bob poses more of a risk to those emergency providers that do they to him. I don't think that conclusion can be rationally justified.

 

Existence carries risk. Clearly, I do not share the same perspective as you and a number of others on this forum. I don't have a problem with that divergence.

Honestly, I do not know which route is best followed to achieve the best interests of society as a whole. I emphasize....not the best interests of classes of individuals but rather society as a whole.

You and many others on this forum apparently share the opinion that society is best served by limiting the movement of all and by express prohibition, depend upon compliance.

I point out that the existence of prohibitions simply affords a measure by which to determine non-compliance; a reality which cannot be ignored. Limit highway speed to 100 kmh and you will have 40% non-compliance. Increase the limit to 110 kmh and non-compliance drops to 30%. Why? Answer is because of the individual's "comfort level".

So let's return to "lockdowns". If you explain to everyone that to reduce the risk of infection, every member of a community must engage in certain behaviour such as wearing a mask and maintaining distance, what percentage will comply? Community spread of Covid has, from the beginning been recognized as the primary generator of infection.

Please note that the prohibition of non-essential travel was a later addition.

And explain to me why those engaged in "essential travel" such as persons engaged in construction trades or Olympic athletes are any less of a threat to society than Joe Blow who is compliant with all existing rules and engages in "travel for pleasure".

Again....I emphasize...I do not profess to know( or even have an idea) as to which road is best followed but I suspect that those who are "certain" as to the route truthfully have no better idea than me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

And explain to me why those engaged in "essential travel" such as persons engaged in construction trades or Olympic athletes are any less of a threat to society than Joe Blow who is compliant with all existing rules and engages in "travel for pleasure".

You didn't ask me, but for what it's worth I think that encouraging Olympic athletes to travel while demonizing snowbirds or others who travel carefully and observe all necessary precautions during their trips is ludicrous.

Are those who travel for essential reasons at equally high risk of spreading covid as those who travel for leisure?  Probably, but if their travel is essential society seems willing to accept the risk they pose.  Many people aren't willing to accept the same risk from people who don't need to travel but who do it anyway.

 

Edited by FA@AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if those that travel, do so knowing they can get vaccinated earlier than they can in Canada, thereby lessening the risk of infection, on top of the testing and quarantining that they are subject to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FA@AC said:

You didn't ask me, but for what it's worth I think that encouraging Olympic athletes to travel while demonizing snowbirds or others who travel carefully and observe all necessary precautions during their trips is ludicrous.

Are those who travel for essential reasons at equally high risk of spreading covid as those who travel for leisure?  Probably, but if their travel is essential society seems willing to accept the risk they pose.  Many people aren't willing to accept the same risk from people who don't need to travel but who do it anyway.

 

FA....first to your point. I agree that many people are opposed to travel though reluctantly accepting the necessity of some based upon purpose. However, I believe that much of that opposition is premised upon acceptance of published opinion that is not scientifically warranted.

Story after story reports how Canadians are exploiting "loopholes" by entering via land but make no mention of the prior testing requirements; border testing; quarantine; and, further testing. 

The fact is that a significant percentage of Canadians rely wholly upon news reports and friends for their "world vision" without critical analysis or a search for balance.

That said....reportedly, 73% of Canadians support travel by persons vaccinated as established by a vaccine passport.

To ST's point.....in my community, persons over 75 have received one dose and are awaiting a second ( the delay notwithstanding Pfizer's recommendations). Native persons, regardless of age and whether or not residing on a reserve are eligible for both doses upon proof of band membership. That has generated "some" resentment given the efforts of local bands to limit industrial activity and "assume" ownership of vast swaths of land.

If a Canadian qualifies for US vaccination, travel for that purpose should be considered essential to the health and safety of the individual and his/her community.

I can't post the link but an article in the WSJ today contains a statistical analysis of covid cases in support of the argument that "lockdowns" don't generate worthwhile results; workers are safer at work than remaining at home because of community spread secondary to socializing and safety protocols now in the workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UpperDeck said:

 

The fact is that a significant percentage of Canadians rely wholly upon news reports and friends for their "world vision" without critical analysis or a search for balance.

 

I nominate for post of the year, couldn't agree more.

While I do not post much anymore, I am in your corner UD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know most won't agree with me but here goes!

