Any new information on the latest announced travel restrictions please post here

[Western Mountain Man]

The idea that the cost doesn't deter travel is absurd - comments everywhere show that's not true. (And when we see claims that people are 'forced' to travel for personal reasons - well, it's funny how these essential reasons become less essential when it costs more money and time).

I'm not a big fan of this policy nor how it's been implemented but there are two facts no-one seems to want to recognize, particularly if they already dislike this government:
1) This policy was brought in with a huge amount of political pressure esp by some provincial governments - blaming international travel for covid cases. And rather transparently to distract from their own failures. (Not to mention that one of the reasons this ended up being necessary is federal government couldn't direclty enforce or check the self-isolation requirements many were ignoring).

2) Many seem to want the government to make exceptions for their particular, special, essential reason. Govt hates and really doesn't want to be in a position to have to decide or adjudicate what's an 'essential reason' to go abroad - is this person's sick mother more essential than that persons sick brother? What about just missing your spouse?

It would mean having a whole bureaucracy to make those decisions, then have to come up with documentation requirements, then having to check those documents (are they real? we already have people forging covid test results), etc.

And of course - inevitably - there would have to be an appeal procedure and a whole quasi-judicial bureaucracy built up around that, AND government would continuously be criticised for being unfair. (And what would be different? If you were 'allowed' to travel by some bureaucrat, should government pay for your room?)

Yep, it's not a great situation. It's not particularly 'fair' but then not much is without money.

But government was pushed into having to do something imperfect, and the alternatives would - from many perspectives - be even worse for many and particularly worse politically.

I recognize your facts...... Especially #1 " dislike this government " .
Seems there are too many hands in the pie and they're not working together to get this under control. People are frustrated with
all the mixed messages leading to distrust and that leads to bad behavior.

I think the international travelers that now require 2-covid tests are being scapegoated for community covid spread.
The quarantine hotels are not releasing any numbers on positive cases claiming it's being managed by Public Health.

Locally our hockey team ( Canucks ) are all infected with the P.1 variant that has been circulating for some time amongst younger people.
Some of these athletes are really sick and I can imaging what it would do to an older person or someone with health issues.

I agree with you it's not a good situation and it's not fair but I believe the government could do a much better job !
Now I'm preparing for the 4th, 5th, and 6th wave and regretting not traveling to Florida many months ago.

 

[armoured]

I recognize your facts...... Especially #1 " dislike this government " .
Seems there are too many hands in the pie and they're not working together to get this under control. People are frustrated with
all the mixed messages leading to distrust and that leads to bad behavior.

I agree, not all messaging or instructions have been consistent. But let's face it - some travellers were not following carefully the self-isolation protocols, with plenty of denialists out there saying "it doesn't matter", ie encouraging that behaviour. And as noted, quite a lot of this is not in the control of the feds.

I think the international travelers that now require 2-covid tests are being scapegoated for community covid spread.
The quarantine hotels are not releasing any numbers on positive cases claiming it's being managed by Public Health.

It's entirely possible hotels do not have the info, I don't know. But again, my point here is that the 'scapegoating' and pressure for the feds to 'do something' about international travellers to a significant degree came from certain politicians and especially provincial governments who wanted to blame someone else. A different solution could have been to ... enforce and follow-up the self-isolaiton requirements for travellers much, much more strictly (compared to the basically 'not at all' approach). But the feds really couldn't do this effectively (simply do not have the resources on the ground).

I agree with you it's not a good situation and it's not fair but I believe the government could do a much better job !

I think I've said many times that the federal government could and should do a much better job. I agree. I'm not convinced that the actual epidemiological data (transmission by travellers) was there to justify how they handled - but the politics was and that won.

But the political and practical constraints they're subject to have to a significant degree shaped the imperfect policy and implementation, too. Look at it now - we've got outsiders claiming that the hotel quarantine requirements amounts to internment camps.

 

[armoured]

The conservatives were pushing the federal government to create a plan with some potential stats on how many people would be vaccinated before restrictions were lifted...they voted no to that motion. None of us know and the government doesn't want to give us any info.

Political parties like to push this kind of 'news' - "we asked the government to do X and they said no!"

As I recall the way this went down: the government did explain, briefly, in parliament, why that wouldn't work based on what we know now. The problem is the 'vaccination number' alone (eg what % of population vaccinated) does NOT tell you what's important - how much transmission is still happening, whether new variants have come in, whether they're dangerous, whether people (esp non-vaccinated) continue to follow basic public health guidelines, etc. When this came up, it was still not know at all whether vaccinated people could/would still spread covid.

So the basic answer is: answering the question with a firm commitment to remove the restrictions based only on eg. "when vaccinations hit 75%" would have been irresponsible and deeply stupid. The conservatives knew this and knew that their motion would fail because extremely bad policy.

They hoped - in an old political ritual - that the answers the government gave would be forgotten. And (based on your post) this is exactly what has happened.

