travel

Saturday May 29, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 29, 2021

Government Advisory Panel Calls For An End To Canadian Quarantine Hotels

As the US continues its reopening after COVID-19 pandemic measures, Canada’s restrictions are gradually lifting in some provinces as vaccination numbers increase. Nonetheless, the controversial quarantine hotels are still in place as a precaution against the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus — a requirement that some experts are now calling upon the government to lift.

November 28, 2020

A new report has been released from the COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Advisory Panel, a group providing guidance to the federal government, detailing these recommendations. “The current requirement for all air travellers to quarantine in government-authorized accommodations should be discontinued,” writes the panel of doctors and advisors. “However, travellers subject to quarantine must provide a suitable quarantine plan for approval and then adhere to this plan. If the traveller does not have a suitable quarantine plan, they should be required to adhere to an alternative one (for example, in designated quarantine facilities).”

Other factors that play into the recommendation include the administrative costs that these hotels use (and the resources drawn from other pandemic response), as well as the cost to travelers themselves. “Travellers face an added cost (up to $2000 CAD per person), time commitment and a burden to book government-authorized accommodation,” notes the report, which points out that some travelers are bypassing the hotels by crossing into Canada by land from the US. There have been cases where prospective visitors have even falsified test result paperwork to avoid the quarantine (charges were later laid).

February 13, 2021

Introduced earlier this year, the quarantine hotels, meant to reduce casual, non-essential travel to or from Canada, have been largely successful in their intended goal. The mandatory three night stay at a pre-booked quarantine hotel while awaiting results of a PCR (polymerase chain reactions) test discouraged many from flying: February data from the Canadian Border Security Agency showed a decrease of almost 55 per cent in terms of passengers flying into Canada after the quarantine hotel restrictions were implemented. During that month, the Canadian government also began routing all international flights, including those from the US that had been previously exempted, through four airports: Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. (Forbes) 

 

Thursday March 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday March 11, 2021

Vaccination passports: a long, tortuous road

Prepare for the next COVID-19 controversy: vaccine passports. The idea that vaccine, or immunity, passports will need to be developed and implemented manifests in two major ways. They can be loosely defined as domestic and international.

January 9, 2021

For the purpose of international travel, Canada won’t have much choice but to adopt vaccine passports. Countries around the world have already started down this road, including Israel and several European countries. Denmark and Sweden announced last month they are developing digital passports. President of the European Commissions Ursula von der Leyen tweeted March 1 that a proposed “Digital Green Pass” would help EU citizens move around safely. The pass will include a record of vaccination, or failing that of a negative COVID-19 test.

And Canadian airlines are already asking for the government to make vaccine passports part of the plan for reopening international travel.

September 19, 2020

So Canada needs to decide, and fairly soon, if it wants to be part of this worldwide movement. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has expressed misgivings. He worries, as do many, about the potential of some people being unfairly and unintentionally targeted, such as people who cannot be vaccinated for reasons of immunosuppression. Others worry the passport may stigmatize those who, for whatever reason, choose not to get vaccinated. 

These are legitimate concerns, which is why this subject will only become more contentious over the coming weeks and months. Notwithstanding Trudeau’s concerns, Health Minister Patti Hajdu has said the government is having “very live” discussions with international partners. All things being equal, some form of international travel vaccine passport is pretty much inevitable, and those who don’t have one won’t be travelling. 

October 8, 2020

The contentiousness only gets thicker when you consider how this will apply domestically. Will provincial governments want proof of vaccination for interprovincial travel? That is relatively easy to police through airports, but what about land crossings? Given the Constitution guarantees Canadians freedom of movement, not just those vaccinated, how long until a legal challenge is launched? Might some provinces simply say you are not welcome unless you are vaccinated? (The likely answer is yes — look at the Maritime bubble.)

October 15, 2020

It’s not just about travel, either. Consider major events. Will those organizing football, hockey, basketball, concerts and graduations and the like want a virus-free environment? The only way to ensure that is through record of vaccination. So is someone who isn’t vaccinated precluded from attending?

Consider it at the individual level. If you are making a reservation with friends at your favourite restaurant, surely you are entitled to ask if the restaurant has restrictions for unvaccinated patrons. Even though you are protected, you could still carry the virus and pass it to unprotected people, such as your unvaccinated parents, friends and kids. 