I believe that this whole affair has been blown totally out of proportion worldwide but particularly in Canada. It is in Justin Trudeau's best interest to keep the (taxpayer bought) media spotlight on lockdowns, fear mongering, travel restrictions, Covid hotels, vaccines etc.

He has completely messed this up and yes, I blame him and him alone. He's the leader and for once he should actually be held accountable.

The other reason(s) is when the media circus winds down and eventually it will, the Liberals will have to face the myriad scandals that continue to pile up and honestly I think he's been given the light touch. This government, without doubt is the most corrupt AND incompetent that Canada has ever had.

Flame away

Edited by Maverick
grammar
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tango Foxtrot said:

Brought to you by the leader of the 

"Flu Clux Clan "

 

 You sure you're not from Alberta? 

Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in agreement with your comments J.O. but one decision that this government made pre-COVID-19 has turned out to be very short-sighted; namely the evisceration of Public Health Agency of Canada's Global Public Health Intelligence Network. Their primary focus was pandemic surveillance and risk assessment. Their alert system has subsequently re-started, albeit after the proverbial horse has left the barn 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-what-happened-with-canadas-pandemic-alert-system-the-gphin/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JO....I have been and no doubt remain on the other side of the fence from you on this issue....and no doubt more but despite my disagreement, I intend no disrespect when I suggest that your opinions about the sincere intent of politicians....to me....are unrealistically kind and overly optimistic.

I don't have any idea about the nature and extent of your political participation although your comment about Trump might suggest that you are of a "Liberal" leaning.

I was both peripherally and directly involved with politics and politicians for about 15 years from the municipal to the federal level as an assistant; fund raiser; and, elected rep.

Collectively....politicians are NOT an altruistic crowd driven by the desire to advance the interests of the public. Power....obtaining and sustaining...is the driving force.

Decisions are often driven by pollsters; sociologists; and, psychologists.

Assume "we" need to account for the inadequacy of a vaccination program. How best to persuade the electorate that "we" have their best interests at heart? Call in  those manipulation experts....trained in how best to control and "persuade" the multitudes.

This is a science...political science advanced to the nth degree.

In the US...they're pulling them in off the streets to get vaccinated. Providers are being compelled to return unused vaccines....and yet in Canada, health "experts" are justifying a 4 month spread in doses and only a small percentage of Canadian have even received one shot.

I'm sorry, JO. Your sentiments are beyond reproach but I don't think that anyone should be " picking up what you're putting down".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau makes a rule and like most things the rule re International arrivals is full of holes.

 

Hundreds of private flights from international destinations have landed at airports across Canada despite federal rules directing commercial and business air travellers to four main cities where a quarantine hotel system is in place. 

A CBC News analysis of data from Feb. 22 to April 26 provided by flight tracking company FlightAware reveals 884 private flights from international destinations to a random sampling of nine airports that don't have quarantine hotels, including in Hamilton, Ottawa, London, Ont., Kelowna, B.C., St. John's and Edmonton.

The aircraft captured in the data include luxury and executive private jets, recreational aircraft and helicopters. That data does not contain any information about passengers, including the number of people on board.

Under rules introduced by the federal government on Feb. 22, all incoming international air travel is supposed to be directed through Toronto, Calgary, Montreal or Vancouver. The measure was put in place to control the spread of variants of the novel coronavirus. 

"If you're going to have a system in place that necessitates quarantining upon return from travel, it can't be sort of a two-tier system where some individuals get to bypass that system by virtue of whatever means of travel they're taking," said Dr. Leighanne Parkes, an infectious diseases specialist and medical microbiologist at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal.

more: Private international flights landing at smaller Canadian airports despite federal pandemic rules | CBC News

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

I don't have any idea about the nature and extent of your political participation although your comment about Trump might suggest that you are of a "Liberal" leaning

 Quoting one of my favorite politicians ever... "Yeah he's a good man" ?

 

 Had the thought today, a lot of the rules regarding travel right now, are very comparable to taking the captains toenail clippers away from him ?  ?

20210513_184420.jpg

Edited by Tango Foxtrot
Added image
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Re above 

Shades of the last Episode of Chicago Med......Patient with acute pain in lower right quadrant  who believed the pain was from a RED pill he took as he felt it was the only way he could escape this computer generated world and see reality.

