Covid travel restrictions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forum Sponsor
J_F said:
one test before flying
another one at the AP

locked up against your will and you've done nothing wrong
it is 100% arbitrary

there is no travel ban, can't be - Section 6

Quarantine Act allows for quarantine if reason to suspect infection
until the second test comes back positive or there are symptoms
there is no evidence of risk

go read the Charter and Quarantine Act
I have
Click to expand...
they haven't banned travelling you can leave and go as you please.

i did read the quarantine act, damnit are you going to make me do it again.
 
GreyGhost said:
It's not arbitrary, you came from another country with a raging contagious disease. If govt was half smart, they would test you on day 3 and argue that the quarantine was necessary as you need to wait out the incubation period. The way I have heard it so far, you get one test at the airport and then hang out for 3 days which if correct, is arbitrary and stupid.
Click to expand...


You are raging with your answers . Who would you argue with when you are in arbitrary detention ? That is the problem with this . It violates the charter that people are detained without a hearing .
 
J_F said:
one test before flying
another one at the AP

locked up against your will and you've done nothing wrong
it is 100% arbitrary

there is no travel ban, can't be - Section 6

Quarantine Act allows for quarantine if reason to suspect infection
until the second test comes back positive or there are symptoms
there is no evidence of risk

go read the Charter and Quarantine Act
I have
Click to expand...
Detention by quarantine officer

  • 28 (1) A quarantine officer may detain any traveller who
    • (a) has refused to be disinfested or to undergo a health assessment;
    • (b) has been required to undergo a medical examination under subsection 22(1);
    • (c) has failed to comply with an order made under section 26;
    • (d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
      • (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
      • (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
    • (e) has been arrested under section 27; or
    • (f) has been arrested without a warrant under section 18.

also

Order to comply with treatment or measure

26 If a quarantine officer, after the medical examination of a traveller, has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the quarantine officer may order the traveller to comply with treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of the communicable disease.

@J_F you didn't quite get it all
 
pfbmgd said:
You are raging with your answers . Who would you argue with when you are in arbitrary detention ? That is the problem with this . It violates the charter that people are detained without a hearing .
Click to expand...
the quarantine act does not give you due process (to it seems, i haven't read it all and i won't)
 
Evoex said:
he was a dictator, not apples to apples here
Click to expand...
That is why I said I am paraphrasing . That is how dictators work. They do it for the greater good . That is why we have the charter to prevent that . But JT and his government feel like they are above that .
 
what we're talking about here is Thought Crime
someone may break their quarantine so lock them up first?

nice pull:

(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
  • (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
  • (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
so how is anyone showing up at an airport with no symptoms and a negative PCR be subject to that?

let's setup outside grocery stores now and quarantine people that have been inside too long

they are a bigger community risk than travelers who already have to quarantine and are currently represent 1% of new infections
 
pfbmgd said:
That is why I said I am paraphrasing . That is how dictators work. They do it for the greater good . That is why we have the charter to prevent that . But JT and his government feel like they are above that .
Click to expand...
I think anyone in power does that, tbh.
 
Evoex said:
Detention by quarantine officer

  • 28 (1) A quarantine officer may detain any traveller who
    • (a) has refused to be disinfested or to undergo a health assessment;
    • (b) has been required to undergo a medical examination under subsection 22(1);
    • (c) has failed to comply with an order made under section 26;
    • (d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
      • (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
      • (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
    • (e) has been arrested under section 27; or
    • (f) has been arrested without a warrant under section 18.

also

Order to comply with treatment or measure

26 If a quarantine officer, after the medical examination of a traveller, has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the quarantine officer may order the traveller to comply with treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of the communicable disease.

@J_F you didn't quite get it all
Click to expand...
The problem I see is that is written in the affirmative. Statistically, only a few percent of people are positive. That seems really weak for "reasonable grounds to believe".

Edit:
Assuming you are asymptomatic. If you have even a single symptom that could be covid, it's pretty clear that you dont have a choice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
J_F said:
what we're talking about here is Thought Crime
someone may break their quarantine so lock them up first?

nice pull:

(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
  • (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
  • (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
so how is anyone showing up at an airport with no symptoms and a negative PCR be subject to that?

let's setup outside grocery stores now and quarantine people that have been inside too long

they are a bigger community risk than travelers who already have to quarantine and are currently represent 1% of new infections
Click to expand...
but are all the negative tests being shown at the airport legit?

can you get a negative test, board a plane, land in canada and be asymptomatic? this is what the 2nd test and quarantine solve.
 
