Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Americas > Canada
Reload this Page >

Looks like more entry restrictions for Canada coming

Looks like more entry restrictions for Canada coming

Old Jan 23, 2021, 8:47 am
  #31  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,417
Originally Posted by TheCanuckian
Of course if travel increases dramatically, we can assume that travel-related cases will as well. The fact that travel is at only 9% of last year's levels means that most of the travel-related cases have been mitigated simply by people staying off planes. The question, I guess, is whether you try to crush that small percentage by reducing travel from 9% to something lower; or whether you leave it as-is and turn your attention elsewhere. It seems travel is a relatively easy bug to quantify and crush, so a good one to go after from a PR perspective.
That 9% is all AC RPM so the amount of int. travel is again a small fraction of that.

We know from the government itself that only about two per cent of COVID-19 cases have been brought into the country from overseas while at the same time more than 80 per cent of the 6.5 million total arrivals into Canada between March 31 and Nov. 12 were exempt from the quarantine so why not invest available resources by getting the biggest return possible by listening to the experts who're calling for far more scrutiny of this group? Decisions are being based on optics rather than reason.
TheCanuckian and wzzy22 like this.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 8:55 am
  #32  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Quebec and Ontario, Canada
Programs: AC*E50, SPG/Marriott Plat
Posts: 1,916
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Many of those who are coming into Canada by land are essential to maintaining supply chains but tighter scrutiny on who is truly essential would be worth the effort. What is certain however is that while desirable there is nothing essential about a winter vacation in the sun.
The problem is, the virus doesn't care if a traveler is essential or not, for the virus a truck driver is the same human host as a beach vacationer. If you put crazy restriction on 10% of travelers (considered as non-essential) but let the 90% others enter without anything, the impact on the pandemic will be minimal at best. Sure, I understand you cannot stop the supply chain but there could be some measure they can take to more efficiently stop the virus. Like rapid antigenic testing for anyone. Also, why not have American truck drivers bringing goods to the border and Canadian truck drivers taking them from there ? How about strictly quarantining foreign based crew and have strict restriction on Canadian based crew when they travel oversea (like having to wear a mask anytime and just go to an hotel room waiting their next flight - like NZ crews ?)

Originally Posted by Badenoch
Quebec's earlier spring break in 2020 relative to Ontario is believed to have contributed to its higher infection rate in the early stages. Fewer people travelling reduces the risk of more people being infected particularly if they are vacationing in regions with higher infection rates. Travel restrictions also reduce the likelihood of new strains coming into the country.

And FWIW, infection rates in Ontario and Quebec seem to be moderating from the post-Christmas peaks and since the imposition of tighter lockdowns and mandatory testing requirements.
Air traffic went down 90%, land border is close for non-essential travel, there are the PCR testing and quarantine requirement, and almost nobody have booked a beach vacation anymore since the December travel shaming wave... There is absolutely no comparison possible with March 2020, when 100% of new cases were imported.
tcook052 likes this.
Yul_voyager is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 9:03 am
  #33  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM
Posts: 23,274
Originally Posted by Yul_voyager
Air traffic went down 90%, land border is close for non-essential travel, there are the PCR testing and quarantine requirement, and almost nobody have booked a beach vacation anymore since the December travel shaming wave... There is absolutely no comparison possible with March 2020, when 100% of new cases were imported.
Exactly, where exactly are these virus brininging "vacationers" that are being villified?
The ones that seem to be leaving are the annuals that wont be back until late spring time anyway (and in the meantime will manage to get vaccinated in Florida )


Originally Posted by Badenoch
. What is certain however is that while desirable there is nothing essential about a winter vacation in the sun.
What is certain is that the definition of "essential" is being abused. There is nothing essential about going to see a client outside of Canada or doing a sales call in non-essential industries, and being given a free pass on the return.
tcook052 likes this.
rankourabu is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 9:14 am
  #34  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,417
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Many of those who are coming into Canada by land are essential to maintaining supply chains but tighter scrutiny on who is truly essential would be worth the effort. What is certain however is that while desirable there is nothing essential about a winter vacation in the sun.
And nothing essential to many of the goods being imported either to maintain all supply chains as according to statistics provided by the Canada Border Services Agency — cross-border commercial traffic has remained relatively stable throughout the pandemic. Just think how many virus cases there must be from truckers importing non-essential lamp shades or frivolous luxury goods so why not limit those imports if the goal is easy targets to reduce the virus from entering the country? I'd expect however the Canadian public wouldn't welcome those kind of non-essential restrictions as easily as they applaud others.

Last edited by tcook052; Jan 23, 2021 at 9:19 am
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 9:45 am
  #35  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM
Posts: 23,274
I know a guy in Florida who owns a small distribution company for what can be only described as a frivolous luxury good, probably the very definition of non-essential.
Last I heard he had "hired" two Canadians to be his representatives in Canada. Both have been freely back and forth to Florida without having to quarantine on return, with a letter that designates them "essential to the business".

But some keep insisting that a once-weekly half-full planeload of triple-tested people who have been outdoors for a week closed in a resort in Cuba, and who will quarantine for 2 weeks when returning, is more dangerous....
tcook052, yvrcnx, wrp96 and 1 others like this.
rankourabu is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 9:54 am
  #36  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
Originally Posted by tcook052
And nothing essential to many of the goods being imported either to maintain all supply chains as according to statistics provided by the Canada Border Services Agency cross-border commercial traffic has remained relatively stable throughout the pandemic. Just think how many virus cases there must be from truckers importing non-essential lamp shades or frivolous luxury goods so why not limit those imports if the goal is easy targets to reduce the virus from entering the country? I'd expect however the Canadian public wouldn't welcome those kind of non-essential restrictions as easily as they applaud others.
Closer examination of "essential workers" would be entirely appropriate in addition to travel restrictions on non-essential leisure vacationers not instead of.

It seems everyone wants everyone else to be locked down but not them.
Badenoch is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 9:59 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,980
Originally Posted by Yul_voyager
Also, why not have American truck drivers bringing goods to the border and Canadian truck drivers taking them from there ? )
Who's going to pull/push the trailer across the border?

Originally Posted by Yul_voyager
... Canadian based crew when they travel oversea (like having to wear a mask anytime and just go to an hotel room waiting their next flight - like NZ crews ?)
The AC crews I know are already being forced to do that.
It's the domestic overnights where crews can leave their hotel rooms that cause problems.

Originally Posted by Badenoch
What is certain however is that while desirable there is nothing essential about a winter vacation in the sun.
Those that suffer from SAD would beg to differ.
tracon is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 10:00 am
  #38  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Quebec and Ontario, Canada
Programs: AC*E50, SPG/Marriott Plat
Posts: 1,916
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Closer examination of "essential workers" would be entirely appropriate in addition to travel restrictions on non-essential leisure vacationers not instead of.

It seems everyone wants everyone else to be locked down but not them.
What I want are science-based, reasonable, and effective measures to protect us as much as possible from the virus. Not political, revenge-based decisions which would have almost no effect on the pandemic.
If we were like NZ, no community transmission, anyone coming subject to quarantine without exception, I would be 100% for the managed isolation system in hotels. But in our current situation it would just not change anything, just satisfy the average Canadian voter.
airoli, Rare, rankourabu and 4 others like this.
Yul_voyager is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 10:04 am
  #39  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
Originally Posted by tracon
Those that suffer from SAD would beg to differ.
There are treatments for SAD other than sitting on a beach in the Caribbean.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...t/drc-20364722
Badenoch is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 10:52 am
  #40  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,417
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Closer examination of "essential workers" would be entirely appropriate in addition to travel restrictions on non-essential leisure vacationers not instead of.

It seems everyone wants everyone else to be locked down but not them.
Ending the importation of frivolous non-essentials items should done in addition to the crusade against travel not instead of. If the goal is reducing the importation of the virus regardless of the amount then eliminating the importation of frivolous non-essential consumer goods would be as good a place to start as int. travel from the tiny fraction of travelers which pale in comparison to the 30,000 trucks and $1B in goods cross the border every day without comment. Imagine the reduction in cases if that number was, for example, reduced by half but that's unlikely however as it's all about optics rather than science or reason.
Bogwoppit and LETTERBOY like this.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 12:07 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Westjet Platinum, Fairmont Platinum RIP, Accor Gold, Marriott Lifetime Silver, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,296
Travel shaming of politicians and CEO's taking a sunny Christmas trip had it's chilling effect, and now while you certainly can travel somewhere warm for your Winter/March break, the proposed quarantine at a hotel will definitely discourage parents with kids that need to be back at school the week after. Can you imagine how awkward it would be to have your kids do their online classes all day in a mediocre hotel room shared with family, while parents are trying to do their remote work from hotel room? I'm sure you can fake the background for your web camera, but being in close quarters with each other will be very trying.

It's a game of virus wack a mole, only the government is swinging the hammer a lot harder. The coming weeks will be very interesting, especially as the more contagious strains start to become more prominent in Canada and the USA. Long term care home in Barrie is already hit hard with the new variant. I think the recent slight drop in cases is a precursor for an even greater storm to come. Hence further restrictions. It may be too early to predict with the new administration, but I have to wonder what new restrictions will be put in place south of the border to close perceived "loopholes"?
Arthurrs is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 12:17 pm
  #42  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
Originally Posted by tcook052
Ending the importation of frivolous non-essentials items should done in addition to the crusade against travel not instead of. If the goal is reducing the importation of the virus regardless of the amount then eliminating the importation of frivolous non-essential consumer goods would be as good a place to start as int. travel from the tiny fraction of travelers which pale in comparison to the 30,000 trucks and $1B in goods cross the border every day without comment. Imagine the reduction in cases if that number was, for example, reduced by half but that's unlikely however as it's all about optics rather than science or reason.
We agree and no one seems to be asking why three of the five public health units with the highest COVID counts in Ontario are on the border. Windsor Essex, Niagara Region and Lambton.
tcook052 likes this.
Badenoch is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2021, 3:47 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: YYZ/YHM/BUF
Programs: AA Plat, HH Gold, MR Plat
Posts: 4,212
With testing before getting on the plane, wearing masks and maintaining distancing, we already know that flying is low risk. This is why all this travel shaming is ridiculous. If I want to travel, that's my choice and I can be responsible for my own safety without all the nonsense "stay home, save lives" scolding.
rankourabu, strickerj, gei and 1 others like this.

Last edited by tcook052; Jan 23, 2021 at 3:52 pm Reason: Off topic
FlyerAl is offline  
Old Jan 24, 2021, 5:34 am
  #45  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM
Posts: 23,274
The media keeps going on this new 30% deadlier mutation.
What no outlet mentioned that the number was derived from a projected rise 10/1000 expected deaths to 13/1000 expected deaths, and has no actual data behind it except for a projection.

But 30% does sound a lot more frightening.

I doubt the govt is going to care about the airlines position on this tho.
rankourabu is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.