Docs figured appendicitis but he totally refused treatment..so long story short he was tricked into surgery ,survived but was so freaked out that he did not fulfill his dream to get out of this world and see the real world that he devastated........ Probably a Republican 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2021 at 8:50 PM, UpperDeck said:

JO....I have been and no doubt remain on the other side of the fence from you on this issue....and no doubt more but despite my disagreement, I intend no disrespect when I suggest that your opinions about the sincere intent of politicians....to me....are unrealistically kind and overly optimistic.

I don't have any idea about the nature and extent of your political participation although your comment about Trump might suggest that you are of a "Liberal" leaning.

I was both peripherally and directly involved with politics and politicians for about 15 years from the municipal to the federal level as an assistant; fund raiser; and, elected rep.

Collectively....politicians are NOT an altruistic crowd driven by the desire to advance the interests of the public. Power....obtaining and sustaining...is the driving force.

Decisions are often driven by pollsters; sociologists; and, psychologists.

Assume "we" need to account for the inadequacy of a vaccination program. How best to persuade the electorate that "we" have their best interests at heart? Call in  those manipulation experts....trained in how best to control and "persuade" the multitudes.

This is a science...political science advanced to the nth degree.

In the US...they're pulling them in off the streets to get vaccinated. Providers are being compelled to return unused vaccines....and yet in Canada, health "experts" are justifying a 4 month spread in doses and only a small percentage of Canadian have even received one shot.

I'm sorry, JO. Your sentiments are beyond reproach but I don't think that anyone should be " picking up what you're putting down".

I really dislike JT but it's pretty easy to see that the countries (US & UK as examples) that have recovered the quickest also had the ability to manufacture large quantities of vaccines. The UK avoided a 3rd wave and is opening up now by jabbing everyone with Oxford developed Astra Zeneca despite B117 originating in there.

JT inherited that lack of internal capability because various Conservative and Liberal governments in the last 25 years removed the incentives to keep the capabilities here. The stimulus that the aerospace industry receives would be an example of the incentives to stay here. Canada instead is more well known as a manufacturer of generic drugs which isn't helping us right now. 

PS I dislike JT.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Canada’s Big Airlines Cut Enough Flights During The Pandemic?

by

Jake Hardiman

May 14, 2021

 

One of the most conspicuous impacts of the coronavirus on aviation has been its decimation of flight schedules. The last year or so has seen widespread cancellations due to the restrictions and drops in demand brought about by the pandemic. However, the question has recently arisen as to whether Canadian carriers should have cut even more flights.

Porter Airlines Chair Donald Carty believes that Canada’s larger carriers should have made more cuts.     Photo: Vincenzo Pace | Simple Flying

Not enough cancellations?

In an interview with Bloomberg, Donald Carty recently revealed that he believes Canada’s larger airlines could have cut more flights last year. Carty, who is the Chair of Canadian regional carrier Porter Airlines, argued that the likes of Air Canada and WestJet “probably flew more than made economic sense” at the peak of the crisis last year.

His position is based on the fact that a lack of initial government support meant that the flights that did operate couldn’t always cover their costs. He explained to Bloomberg that:

“My bet would be, if you talk to the CEO at Air Canada and the CEO at WestJet, (…) they might have been better off to ground more flights. (…) They’ve been flying around with airplanes that are far from full, and not sufficiently full to pay for the operation.“

Carty argues that carriers may have flown more than made sense.

A contrasting approach to the US

Regarding the recovery of commercial aviation in the country, Carty contrasted Canada’s approach with that of the neighboring US. He added that:

“The US government took the approach that they didn’t want the airlines laying off any employees, so they offered the airlines financial support. And in return, the airlines agreed to no layoffs. So an awful lot of the money the US airlines got flowed directly to the employees. And once the employees were locked in, they became a fixed cost for the airline.”

