Canada closing borders to most travellers who are not citizens

[lafindumonde]

For those mocking Canada: Ontario is down to under 1000/cases day (14m residents), which is much lower than anywhere in the US, and INNM Europe as well.

Schools in most of ON reopened Feb 8 and will open Feb 16 in Toronto.

80%+ of the population supports most of these government restrictions.

Yes, Canada failed miserably on vaccines, but strict border measures are very reasonable to prevent it from coming back into the community and allowing schools and businesses to stay open. It is in the best interest of the vast majority of the population other than a few travelers.

But the fact is that, travel has resulted in only approx. 1% of the cases. Families live on both sides of the border.  These measures affect more than leisure travelers.  And if you have to get tested to board the plane and again when you get off then what is the purpose of forcing someone to pay $2000 for a hotel when they can quarantine at home.  It's purely political and it's punitive because it doesn't cost anywhere near $2000.

[Yehudaa]

But the fact is that, travel has resulted in only approx. 1% of the cases.

...one could argue that these tougher restrictions prevent a much greater number of cases.

[PlatinumGuy]

And if you have to get tested to board the plane and again when you get off then what is the purpose of forcing someone to pay $2000 for a hotel when they can quarantine at home.

Because they don't quarantine at home, and the government doesn't have the guts to enforce it.

But the fact is that, travel has resulted in only approx. 1% of the cases.

Yeah but 100% of cases were caused by travel...
How do you know how much of current cases are caused by recent travel?
Ontario is doing very well now and there is no reason to risk it for the benefit of a few travelers. Of course it is a 'political action', but it is a very fair and reasonable one. People in NZ are much happier than people in the USA right now.

[Alexsei]

I wonder who'll be fined if minor children present without tests

[Yehudaa]

I wonder who'll be fined if minor children present without tests

Presumably the parent bringing them in (if anyone), no? Is there another option?

[Lurker]

It's purely political and it's punitive because it doesn't cost anywhere near $2000.

It's also preventative. Most people think more than twice at being stuck in a hotel and being on the hook for that bill. I think that's the main point.

[Yo ssi]

It's mainly preventative. Most people think more than twice at being stuck in a hotel and being on the hook for that bill. I think that's the main point.

FTFY

[Alexsei]

Care to explain why people who presumably quarantine at home are required to supply (two) negative tests and still have to quarantine while those who definitely will not quarantine (essential travelers) don't have to supply a test at all?

[Lurker]

Care to explain why people who presumably quarantine at home are required to supply (two) negative tests and still have to quarantine while those who definitely will not quarantine (essential travelers) don't have to supply a test at all?

Without defending the policy, I think you answered your own question. Exceptions are made when something is deemed important enough. By virtue of being "essential," they get treated differently.

[Alexsei]

Without defending the policy, I think you answered your own question. Exceptions are made when something is deemed important enough. By virtue of being "essential," they get treated differently.

How does it make sense "epidemiologically" if these people have to be going around within the community they should be the first to be tested, their essential nature makes them an even greater risk of spreading the disease compared to those who'll quarantine

[Lurker]

How does it make sense "epidemiologically" if these people have to be going around within the community they should be the first to be tested, their essential nature makes them an even greater risk of spreading the disease compared to those who'll quarantine

Epidemiologically, the term "essential traveler" doesn't exist. They aren't essential on an epidemiological level. Again, I'm not defending the policy. By making exceptions to address other concerns, there are bound to be inconsistencies in how policy is enforced.

[PlatinumGuy]

Care to explain why people who presumably quarantine at home are required to supply (two) negative tests and still have to quarantine while those who definitely will not quarantine (essential travelers) don't have to supply a test at all?

The government decided the burden on society is greater by constraining truck drivers than it is by leisure passengers. 

Not saying I agree or not, but the government was fairly elected to make these kinds of judgment calls. It reflects the wishes of the majority of the country.

[Alexsei]

You all get me wrong, I understand the points you're trying to make, goods have to flow and some industries don't have the leisure to quarantine staff, having said that, testing is only there to prevent the spread, if you don't test 95% of entrants who will by the way not quarantine either how do you effectively control the spread by testing 5% who are quarantined anyways?

If you believe someone testing positive is a threat you have no choice but to isolate that person regardless of their "essentiallity", presidents and prime ministers can quarantine why can't they?

[lafindumonde]

You all get me wrong, I understand the points you're trying to make, goods have to flow and some industries don't have the leisure to quarantine staff, having said that, testing is only there to prevent the spread, if you don't test 95% of entrants who will by the way not quarantine either how do you effectively control the spread by testing 5% who are quarantined anyways?

If you believe someone testing positive is a threat you have no choice but to isolate that person regardless of their "essentiallity", presidents and prime ministers can quarantine why can't they?

You make a lot of sense.  And despite the many Charter violations, no Canadian court would have the guts to stand up to the government. No one is questioning the quarantine or the testing requirements.  It is forcing people to pay $2k for a so called hotel stay.

[PlatinumGuy]

You all get me wrong, I understand the points you're trying to make, goods have to flow and some industries don't have the leisure to quarantine staff, having said that, testing is only there to prevent the spread, if you don't test 95% of entrants who will by the way not quarantine either how do you effectively control the spread by testing 5% who are quarantined anyways?

If you believe someone testing positive is a threat you have no choice but to isolate that person regardless of their "essentiallity", presidents and prime ministers can quarantine why can't they?

5% is better than 0%. As to the other 95%, the assumption is made if testing or quarantine are mandated there will be a shortage of drivers and goods. That’s why I suggesting vaccinating a few drivers so you solve that problem. And yes, I agree you can probably mandate testing and still have enough truck drivers.

[PlatinumGuy]

You make a lot of sense.  And despite the many Charter violations, no Canadian court would have the guts to stand up to the government. No one is questioning the quarantine or the testing requirements.  It is forcing people to pay $2k for a so called hotel stay.

So you’re OK with the quarantine but not OK with a hotel supervised quarantine? Do you not know many people disobey the home quarantine?
Plenty of countries mandate hotel quarantine; Israel, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Singapore, Hk, Thailand, and I’m sure others

[lafindumonde]

So you’re OK with the quarantine but not OK with a hotel supervised quarantine? Do you not know many people disobey the home quarantine?

The 14 day quarantine was put in place before proof of a negative test was required.  Fine.  But now, they have moved the goalposts and require you to provide not 1, not 2, but 3 tests AND still quarantine for 14 days.  It's strictly punitive.

[Moshe123]

Maybe essential travel for commerce should only be for bread and water?

You get my drift. Every decision is political. Affects shuls, weddings, commerce, etc.

[lafindumonde]

Maybe essential travel for commerce should only be for bread and water?

You get my drift. Every decision is political. Affects shuls, weddings, commerce, etc.

Correct. Trudeau cannot prevent Canadians from entering the country, so he is getting around it by adding a $2000 tax.

[PlatinumGuy]

Maybe essential travel for commerce should only be for bread and water?

You get my drift. Every decision is political. Affects shuls, weddings, commerce, etc.

Of course, but that’s exactly what politics is for.
The majority of the population appoint representatives to make judgement calls.