J_F said:
what we're talking about here is Thought Crime
someone may break their quarantine so lock them up first?

nice pull:

(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
  • (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
  • (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
so how is anyone showing up at an airport with no symptoms and a negative PCR be subject to that?

let's setup outside grocery stores now and quarantine people that have been inside too long

they are a bigger community risk than travelers who already have to quarantine and are currently represent 1% of new infections
Click to expand...
Problem the first is here was zero effort put in to assuring that tests at the far end were valid. Honestly, they are a distraction and completely useless in this whole process. If there was a standard in place (eg accredited collection sites and labs) that might be worth something. The only reasonable way to ensure that a person is swabbed and a valid test conducted is to do it where we have control over the process.
 
GreyGhost said:
Problem the first is here was zero effort put in to assuring that tests at the far end were valid. Honestly, they are a distraction and completely useless in this whole process. If there was a standard in place (eg accredited collection sites and labs) that might be worth something. The only reasonable way to ensure that a person is swabbed and a valid test conducted is to do it where we have control over the process.
Click to expand...
bingo.

so is it 'reasonable' for someone to say that the negative test being shown at the airport is really mickey mouse crap? probably.

where is the standard?
 
Evoex said:
Detention by quarantine officer

  • 28 (1) A quarantine officer may detain any traveller who
    • (a) has refused to be disinfested or to undergo a health assessment;
    • (b) has been required to undergo a medical examination under subsection 22(1);
    • (c) has failed to comply with an order made under section 26;
    • (d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
      • (i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, and
      • (ii) is capable of infecting other people;
    • (e) has been arrested under section 27; or
    • (f) has been arrested without a warrant under section 18.

also

Order to comply with treatment or measure

26 If a quarantine officer, after the medical examination of a traveller, has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the quarantine officer may order the traveller to comply with treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of the communicable disease.

@J_F you didn't quite get it all
Click to expand...


The officer has to show his proof that he believes you have an infectious disease . How can he do that by just looking at you . In fact you are producing a test that says you don't have the virus . None of the people taken to hotels are being told they are being charged . They are just taken away to hotels . When you get charged then you can get a lawyer and have a hearing .

They are bypassing this section to hold people .
 
pfbmgd said:
The officer has to show his proof that he believes you have an infectious disease . How can he do that by just looking at you . In fact you are producing a test that says you don't have the virus . None of the people taken to hotels are being told they are being charged . They are just taken away to hotels . When you get charged then you can get a lawyer and have a hearing .

They are bypassing this section to hold people .
Click to expand...
they aren't being charged, they are being detained under the quarantine act. the law is there, it doesn't require a charge.
 
good points
maybe something should have worked out a year ago?
prior to 21,000 bodies?

I agree with @pfbmgd
this is political window dressing to distract from failings

surprised Canadians are generally falling for this
I thought we were smarter than to be fooled into the politics of division

the bug is still being tracked into LTC homes
doing nothing productive about that

but hey, let's put airlines out of business and grab headlines
because 1% of current new infections come from people that get off planes
 
J_F said:
good points
maybe something should have worked out a year ago?
prior to 21,000 bodies?

I agree with @pfbmgd
this is political window dressing to distract from failings

surprised Canadians are generally falling for this
I thought we were smarter than to be fooled into the politics of division

the bug is still being tracked into LTC homes
doing nothing productive about that

but hey, let's put airlines out of business and grab headlines
because 1% of current new infections come from people that get off planes
Click to expand...
it's how new variants currently get here, which are far more infectious then the current one we clearly aren't dealing with
 
J_F said:
good points
maybe something should have worked out a year ago?
prior to 21,000 bodies?

I agree with @pfbmgd
this is political window dressing to distract from failings

surprised Canadians are generally falling for this
I thought we were smarter than to be fooled into the politics of division

the bug is still being tracked into LTC homes
doing nothing productive about that

but hey, let's put airlines out of business and grab headlines
because 1% of current new infections come from people that get off planes
Click to expand...
Same as I said with psgdgsjdh above. Govt has failed on a scale we havent seen before. Travellers are a vector. A vector that has no benefit at all for the population and the most likely vector to quickly introduce variants. Just because govt isnt attacking all vectors doesnt mean they should ignore the one that catches your chosen activity.
 
testing and quarantine deal with new variants just the same as the original strain

again, the Gov is assuming people will do wrong and arbitrarily confine them

this will likely be overturned as a Charter violation
Forum Sponsor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom