Canadian COVID-19 News

[GordMay]

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government was "very confident" it will get every Canadian who wants to be vaccinated their first shot by the end of September. But the Pfizer plant in Belgium is still temporarily shut down, and the European Union has threatened to impose export controls on vaccines leaving the bloc. Still, the biggest challenges may prove to be the size of Canada, and administering those doses in northern regions and under-served communities.
More ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...ef_3051_236977

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by nwdiver

Mike,

Many news items of outbreaks start with “in contact with a returning relative”.

By the way half of the seniors in Alberta spend the winters in Arizona.

It may make the news, but the data and research I've seen does not show travel as a large contributor to spread of the disease. For example, here's Ontario's own contact tracing data on likely source of infections:

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/lik...urce-infection

The travel impact is hard to see on this graph because it's so small. It's the very bottom purple line. So the current level of travel is not insignificant, but it's never been measured as a primary driver.

Now, it's impossible to know what would have happened had we not locked down travel to the levels that we have. But it does not appear that we'd gain much by locking travel down further.

The largest sources of spread continue to be community. In Ontario, it's becoming clearer community often means workplaces such as meat packing plants, fulfillment centres that deliver all our packages, and people who continue to hold home-based gatherings.

I've been a supporter of the US/Can. border closure, and the travel restrictions in general. But I also try and follow the actual evidence. The data I see does not indicate further travel restrictions will do any measurable good.

[Mike OReilly]

Scorpius, most of the studies done on the efficacy of travel restrictions have found that it can be effective at the very early stages of a pandemic. But only if it is a truly hard closure, with almost no exemptions. It also seems to be most effective in places with few entry points and natural barriers, such as islands or peninsulas. Once the virus gets in, the studies show travel bans have almost no positive impact.

Now, it's an interesting question regarding these new variants. A full lockdown might keep new ones at bay, all except the innevitable 'Canadian variant' that will arise. But it would require a hard ban on all travel. I don't know if that's even possible for Canada. After all, we are a nation that doesn't even produce enough food to feed its population, let alone all the other stuff that we need, such as vaccines.

More stringent measures for those returning could be imposed, but again, the actual data shows travelers are not primary contributors to the spread. Maybe that would keep new variants out though. Maybe...

As for banning citizens from returning, I find that a draconian measure with too many dangerous outcomes. If countries start effectively removing citizenship from people they dislike, well, I think that leads us down a rather scary authoritarian path.

As far as Australia barring the return of its own citizens, can you point to the source for that fact. As I understand it, this would be a serious breach of international law.

I've gone looking, and can't find it. They've certainly banned most travel from foreigners, but I can't find support for your claim. In fact, the official government of Oz website has a big section stating:

https://www.australia.gov.au/travel-and-consumers

Australians trying to return home If you are overseas and wish to come home, you are encouraged to make plans to return.

Oz has imposed a ban on people leaving the country (with a long list of possible exemptions, of course), but they have not barred their citizens from returning.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by nwdiver

Mike,

Many news items of outbreaks start with “in contact with a returning relative”.

By the way half of the seniors in Alberta spend the winters in Arizona.

If you leave, don't come back.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Scorpius, most of the studies done on the efficacy of travel restrictions have found that it can be effective at the very early stages of a pandemic. But only if it is a truly hard closure, with almost no exemptions. It also seems to be most effective in places with few entry points and natural barriers, such as islands or peninsulas. Once the virus gets in, the studies show travel bans have almost no positive impact.

Now, it's an interesting question regarding these new variants. A full lockdown might keep new ones at bay, all except the innevitable 'Canadian variant' that will arise. But it would require a hard ban on all travel. I don't know if that's even possible for Canada. After all, we are a nation that doesn't even produce enough food to feed its population, let alone all the other stuff that we need, such as vaccines.

More stringent measures for those returning could be imposed, but again, the actual data shows travelers are not primary contributors to the spread. Maybe that would keep new variants out though. Maybe...

As for banning citizens from returning, I find that a draconian measure with too many dangerous outcomes. If countries start effectively removing citizenship from people they dislike, well, I think that leads us down a rather scary authoritarian path.

As far as Australia barring the return of its own citizens, can you point to the source for that fact. As I understand it, this would be a serious breach of international law.

I've gone looking, and can't find it. They've certainly banned most travel from foreigners, but I can't find support for your claim. In fact, the official government of Oz website has a big section stating:

https://www.australia.gov.au/travel-and-consumers


Oz has imposed a ban on people leaving the country (with a long list of possible exemptions, of course), but they have not barred their citizens from returning.

Australia may have recently rescinded the ban on citizens / residents returning home but it definitely was in place:


https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...home-1.5231724


CBC has the same news story.


Ok, on re-reading the article it seems the "ban" is more de facto than law. It has resulted from a combination of their state entry requirements (housing people in state facilities for their quarantine periods) and limits on passengers per plane on incoming flights - plus the great many cancelled flights.

