Travel during the continuing PANDEMIC

[FA@AC]

15 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

One who travels responsibly is one who obeys the various travel restrictions and does not equate pleasure travel to essential travel...

And there you go.  Leisure travellers who keep to themselves, wear masks, social distance and observe quarantine restrictions upon their return are travelling responsibly.  "Essential" (whatever that means) travellers who don't wear masks, don't observe social distancing measures, mingle with people they don't live with and don't comply with quarantine restrictions when they cross borders aren't travelling responsibly.  Leisure travel isn't by definition irresponsible.  "Essential" travel isn't by definition responsible.

Edited February 1, 2021 by FA@AC

[FA@AC]

12 minutes ago, Fido said:

Remember the base figure that "Travel accounts for less than 2% of Covid cases"

Do we even know if that's international travel?  For all I know some of the travel accounting for the less than 2% of cases might involve residents of Comox visiting Moosonee.  If so, the new policy won't make much of a dent.

[Turbofan]

Alberta and the Government of Canada, up until very recently, were both working with WJ, AC and YYC on a trial for a 3 day quarantine on arrival back in YYC and one land crossing from Montana. This trial even had a reciprocal agreement with the state of Hawaii.  The trials purpose was to facilitate safe international travel in and out of Alberta.

That is the problem.  Mixed messaging from different levels of Government.

Take a look at this government of Canada website regarding the Covid trial in Alberta.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/latest-travel-health-advice/alberta-covid-19-border-testing-pilot-program.html

Thousands of snowbirds were taking advantage of this apparent government sanctioned trial as a way to go to Hawaii, Arizona, California and Florida for the winter.  Most of them were also seeking to get their vaccine while in the US.  Florida was, and still is, trying to attract snowbirds with free vaccinations.  They are being responsible planning to isolate at both ends of their travel as per the trial requirements.

Others were using this government sanctioned trial to go on winter vacation only to be stuck in Mexico trying to find a PCR test at extortion rates.

Now three months after leaving Canada for the winter snowbirds need a Covid test prior to departure back home at a cost of $100-$200, and a $2000/person three day stay in a government facility.  

Add to that the public shaming by the Prime Minister himself.  Mr Virtue Signalling.

All this even though they have been vaccinated.  All this even though they thought they were good to go because of the mixed messaging from government.  Even though they believed they were taking part in a government sanctioned trial.

The people who should be taking responsibility for this fiasco are not.  They are using group think travel shaming to deflect onto Grandma and Grandpa.

Disgusting.

[Kip Powick]

Because we have a government that would have a hard time controlling a one-way street you would never see this in Canada....

Single Covid case in Western Australia leads to 5-day lockdown for 2 million

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/australia/western-australia-covid-lockdown-intl-hnk/index.html

 

Disregard the initial video / tennis babble. Story starts below video.

[dagger]

There are limitations now on vaccine tourism to Florida. Short stay visitors are now unable to get vaccinated, only long-stay folks.

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/florida-cracks-down-on-vaccine-tourism-by-asking-for-proof-of-residency-1.5275606

 

TORONTO -- Snowbirds hoping to skip the line in Canada by flying to Florida for COVID-19 vaccines now face a tougher set of rules aimed at snuffing vaccine tourism.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday that anyone who owns property in Florida and lives there at least part-time will qualify for the vaccine, but travellers who aren’t state residents will no longer be eligible.

“To just kind of come in from another country or whatever, we don’t support that and we’re not going to allow that … we’re not doing vaccine tourism,” DeSantis told reporters in Jupiter, Fla.

Edited February 1, 2021 by dagger

[dagger]

1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

Because we have a government that would have a hard time controlling a one-way street you would never see this in Canada....

Single Covid case in Western Australia leads to 5-day lockdown for 2 million

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/australia/western-australia-covid-lockdown-intl-hnk/index.html

 

Disregard the initial video / tennis babble. Story starts below video.