Consider small to medium-sized businesses, already struggling through pandemic restrictions. At some, vaccinated patrons may demand proof of safe passage. If five per cent of the business’s customers refuse vaccination, will the business have to write off their business? Can they afford to do that given the financial pressure they are already under?

It’s headache-inducing. If everyone who can safely be vaccinated is, the problem will be dramatically reduced. But we know that isn’t likely to happen, that even with vaccine hesitancy reduced, a percentage of the population will stubbornly refuse. How the rest of us relate and interact with those people poses new and thorny challenges. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Saturday January 9, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday January 9, 2021

As airlines entice travellers, health expert says gov’t must enforce stronger travel rules

A Toronto-based health expert says the federal government should be doing more to crack down on non-essential travel as the COVID-19 pandemic intensifies in Canada.

June 27, 2020

“We’ve been relying mostly on the honour system. We just think, OK, we put out a recommendation, people will do the right thing,” said Dr. Lauren Lapointe-Shaw, a general internist at the University Health Network and assistant professor at the University of Toronto.

“We know from every other area of life that that’s unfortunately not the case.” 

Several Canadian officials from across the political spectrum came under fire this week for travelling abroad during the pandemic, despite federal government warnings to avoid all non-essential travel. Their reasons for travelling ranged from visiting ailing relatives to vacationing in the Caribbean.

Air Canada is now facing backlash as well for launching an ad campaign that encourages Canadians to travel to vacation spots like Hawaii and the Caribbean, as long as the right hygiene protocols are enforced along the way. The Current reached out to Air Canada for comment, but did not receive a response.

Meanwhile, a new federal rule came into effect Thursday that requires all air travellers entering Canada to provide a negative COVID-19 test result before boarding a flight into the country.

This comes as COVID-19 cases continue to climb across the country. The COVID-19 case count in Ontario broke records again on Friday, while Manitoba extended its lockdown by another two weeks.

Lapointe-Shaw outlined a few other measures the government could take to ensure Canadians are following guidelines around travel. 

“As Canadians exit [the country], they’re not even asked to present the reason [for] their essential travel,” she told The Current’s Matt Galloway. “There isn’t even a form that asks you, you know, ‘What among these essential categories is your category?'”

Were the government to adopt such a practice, it could deter some people from leaving the country, because travellers would be “actively lying” if they didn’t fit into one of the essential travel categories listed on the form, she explained.

Requiring returning travellers to be supervised during self-isolation, and putting the administrative cost of running such a program on travellers’ backs, could also limit the number of people deciding to escape for leisure purposes, Lapointe-Shaw said.

She pointed to New Zealand as one country that’s already leading the way in enforcing travel measures.

Anyone entering the country needs to have a voucher to quarantine for two weeks in a managed self-isolation centre and provide a negative COVID-19 test result. It costs travellers thousands of dollars to stay in self-isolation there. 

“But furthermore, their recommendation is not, ‘Avoid non-essential travel,'” Lapointe-Shaw said. “It is, ‘Do not travel.’ So the wording is much more definitive.” (CBC)

 

Wednesday January 6, 2020

January 6, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 6, 2020

Don’t lump all politicians in with scofflaws

Reading Spectator journalist Katrina Clarke’s report surveying local politicians about their activities over Christmas, you may have been struck first by the fact that one Hamilton-area politician did indeed travel.

Veteran Conservative Flamborough-Glanbrook MP David Sweet acknowledged to his leader’s office that he travelled to the U.S., first on business to deal with a “property issue,” and then later “for leisure.” But Erin O’Toole’s office didn’t know about the “leisure” part. Sweet “resigned” from chairing — of all things — the House of Commons Ethics Committee, the leader’s office reported Monday. And he has said he will not run again in the next federal election. Sweet remains in the U.S. at this point. 

O’Toole had requested, explicitly, that caucus members not take part in international travel over the Christmas holidays, so it’s little wonder Sweet’s career as a Conservative MP was quickly declared dead in the water. It’s an ignominious way to end a 15-year-career in politics. Twitter lit up with reaction, much of it lauding Sweet for his work but even more of it bitterly critical, such as John P. Soleas, who Tweeted: “Why are you still out of the country? You should’ve been flying back yesterday! Your constituents are staying home and abiding by public health guidance. If you can’t stay in the country when it counts why not resign today and relieve yourself of this heavy burden?”