However, with the Canadian government not having offered such widespread and instant support. This forced the country’s airlines to ground flights, and, in turn, to make job layoffs. The difficulty is finding the right balance in terms of keeping as many employees onboard as possible while only operating flights that sufficiently cover their costs

WestJet, the second-largest Canadian airline, laid off an additional 400 pilot jobs just over a month ago. Photo: Vincenzo Pace | Simple Flying

Porter isn’t currently flying

While Mr Carty has accused Canadian carriers of not cutting enough flights, this certainly can’t be said for his own airline. Indeed, in March 2020, Porter decided to temporarily suspend its operations on a company-wide scale. Carty told Bloomberg that:

“We decided that, as the border was closed, access to Atlantic Canada was closed, and many of our other short haul flights had driving as an alternative, we needed to preserve this airline, for our team members and our guests to come back to. And so we grounded the entire airline.”

Multiple delays to Porter’s resumption

The plan was that this suspension would last three months. However, as the pandemic has progressed, Porter has rescheduled its resumption several times. For now, it is aiming to lift off once again in June, 15 months after the initial suspension. Carty added:

 

“We are in talks, as other airlines have been with the government, around how the government can help airlines get back on their feet. And I have no doubt Porter will be back on its feet, as soon as we see the traffic strengthen in Canada. And we’re hoping that the summer will be that time.”

 

It will be interesting to see how commercial aviation’s recovery pans out in Canada, particularly as we enter the traditionally busy summer period. Of course, business travel will likely recover much slower. As such, it will be key that airlines can take advantage of the pent-up demand for leisure travel, which may lead to a boom on holiday routes.

 

Do you agree with Mr Carty’s sentiments that Canadian carriers would have been better off canceling more flights at the peak of the coronavirus pandemic? How do you foresee Canadian aviation’s recovery panning out? Let us know your thoughts and predictions in the comments.

Did Canada's Big Airlines Cut Enough Flights During The Pandemic? - Simple Flying

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

“We decided that, as the border was closed, access to Atlantic Canada was closed, and many of our other short haul flights had driving as an alternative, we needed to preserve this airline, for our team members and our guests to come back to. And so we grounded the entire airline.”

Is he saying that the border was closed to Porter due to no US custom screening or preclearance at the Island?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. lawmaker who has made a political crusade out of getting the border with Canada reopened is once again pressing his case with U.S. President Joe Biden.

New York Rep. Brian Higgins has written to Biden again, this time to argue that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control is proving his point.

Yesterday, the CDC declared that fully vaccinated people need no longer wear face masks in nearly all situations, including indoors.

Opening the border is again in the news, the major problem that I see is how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?  In other words identify those who are fully vaccinated from those who merely claim to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kargokings said:

Opening the border is again in the news, the major problem that I see is how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?  In other words identify those who are fully vaccinated from those who merely claim to be?

I firmly believe that significant consequences.....real hurt.....must be experienced by offenders to effect change in behaviour.

For example... seize and forfeit motor vehicles operated by impaired drivers.

In the past, it was felt that "short & sharp" sentences for younger offenders had a more beneficial impact than standard " release with a promise". That meant a week or two in jail instead of 6 month probation.

So also with those who offer fraudulent proof of vaccination ( and there will be).....hit them HARD. No bail; isolation....quick trial and a significant financial penalty secured by property lien.

I don't break the law. I would feel "rewarded" if those who do were adequately punished.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Kargokings said:

Opening the border is again in the news, the major problem that I see is how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?  In other words identify those who are fully vaccinated from those who merely claim to be?

Re sorting out who can cross the border, it is just another step in the "essential travel" process outlined by both our countries.

Vaccine "passports" have been around a long time. I would venture a guess that all airline personnel who flew have the yellow vaccination booklet; I have mine from 1973, albeit pretty worn out. Either that record or the individual vaccination card(s) provided by the individual health region in which each person vaccinated should be produced in the same way either one's passport or NEXUS card is produced.

Where legitimate medical exceptions to these vaccinations exist, a form recognized by both country's health authorities and customs/immigration departments. It can be argued that such a process is open to abuse but most will want to cross legitimately.

Upper Deck, regarding illegitimate documents being used to cross the border, the punishment is already more severe than you wish upon offenders. Attempt entry without your NEXUS card or passport and your border crossing privileges can be permanently revoked.

Such a process is not without nuance should the person genuinely have made a mistake. Intent-to-deceive is a serious legal matter and would be a big part of any formal response by border agents.

It remains to be seen how any such "proof of vaccination" would be handled.

Edited by Don Hudson
add response
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...