There is absolutely no reason this couldn't be done in Canada except the provincial governments have opted not to. The so-called lockdowns here basically are like Swiss cheese - full of holes. Most people in construction and manufacturing are working as if it were normal. Bars, restaurants, gyms and small non-food stores are closed, but most others do curtsied pickup or delivery. 

[boestar]

10 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

I cannot say that I am surprised by those who suggest that our "rights" should not prevail over the "greater good". The same argument is made by "profilers" and I acknowledge that I have to be reminded of the adage; " Better 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be convicted."

The Charter of Rights exists for very good reasons. If nothing else, it acts as a restraint against those who honestly believe that the suppression of rights can serve a greater good.

I do not hold myself out as a Charter expert.

However....no Act ( or regulation) of Parliament or the Legislatures can abridge the Charter rights without invoking the " notwithstanding clause".  That provision is only available with respect to s.2 rights and those enumerated in section 7-15.

In short...the right of citizens to mobility (s.6) cannot be abrogated even if the Parliament attempted to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

The Quarantine Act permits of certain rules and regulations. Any regulation now proposed by the government would be subject to the Charter.

It would be difficult to establish that the denial of " liberty"; the "arbitrary detention" of citizens; and restriction on mobility was demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

This "plan" to detain returning citizens in hotels at their own expense is ill-conceived BUT...since I don't believe ALL bureaucrats and elected reps are stupid, I reiterate my belief that this is a psychological ploy to inhibit vacation travel.

GArneau all but said it in an interview. 

[AIP]

13 hours ago, Turbofan said:

Alberta and the Government of Canada, up until very recently, were both working with WJ, AC and YYC on a trial for a 3 day quarantine on arrival back in YYC and one land crossing from Montana. This trial even had a reciprocal agreement with the state of Hawaii.  The trials purpose was to facilitate safe international travel in and out of Alberta.

That is the problem.  Mixed messaging from different levels of Government.

Take a look at this government of Canada website regarding the Covid trial in Alberta.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/latest-travel-health-advice/alberta-covid-19-border-testing-pilot-program.html

Thousands of snowbirds were taking advantage of this apparent government sanctioned trial as a way to go to Hawaii, Arizona, California and Florida for the winter.  Most of them were also seeking to get their vaccine while in the US.  Florida was, and still is, trying to attract snowbirds with free vaccinations.  They are being responsible planning to isolate at both ends of their travel as per the trial requirements.

Others were using this government sanctioned trial to go on winter vacation only to be stuck in Mexico trying to find a PCR test at extortion rates.

Now three months after leaving Canada for the winter snowbirds need a Covid test prior to departure back home at a cost of $100-$200, and a $2000/person three day stay in a government facility.  

Add to that the public shaming by the Prime Minister himself.  Mr Virtue Signalling.

All this even though they have been vaccinated.  All this even though they thought they were good to go because of the mixed messaging from government.  Even though they believed they were taking part in a government sanctioned trial.

The people who should be taking responsibility for this fiasco are not.  They are using group think travel shaming to deflect onto Grandma and Grandpa.

Disgusting.

This is what makes the "uproar" over politicians and others travelling at xmas so ridiculous.  Monday to Friday they were out trumpeting this initiative, yet they could not use it when the holidays came along.

These people did nothing wrong, followed protocols, and all guidance the government(s) had provided.

The only problem I see, was they had the temerity to post it on social media, where everyone's opinion matters these days.

[Turbofan]

7 minutes ago, AIP said:

This is what makes the "uproar" over politicians and others travelling at xmas so ridiculous.  Monday to Friday they were out trumpeting this initiative, yet they could not use it when the holidays came along.

These people did nothing wrong, followed protocols, and all guidance the government(s) had provided.

The only problem I see, was they had the temerity to post it on social media, where everyone's opinion matters these days.

I remember the radio adds in and around September/October trumpeting the travel trial out of the YYC airport commencing Nov2,2020 for the winter travel season.

I remember lots of discussion all of a sudden saying “ hey looks like we can go after all, so long as we join the trial.  We were considering it.