[desodave]

Mike, I think you're trying to rationalize something that conceptually is just wrong. Containing a virus means minimizing contacts, especially the social ones. A lot of us have done that over the past 10+ months, to the extent of not spending holiday time with our families. That means not traveling period. The virus travels when people travel - it doesn't travel on its own. I get that. So international recreational travel at this time is just selfish imo and frankly contrary to public health advice. So why should we worry about selfish people getting trapped abroad if the gov't decides to harden the border and airlines quit flying all the holiday routes?

Of course data is going to show "travelers" contribute a minor amount to the covid case total when we've had 10 months of international travel restrictions - it's tautological imo. Hardening the border at this time is effectively closing the barn door after the horse has gone imo - you are correct that it was probably more effective at the very beginning. But for all those Canadians making personal sacrifices, it makes a lot of "equity" sense to do so.


Our provincial gov'ts have all tried to keep economies alive so that people are making at least some money and we're getting some tax revenue to keep necessary public services like healthcare in place. That requires people making contact in workplaces, hopefully in a more restricted and safe manner than usual. It requires schools to be functioning. Then most of the contact reduction has to come socially and it appears disproportionate.


There is an element of this that is analogous to NDZ's imo. The cities pollute waters around them with poorly treated discharges, then boaters are required to pump out rather than add directly to the problem (note I said directly). We're not the main contributor to the problem but bear a cost of not contributing further to it.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Australia may have recently rescinded the ban on citizens / residents returning home but it definitely was in place:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...home-1.5231724

CBC has the same news story.

The story does not say citizens are banned from coming home (to Oz). It says there are limitations on capacity to accept returnees. But the family's bigger issue seems to be accessing commercial carriers. Private airlines have severely cut their flights, so naturally it's harder to get a flight.

None of this is a ban on citizens returning home.

Originally Posted by Scorpius

If you leave, don't come back.

Yes, thanks for proving my fears are founded. This is exactly the kind of attitude I fear will leak into those in power.

[sv_pelagia]

Just opinion here FWIW:

I truly doubt the Federal government will ever put in place any kind of ban on citizens returning to Canada. Given there are clear efficacious alternatives (quarantine), such a ban wouldn't pass a Charter sniff test.

HOWEVER, the Feds might (and I think should) enforce a true supervised quarantine (at traveler's cost) in a hotel. Something like Thailand, Oz etc.

My bet something like that is coming.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Scorpius, most of the studies done on the efficacy of travel restrictions have found that it can be effective at the very early stages of a pandemic. But only if it is a truly hard closure, with almost no exemptions. It also seems to be most effective in places with few entry points and natural barriers, such as islands or peninsulas. Once the virus gets in, the studies show travel bans have almost no positive impact.

Now, it's an interesting question regarding these new variants. A full lockdown might keep new ones at bay, all except the innevitable 'Canadian variant' that will arise. But it would require a hard ban on all travel. I don't know if that's even possible for Canada. After all, we are a nation that doesn't even produce enough food to feed its population, let alone all the other stuff that we need, such as vaccines.

More stringent measures for those returning could be imposed, but again, the actual data shows travelers are not primary contributors to the spread. Maybe that would keep new variants out though. Maybe...

As for banning citizens from returning, I find that a draconian measure with too many dangerous outcomes. If countries start effectively removing citizenship from people they dislike, well, I think that leads us down a rather scary authoritarian path.

As far as Australia barring the return of its own citizens, can you point to the source for that fact. As I understand it, this would be a serious breach of international law.

I've gone looking, and can't find it. They've certainly banned most travel from foreigners, but I can't find support for your claim. In fact, the official government of Oz website has a big section stating:

https://www.australia.gov.au/travel-and-consumers


Oz has imposed a ban on people leaving the country (with a long list of possible exemptions, of course), but they have not barred their citizens from returning.

Hi Mike,
Your quote of "Australians trying to return home:If you are overseas and wish to come home, you are encouraged to make plans to return" is misleading. Yes, the Australian prime minister said that but . . . the Australian government made no effort to lay on repatriation flights (as so many other countries including Canada did) and then, with each of the Australian states limiting the number of people who could come in so they could manage their quarantine facilities, and with the airlines cancelling so many flights, they were hollow words. All talk, little action; a defacto barrier to their citizens returning home - with NO effort over a great many months to break it down. An impartial observer would say they liked it that way, and too bad for a couple of citizens / permanent residents (and others around the world) stranded in Manitoba.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by desodave

Mike, I think you're trying to rationalize something that conceptually is just wrong. Containing a virus means minimizing contacts, especially the social ones.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything Dave. I'm simply reading the science. Travel bans and lockdowns are intuitively obvious. But as we know, our intuition is often wrong.

I was fully supportive of the travel bans and severe lockdowns. Personally, I think it should have been done much harder and faster at the outset. But it wasn't, so no we deal with the facts on the ground. And the facts don't support more travel restrictions.

I completely agree, it is selfish for some people to be traveling right now. Purely recreational travel is an insult to those of us who have tried our best to part of the solution. But there are others who need to travel, and even more whom we all need to travel.

Originally Posted by desodave

Of course data is going to show "travelers" contribute a minor amount to the covid case total when we've had 10 months of international travel restrictions - it's tautological imo.