Sweet and other politicians caught up in this angry storm are learning the hard way: This is no minor bit of bad behaviour. Travelling while the rest of Canada is locked down and suffering has tapped a vein of outrage and hurt. Read the letters from Spec readers and others across the country. Read about broken-hearted families who wanted desperately to see each other but couldn’t due to the travel guidelines. Parents of adult children who always see their kids and grandkids at Christmas, but couldn’t this year. People who lost loved ones before or during the pandemic and could not be with relatives for comfort and consolation. People who are used to gathering with families who had to settle for the Zoom equivalent this holiday season.

The collective reaction is not annoyance at the display, yet again, of a double standard between “them” and the rest of us. It’s more like the reaction of people who feel they have been attacked and wounded. Is it entirely reasonable? You can argue either way, but it is what it is. Public reaction on this issue is like a force of nature, and it won’t be dismissed or managed, as so many Canadian politicians have learned.

But here is something else worth considering. For the story mentioned earlier Clarke got responses from something like 20 area politicians, local, provincial and federal. (Several others have yet to respond.) But if they’re all being honest — and they would be very foolish at this point to be anything but forthright — the rest of them spent their holidays season the same way the majority of us did.

They spent Christmas and New Year’s alone, or Zoomed with friends and family. They hosted small outdoor gatherings, masked and distanced. Some had “garage gatherings” which in our view is questionable, but for the most part these elected officials are living with the same public health guidelines we all are.

As we survive this latest pandemic outrage, it is important that we make it entirely clear we expect those elected to represent and serve us to abide by the same rules they levy upon us. And to use common sense. But we should also be careful not to lump all politicians together with those who have abused the public trust. Most are playing by the rules, and the few who are not are paying the price. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday February 28, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 28, 2020

If the coronavirus hits America, who’s responsible for protecting Americans?

The outbreak of the coronavirus — and Covid-19, the disease it causes — in mainland China has provoked a response the likes of which the world has never seen. Hundreds of millions of people in the country have had their travel restricted; many have not even been allowed to leave their homes. All of this is aided by the vast Chinese surveillance state.

Coronavirus cartoons

Meanwhile, though the number of new cases in China dropped to 406 on Wednesday, bringing the total to 78,000, China is ramping up capacity to treat tens of thousands of sick people, with new hospitals going up nearly overnight. Many people still haven’t returned to work, though some of the restrictions are being eased.

Draconian restrictions on movement and the intensive tracking of people potentially exposed to the virus are just some of the ways China — a centralized, authoritarian state — has responded to its outbreak.

April 30, 2009

What would have happened if the outbreak had started in the US — or if it comes here next?

The number of confirmed cases in the US is small: just 14, and 12 are related to travel. An additional 45 people who were sickened with Covid-19 abroad have returned to the US for treatment. On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted its message on the likelihood of the coronavirus spreading in the United States. “Ultimately, we expect we will see community spread in this country,” Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters in a press call. She said it’s a matter of “when,” not “if,” and that “disruption to everyday life might be severe.”

October 14, 2014

There’s still a lot we don’t about the virus. It’s a novel, fast-spreading disease to which people have no known immunity. So far, no vaccines or drugs to treat it exist, though both are being developed. That said, many of the cases of Covid-19 are mild, as Vox’s Julia Belluz reports. The fatality rate — which remains an early estimate that could change — is hovering around 2 percent. A virus of these parameters could spread very quickly.

While there’s much we don’t know about how this could play out with regard to how many people will get sick and how sick they’ll get, what we do know is the United States has dealt with outbreaks — polio, tuberculosis, and H1N1 flu, for starters — before, and many health officials have been anticipating a new one. There are lots of professionals at the federal and local levels who stand ready to try to stymie the spread of coronavirus in the United States.

August 3, 2016

That’s not to say our system is perfect, or even necessarily prepared for this incoming novel virus. But it’s worth thinking through what responses are possible in the United States and how they might become politicized. There are a few really important things to know.

The biggest one: Public health is a power that’s largely left up to the states, which introduces flexibility into our system. But it also introduces inconsistencies, local politics, and laws, with varying protections for civil liberties. The biggest question remains: Can our health care infrastructure handle an influx of thousands of new patients? (Continued: Vox)