(I'm not criticising you here - I'm just saying this is an old political ritual and it often works; everyone remembers the question or accusation and not the answer, esp if complicated.)

 

[Jazz@91]

We three friends reserve 3 day hotel stopover in triple occupancy on 5 april.. but now i heard new household room about that?? pls clarify this.. shall we have to book seperate room now??

 

[his*marty]

I agree, not all messaging or instructions have been consistent. But let's face it - some travellers were not following carefully the self-isolation protocols, with plenty of denialists out there saying "it doesn't matter", ie encouraging that behaviour. And as noted, quite a lot of this is not in the control of the feds.



It's entirely possible hotels do not have the info, I don't know. But again, my point here is that the 'scapegoating' and pressure for the feds to 'do something' about international travellers to a significant degree came from certain politicians and especially provincial governments who wanted to blame someone else. A different solution could have been to ... enforce and follow-up the self-isolaiton requirements for travellers much, much more strictly (compared to the basically 'not at all' approach). But the feds really couldn't do this effectively (simply do not have the resources on the ground).



I think I've said many times that the federal government could and should do a much better job. I agree. I'm not convinced that the actual epidemiological data (transmission by travellers) was there to justify how they handled - but the politics was and that won.

But the political and practical constraints they're subject to have to a significant degree shaped the imperfect policy and implementation, too. Look at it now - we've got outsiders claiming that the hotel quarantine requirements amounts to internment camps.

Yes, however international reports are posting their news makes Canada look really bad.

 

[his*marty]

Political parties like to push this kind of 'news' - "we asked the government to do X and they said no!"

As I recall the way this went down: the government did explain, briefly, in parliament, why that wouldn't work based on what we know now. The problem is the 'vaccination number' alone (eg what % of population vaccinated) does NOT tell you what's important - how much transmission is still happening, whether new variants have come in, whether they're dangerous, whether people (esp non-vaccinated) continue to follow basic public health guidelines, etc. When this came up, it was still not know at all whether vaccinated people could/would still spread covid.

So the basic answer is: answering the question with a firm commitment to remove the restrictions based only on eg. "when vaccinations hit 75%" would have been irresponsible and deeply stupid. The conservatives knew this and knew that their motion would fail because extremely bad policy.

They hoped - in an old political ritual - that the answers the government gave would be forgotten. And (based on your post) this is exactly what has happened.

(I'm not criticising you here - I'm just saying this is an old political ritual and it often works; everyone remembers the question or accusation and not the answer, esp if complicated.)

I understand and appreciate what you are saying. They could have passed the motion at it's bare bones as was asked. They didn't have to give specifics - they could have provided some steps they will consider. Such as - we will revisit the viability of reducing 14 day quarantine once 50% of the population is vaccinated. At that time we will go over the data from each province to see the rates of infections, spread, variants etc. to make a decision. Even something as small as this would at least take us out of complete darkness and wondering if this will go on another year...2...? It's frustrating listening to the WHO and the CDC and those organizations providing hope - but we are still here without even a match to light a candle we can't find.

 

[armoured]

They didn't have to give specifics - they could have provided some steps they will consider.

I agree they could provide a more clear path to what they expect to see happen. And publicise it more.

But this is Canada: the vast majority of specific measures people are complaining about are in provincial hands. As are the measures currently in place.

Such as - we will revisit the viability of reducing 14 day quarantine once 50% of the population is vaccinated.

The political game is such that this would be completely pointless: first, whatever specific 'we will consider' will be screamed about as "this government is vague and this is not specific enough. Will the Minister commit to removing these measures when we hit 50%? Or is this just another promise to consider what we will do? Are you just promising to study the question again?"

It's made for question-hour theatre. Then when they get to (say) 50% and the government doesn't immediately remove (which is exactly what you said, revisit), the accusation will be that it is more government lies and broken promises. Don't engage on the (silly) promise, don't get caught on the broken promise narrative.

Nope, vote that measure down and move on. What they have now - 'but the conservatives proposed a motion and the government wouldn't even do that' (whine whine whine) is far less perilous to government. If I were working for them, I'd tell them to not take the bait either. (Mind I'd also tell them to come up with a better narrative than what they have now, but definitely don't let the other side set the terms)

 

[his*marty]

I agree they could provide a more clear path to what they expect to see happen. And publicise it more.

But this is Canada: the vast majority of specific measures people are complaining about are in provincial hands. As are the measures currently in place.



The political game is such that this would be completely pointless: first, whatever specific 'we will consider' will be screamed about as "this government is vague and this is not specific enough. Will the Minister commit to removing these measures when we hit 50%? Or is this just another promise to consider what we will do? Are you just promising to study the question again?"

It's made for question-hour theatre. Then when they get to (say) 50% and the government doesn't immediately remove (which is exactly what you said, revisit), the accusation will be that it is more government lies and broken promises. Don't engage on the (silly) promise, don't get caught on the broken promise narrative.

Nope, vote that measure down and move on. What they have now - 'but the conservatives proposed a motion and the government wouldn't even do that' (whine whine whine) is far less perilous to government. If I were working for them, I'd tell them to not take the bait either. (Mind I'd also tell them to come up with a better narrative than what they have now, but definitely don't let the other side set the terms)

Fair enough. From your perspective, what do you think would be a progressive approach on informing Canadians? Do you think the status quo is the best we can do at this present time? Personally, I just don't accept it as enough simply because it's been over a year. With what you said in mind, I don't know what the best course of action is at this time but I don't think what we have and what we know is enough.

 

[Western Mountain Man]

Yes, however international reports are posting their news makes Canada look really bad.

I've seen the postings and it's a much larger scale than most can imagine.
Will have long lasting effects for any sort of recovery.

 

[Naheulbeuck]

I've seen the postings and it's a much larger scale than most can imaging.
Will have long lasting effects for any sort of recovery.

Which international reports? Because overall, our mortality rate per 1m is much lower than the vast majority of countries (615 vs 1,691 in the US and 1,903 in the UK), same with our case per 1m (27k vs 93k and 65k respectively). On vaccines we are quite behind for sure but still in line with many countries including most European countries, with similar deliveries of vaccines for the EU per habitant as we are expecting, nothing that would make us look terribly bad. EU restrictions on travel from outside the EU are much more significant (many countries having a ban on travel unless strong reason (and by that I mean the death of direct line family member for example) and negative PCR test if travel from other EU countries.

I am far from saying that Canada has been a model in handling this pandemic or that nothing could have been done better but on the other hand saying that the handling made Canada look really bad and will have lasting effects, I mean I'd like to see a bit more evidence that just someone's opinion to take it seriously.

 

[Western Mountain Man]

I agree, not all messaging or instructions have been consistent. But let's face it - some travellers were not following carefully the self-isolation protocols, with plenty of denialists out there saying "it doesn't matter", ie encouraging that behaviour. And as noted, quite a lot of this is not in the control of the feds.



It's entirely possible hotels do not have the info, I don't know. But again, my point here is that the 'scapegoating' and pressure for the feds to 'do something' about international travellers to a significant degree came from certain politicians and especially provincial governments who wanted to blame someone else. A different solution could have been to ... enforce and follow-up the self-isolaiton requirements for travellers much, much more strictly (compared to the basically 'not at all' approach). But the feds really couldn't do this effectively (simply do not have the resources on the ground).



I think I've said many times that the federal government could and should do a much better job. I agree. I'm not convinced that the actual epidemiological data (transmission by travellers) was there to justify how they handled - but the politics was and that won.

But the political and practical constraints they're subject to have to a significant degree shaped the imperfect policy and implementation, too. Look at it now - we've got outsiders claiming that the hotel quarantine requirements amounts to internment camps.

The hotels do have the info and are reluctant to ' share '. While you're isolated in the quarantine hotel, if your test result comes back positive you will receive a call from public health and given some options. The hotel is informed and you are not allowed to stay. There is a government facility (hotel ) in the area for all positive cases. This is where the (black limo with tinted windows) shows up to deliver you to the undisclosed " internment camp ".

I would take the outsiders words with a heavy grain of salt but there is some truth in it. And when millions of people view it in other countries, it leaves an impression that will cause a huge fallout for Canada's recovery in years to come. I hope our leaders understand the direction we are headed.

 

[armoured]

While you're isolated in the quarantine hotel, if your test result comes back positive you will receive a call from public health and given some options. The hotel is informed and you are not allowed to stay. There is a government facility (hotel ) in the area for all positive cases. This is where the (black limo with tinted windows) shows up to deliver you to the undisclosed " internment camp "

So people who are carrying an infectious disease are required to quarantine separately from those not carrying it?

Do people know what the word quarantine means? Did they think it was going to be a bloody spa?

We've only had the concept for a couple thousand years or so.

I don't have the polite words at this point for the level of utter ignorance.

 

[his*marty]

So people who are carrying an infectious disease are required to quarantine separately from those not carrying it?

Do people know what the word quarantine means? Did they think it was going to be a bloody spa?

We've only had the concept for a couple thousand years or so.

I don't have the polite words at this point for the level of utter ignorance.

It doesn't really make sense to transport to another facility. They are already at hotel A in case they test positive - so why move to hotel B? They're already in quarantine.

 

[armoured]

It doesn't really make sense to transport to another facility. They are already at hotel A in case they test positive - so why move to hotel B? They're already in quarantine.

Ummm, no. Separate those who are proven carriers from others. That's basic.

I presume they're not moving them on the subway, of course.

 

[his*marty]

Ummm, no. Separate those who are proven carriers from others. That's basic.

I presume they're not moving them on the subway, of course.

From my point of view, they are already in a room they're not supposed to leave... they are separated. So, now transporting puts everyone else around them at risk as they get from point A to point B.