It's just a fact. Current travelers add almost nothing to the spread of the virus. You can see it in the Ontario data. You can also see, quite convincingly, how travel very early on DID result in further spread. THIS is when we should have locked everything down, but we didn't, and now the horses have long since left the barn.

The research indicates that lockdowns are only effective at the early stages, and only if they're done fully. Newfoundland, and to a lesser extend the rest of the Maritimes, is a great example. But they have all the tick marks that make it possible (much like Australia and New Zealand). We didn't do that in the rest of Canada, and maybe we couldn't ... I'm far from sure.

Originally Posted by desodave

Hardening the border at this time is effectively closing the barn door after the horse has gone imo - you are correct that it was probably more effective at the very beginning. But for all those Canadians making personal sacrifices, it makes a lot of "equity" sense to do so.

Right! Here we get to what's really at play. A sense of fairness, decency, equity... sure. But this is why it's important to follow the science, and not just emotion (or intuition). As much as I'd like to stick it to those who snub their nose at all the efforts other make, the science indicates further travel restrictions will gain us little benefit.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Hi Mike,
Your quote of "Australians trying to return home:If you are overseas and wish to come home, you are encouraged to make plans to return" is misleading. Yes, the Australian prime minister said that but . . . the Australian government made no effort to lay on repatriation flights (as so many other countries including Canada did) and then, with each of the Australian states limiting the number of people who could come in so they could manage their quarantine facilities, and with the airlines cancelling so many flights, they were hollow words. All talk, little action; a defacto barrier to their citizens returning home - with NO effort over a great many months to break it down. An impartial observer would say they liked it that way, and too bad for a couple of citizens / permanent residents (and others around the world) stranded in Manitoba.

The Australian government DID charter planes and work hard to bring home its citizens last Spring. A simple search confirms this.

It's clear the Oz government has taken a much harder line that we ever did. But that still doesn't amount to them barring their citizens from re-entry. That is a step we should all be wary of.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

I truly doubt the Federal government will ever put in place any kind of ban on citizens returning to Canada. Given there are clear efficacious alternatives (quarantine), such a ban wouldn't pass a Charter sniff test.

Indeed, it would be a breach of Canadian, and international law. No country can ban the return of its own citizens. The only thing they can (and sometimes DO do) is strip people of their citizenship, making them non-citizens. But this is an extreme and draconian measure that would never survive a Charter challenge.

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

HOWEVER, the Feds might (and I think should) enforce a true supervised quarantine (at traveler's cost) in a hotel. Something like Thailand, Oz etc.

My bet something like that is coming.

Agreed. I can see that coming. Probably something we should have done at the outset.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The only thing they can (and sometimes DO do) is strip people of their citizenship, making them non-citizens. But this is an extreme and draconian measure that would never survive a Charter challenge.

But it was tried. Thankfully, the (Cdn) government is no longer "inclined" to stripping Canadians of their citizenship. As JT said: "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian..." (or pretty much that).

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Just opinion here FWIW:

I truly doubt the Federal government will ever put in place any kind of ban on citizens returning to Canada. Given there are clear efficacious alternatives (quarantine), such a ban wouldn't pass a Charter sniff test.

HOWEVER, the Feds might (and I think should) enforce a true supervised quarantine (at traveler's cost) in a hotel. Something like Thailand, Oz etc.

My bet something like that is coming.

A bunch of my right-leaning cousins were arguing on Facebook about whether the Charter trumped emergency health measures or not. Apparently Preston Manning has spoken out about it. Personally I believe there is precedent for the gov't to run roughshod all over the Charter and I just wish my aforementioned cousins would stop pushing so hard and backing the government into a corner where they believe they have no choice.

Still, not allowing citizens to repatriate is a BIG step so I doubt it will happen.

edited to add link: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ne/ar-BB1d69Q6

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by nwdiver

Mike,

Many news items of outbreaks start with “in contact with a returning relative”.

By the way half of the seniors in Alberta spend the winters in Arizona.

Originally Posted by Scorpius

If you leave, don't come back.

Most spread is either between cohabitants or community spread.

But a virus has to become in contact with cohabitants or a community to initiate the continuance of spread.

Of keen issue is the nature of mutations which can originate anywhere but which could be isolated if a country closes itself from entry.

Please do not leave your community and please do not comeback if you had opted to be elsewhere other than your community. Your community is where you chose to make it and that could be elsewhere from where you perceive to be your primary place of residence. That is why there are restrictions imposed at provincial boundaries and international boundaries.

If a boundary needs to be crossed [for truly essential purposes, [IMHO, or not so humble opinion, ] which characterization of essentiality should be at the sole discretion of the community that is allowing entry and not the discretion of the person who is desiring entry, it should be with EXTRAordinary caution and preventive protocols, such as extended periods of locked in quarantine and perhaps testings.

A community can not stop mutations from arising within its community but a community can shelter itself from becoming exposed to mutations that arise elsewhere.

The statistic that 60,000 international passengers arrive in Ontario's airport each week proves to me that what characterizes as "essential travel" is a very low bar in Canada. I would think that perhaps 6 or 60 at most would be truly life or death dependent travel because the entry of a more hazardous mutation of the virus is a life or death matter.