Originally Posted by
ashill
If you can really be assured that all travellers are following the required protocols, then great, they're fine. But you can't. It's easier to ensure/expect that essential travellers are following the protocols (both because there are few of them and because a relatively high fraction of essential travellers are [I would guess] in health-related fields and therefore better aware of both the dangers and the protocols), and the protocols are drastically easier to follow with less crowded airports and airplanes.
Of course, it's hard enough to ensure that people who don't travel follow the protocols. But compounding it by bringing in non-essential travellers is needlessly pouring gasoline on the fire.
So its not science, its a political judgement that local people are more likely to follow the BC 60% contact rules etc, but its too much like hard work to ensure out-of-staters understand and will too?
I get the local politics, but I don't think there's much science there. People either follow the set local rules and guidelines or they don't ... distancing, masks, hygiene are really not that difficult for the average Canadian who's been awake the last two months.
To me, essential travelers wouldn't intrinsically seem more or less likely to follow BC 60% contact rules either. Again, happy to be persuaded.
To my mind, either you are fit to travel and able to understand and stick to the rules ... or you aren't. Weed out those who aren't/don't and all's good, no?