[Guest1]

Quote

Some of the travel purposes that are considered essential may be:

economic services and supply chains;
providing service that is essential to the health, safety, security, or economic well-being of Canadians and the government, in other words, “critical infrastructure support;”
health (immediate medical care), safety and security;
supporting Indigenous communities;
transiting through Canada for essential purposes;
studying in Canada if approved before March 18, 2020, Canada is still accepting applications for international students and will advise them when travel opens to them;
tending to sick family members who have no one else to help them in Canada; or
any other activities that are deemed “non-optional” or “non-discretionary” by the Canadian government.
The government defines “optional” or “discretionary” travel as coming to Canada for the purposes of tourism, recreation, and entertainment among others.

Some examples of trips that the government does not consider essential include:

visiting family for a vacation;
coming to Canada for the birth of a new family member, although they may make an exception for the baby’s parent;
visiting a secondary home even for the purposes of upkeep and maintenance; or
attending the funeral of a family member, as quarantine measures in Canada already limit the number of attendees allowed at funerals under provincial restrictions.

 

[Turbofan]

Kargoking,

I can only surmise from your post that you think it is okay for government to provide conflicting or opposing guidance and then punish people who pick the wrong one?

You know we could start having multiple signs for speed limits on highways too.  Then fine those who pick the wrong limit.

 

 

[J.O.]

They aren't posting two different signs though. What they are doing is responding to changing conditions, much like those roads with variable speed limits that adjust with traffic / weather conditions. 

[Turbofan]

4 minutes ago, J.O. said:

They aren't posting two different signs though. What they are doing is responding to changing conditions, much like those roads with variable speed limits that adjust with traffic / weather conditions. 

They were posting two different signs in the fall.  If you look at the website above, the sign is still up. Your variable roadway argument is a bit lacking because fines are not retroactive.  Oh we just changed the sign to 40kmh.  We noticed 5 minutes ago you were going 80kmh.  Here is your ticket for violating the new speed limit 5 minutes ago.  You should have known better.  You were warned this roadway had variable limits.

The problem isn’t adaptation to the situation.  It’s punishing people retroactively.

[Guest1]

45 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

Kargoking,

I can only surmise from your post that you think it is okay for government to provide conflicting or opposing guidance and then punish people who pick the wrong one?

You know we could start having multiple signs for speed limits on highways too.  Then fine those who pick the wrong limit.

 

 

Here is where the information I posted came from: It is dated May 2020 Canada refines definition of "essential travel" during coronavirus | Canada Immigration News (cicnews.com)

[Turbofan]

25 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

Here is where the information I posted came from: It is dated May 2020 Canada refines definition of "essential travel" during coronavirus | Canada Immigration News (cicnews.com)

Again.  Because you didn't answer.  

Kargoking,

I can only surmise from your post that you think it is okay for government to provide conflicting or opposing guidance and then punish people who pick the wrong one?

Or

Would it more appropriate for the people responsible for the conflicting or opposing guidance to be the ones held accountable?

 

 

 

 

[Guest1]

3 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

Again.  Because you didn't answer.  

Kargoking,

I can only surmise from your post that you think it is okay for government to provide conflicting or opposing guidance and then punish people who pick the wrong one?

 

 

I for one, didn't find any information that was conflicting (at least to me).   The first one covered all I wanted to know: NO NON ESSENTIAL TRAVEL  ......  

What did you find conflicting?   

[Turbofan]

3 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

I for one, didn't find any information that was conflicting (at least to me).   The first one covered all I wanted to know: NO NON ESSENTIAL TRAVEL  ......  

What did you find conflicting?   

Did you read my post above with a link to the Alberta Covid Test Trial sponsored by Alberta and the Government of Canada?

 

[Guest1]

9 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

Did you read my post above with a link to the Alberta Covid Test Trial sponsored by Alberta and the Government of Canada?

 

I have read it but I must have missed the let for "Non Essential Travel" 

[Turbofan]

16 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

I have read it but I must have missed the let for "Non Essential Travel" 

 

It was a test trial.  You know seperate rules to see if safe travel could work?

I get you point. No specific let for essential travel.  But you probably never heard the government advertising back in the fall supporting this program.

My biggest issue is this.  If we blame the traveller we are letting the Polititans run for cover from the program's they supported.

This was touted in the province as a way to travel this winter.  Support Business.

Then Travel shaming set in.

 

 

[mo32a]

Are the flight crew to sun destinations forced to quarantine the same as the passengers? Surely they can't be essential.

Why doesn't interprovincial travel require the same restrictions and international? It should.

Do the thousands of transplants temporarily living in BC need to back to their home province to get vaccinated? They should.

Because the vaccine supply is based on normal provincial population should BC residents go to Alberta to get a better shot at getting the vaccine?

 

 

 

[Guest1]

45 minutes ago, Turbofan said:

 

 

My biggest issue is this.  If we blame the traveller we are letting the Polititans run for cover from the program's they supported.

This was touted in the province as a way to travel this winter.  Support Business.

Then Travel shaming set in.

 

 

I am blaming the travelers who thought they had found a way to "game" the system.  Same as the ones who evidently are booking sun vacations using US Carriers over the US.  I imagine they will be horrified  to find out upon their arrival back into Canada, they still face the International Travel rules (3 day hotel stay etc.) I find a lot of folks think that International travel does not  include the US>

[moeman]

Curious why we are still allowed to fly to Florida, California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, but not the Caribbean or Mexico. Doesn't make sense to me.

[FA@AC]

14 minutes ago, moeman said:

Curious why we are still allowed to fly to Florida, California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, but not the Caribbean or Mexico. Doesn't make sense to me.

I think the intent of the new restriction is to deter travel, especially during March break, to destinations such as Cancun and the DR where apparently some morons are still partying away and probably spreading Covid which they might then bring home.  I hope the restriction is temporary and that something that makes more sense across the board will be brought in before the end of Apr when the route suspensions are supposed to expire.

In the meantime it's hard to see the logic of having airlines suspend service to BGI and Costa Rica where the new variants of concern may or may not be while allowing flights to the UK where one of the variants is the dominant strain of the virus and to the USA where the situation will probably be the same soon.

[J.O.]

3 hours ago, Turbofan said:

They were posting two different signs in the fall.  If you look at the website above, the sign is still up. Your variable roadway argument is a bit lacking because fines are not retroactive.  Oh we just changed the sign to 40kmh.  We noticed 5 minutes ago you were going 80kmh.  Here is your ticket for violating the new speed limit 5 minutes ago.  You should have known better.  You were warned this roadway had variable limits.

The problem isn’t adaptation to the situation.  It’s punishing people retroactively.

Those who chose to travel at this time were rolling the dice with odds stacked heavily against them. It was the equivalent of driving into an ice storm that's been forecast for 3 months and doing it on slick summer tires. Sorry, but I have a hard time being sympathetic.

[UpperDeck]

2 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Those who chose to travel at this time were rolling the dice with odds stacked heavily against them. It was the equivalent of driving into an ice storm that's been forecast for 3 months and doing it on slick summer tires. Sorry, but I have a hard time being sympathetic.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. There was, I believe, a shared belief in Oct./Nov. that the introduction of one or more vaccines was imminent and that we were close to turning the corner. Air Canada recalled cabin crew and we began to contemplate a return to a semblance of normalcy by early summer. The vaccines arrived....in many countries... and is being distributed. 

There was a surge at the end of December but that had been previously experienced with few Chicken Little squacks and the numbers indicate another levelling.

All that I know is that "our country 'tis of thee" failed to anticipate and act and is well behind the curve.

Florida is leading the way...right after West Virginia!!....in distributing and administering the vaccine.

I am on the appointment list and confirmed my eligibility. I am reasonably confident I will have both shots by the end of March. I would like to come home occasionally but I will forego the pleasure....and risk.

Things may change but one should plan based upon the known facts; contingency planning based upon the unknown is akin to pulling out the old "eight ball".....or visiting a seer.