Looks like more entry restrictions for Canada coming
Jan 24, 2021, 6:38 am
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
The big problem is Canada’s current policy doesn’t enforce any quarantine at the port of entry but rather allows residents to go onward to their final destination in Canada to quarantine. So someone flying into YYZ can then fly onward to western Canada to do their quarantine.
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.
Last edited by tcook052; Jan 24, 2021 at 6:49 am Reason: Off topic
Jan 24, 2021, 6:52 am
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...wall-1.5470386
Currently, incoming passengers who do not have a negative test or a suitable quarantine plan may be sent to a government-approved quarantine facility.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...ion-sheet.html
So the concept of mandatory quarantine in a place not of your choosing is hardly a new concept, is in place now in some circumstances and the government is hinting it may be expanded to include every non-essential leisure traveller.
Jan 24, 2021, 6:54 am
#48
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,450
Michael Bryant, head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said forcing people to quarantine at a government-supervised location would be justified if the state has data showing current health orders around travel aren’t working. But Bryant said in a recent interview he hasn’t seen evidence the rules are failing. “I don’t think that they have that data.”
------------------------
Bryant said he doesn’t believe fears of new COVID-19 variants justify added restrictions on mobility rights, especially if more proportionate responses — such as increased testing of people arriving in the country — are available.
------------------------
Bryant said he doesn’t believe fears of new COVID-19 variants justify added restrictions on mobility rights, especially if more proportionate responses — such as increased testing of people arriving in the country — are available.
Jan 24, 2021, 7:32 am
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
Passengers from the Diamond Princess cruise ship were required to quarantine at either CFB Borden or at the Nav Centre in Cornwall, Ontario.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...wall-1.5470386
Currently, incoming passengers who do not have a negative test or a suitable quarantine plan may be sent to a government-approved quarantine facility.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...ion-sheet.html
So the concept of mandatory quarantine in a place not of your choosing is hardly a new concept, is in place now in some circumstances and the government is hinting it may be expanded to include every non-essential leisure traveller.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...wall-1.5470386
Currently, incoming passengers who do not have a negative test or a suitable quarantine plan may be sent to a government-approved quarantine facility.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...ion-sheet.html
So the concept of mandatory quarantine in a place not of your choosing is hardly a new concept, is in place now in some circumstances and the government is hinting it may be expanded to include every non-essential leisure traveller.
Jan 24, 2021, 7:41 am
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
The intent is to dissuade non-essential leisure travellers from ignoring travel advisories and going on vacation. If a mandatory test isn't sufficient then perhaps two weeks in hotel accommodation of the government's choosing might have a greater effect.
Jan 24, 2021, 7:51 am
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,655
Limited examples or not the regulatory authority exists, the precedent exists and the concept isn't new only the scope of its application.
The intent is to dissuade non-essential leisure travellers from ignoring travel advisories and going on vacation. If a mandatory test isn't sufficient then perhaps two weeks in hotel accommodation of the government's choosing might have a greater effect.
The intent is to dissuade non-essential leisure travellers from ignoring travel advisories and going on vacation. If a mandatory test isn't sufficient then perhaps two weeks in hotel accommodation of the government's choosing might have a greater effect.
Jan 24, 2021, 7:56 am
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,314
And it would be a great deterrent to travel if the chance of testing on arrival would mean mandatory 2 weeks in a hotel.
And it would catch the "essential" scammers going on work trips.
Jan 24, 2021, 8:32 am
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,450
Testing everyone on arrival would be the cheapest and probably most effective. Why this govt is so against it, is puzzling.
And it would be a great deterrent to travel if the chance of testing on arrival would mean mandatory 2 weeks in a hotel.
And it would catch the "essential" scammers going on work trips.
And it would be a great deterrent to travel if the chance of testing on arrival would mean mandatory 2 weeks in a hotel.
And it would catch the "essential" scammers going on work trips.
I'd like to see enforced quarantine be the absolute last resort after other less draconian steps have been taken rather than it being the next club out of the bag.
Jan 24, 2021, 8:47 am
#54
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: BA Gold/Marriott Gold/HH Diamond/IC Plat Amba
Posts: 5,992
Last edited by Crampedin13A; Jan 24, 2021 at 9:07 am
Jan 24, 2021, 9:25 am
#55
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,190
That isn't the "big" problem - it is a tiny problem given that people are supposed to be tested before flying... there is a much lower chance the international connection traveler has Covid than the untested domestic traveller sitting next to them.
What are the precedences in Canada that you refer to where the government has imposed a universal two week quarantine in a government-overseen facility?
What is different now is the awareness about Covid and the protective measures now in place. Even if spring break 2021 were to be the same as Quebec's 2020 there would be far fewer cases this year.
What are the precedences in Canada that you refer to where the government has imposed a universal two week quarantine in a government-overseen facility?
What is different now is the awareness about Covid and the protective measures now in place. Even if spring break 2021 were to be the same as Quebec's 2020 there would be far fewer cases this year.
Jan 24, 2021, 10:38 am
#56
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,450
Jan 24, 2021, 10:46 am
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,314
So we are going to invoke the War Measures Act that hasnt been used in 50 years to combat the 20 flights per week that land at YYZ weekly with a person who later tests positive (0.1% of Ontarios weekly cases) ? Thats one giant anvil, which will do zero for our community transmission anyway
Worst part - majority of people will support it, and the govt knows it.
May as well shut down AC and Westjet.
Worst part - majority of people will support it, and the govt knows it.
May as well shut down AC and Westjet.
Jan 24, 2021, 11:14 am
#58
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: YEG
Programs: Table scraps from Aeroplan and AmEx Plat
Posts: 901
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.
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.
The 10/1,000 to 13/1,000 figure was quoted by an expert with relation to a specific age group (60 year-olds if I recall). Also the data seem to be pretty much crap, as there is a 50% chance, again according to the experts, that there may or may not be a higher mortality rate. In other words, they don't know. Overabundance of caution is one thing, but this is straight up fear mongering.
Last edited by tcook052; Jan 24, 2021 at 11:32 am Reason: Off topic
Jan 24, 2021, 11:26 am
#59
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
Australia uses a similar model with some success and travelers are billed a flat rate of $3000AUD per single and $5,000AUD for a family of four.
https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...ing-travellers
Jan 24, 2021, 11:38 am
#60
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,450
So we are going to invoke the War Measures Act that hasnt been used in 50 years to combat the 20 flights per week that land at YYZ weekly with a person who later tests positive (0.1% of Ontarios weekly cases) ? Thats one giant anvil, which will do zero for our community transmission anyway