Some New Science on Virus Transmission on Airplanes

[Lateral Hazard]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

No, you cannot...

Unless you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident or a (relatively) close relative...

Unless you can demonstrate the visit is for ESSENTIAL business....

The owners of the vessel I just purchased are from Canada. They wanted to come down for the sea trial and survey but if they did they would have had to Quarantine for 2 weeks.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Lateral Hazard

The owners of the vessel I just purchased are from Canada. They wanted to come down for the sea trial and survey but if they did they would have had to Quarantine for 2 weeks.

If you mean "come down to USA", yes, they would have to quarantine for 2 weeks upon their return to Canada. And it is enforced.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I believe you can now.

I know flights are open between Canada and the USA. There just may be some quarantine rules going into Canada.

Last I heard non-essential travel was still banned. Essential workers, and other select groups, can enter Canada. But not tourists. This includes Americans.

Ironically, while there is a joint agreement to stop all discretionary travel between Canada and the USA, America continues to allow Canadians to fly south for non-essential reasons. The reverse is NOT true. The land border is closed both ways, but for some bizarre reason, Canadians can fly to the USA.

If you are deemed an essential traveler, the best airport to use right now is Calgary. It is running an experimental program that reduces the mandatory quarantine period from 14 days to as little as three.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Last I heard non-essential travel was still banned. Essential workers, and other select groups, can enter Canada. But not tourists. This includes Americans.

Ironically, while there is a joint agreement to stop all discretionary travel between Canada and the USA, America continues to allow Canadians to fly south for non-essential reasons. The reverse is NOT true. The land border is closed both ways, but for some bizarre reason, Canadians can fly to the USA.

If you are deemed an essential traveler, the best airport to use right now is Calgary. It is running an experimental program that reduces the mandatory quarantine period from 14 days to as little as three.

Although "essential workers" such as cross-border truck drivers are not required to formally quarantine.

As to how long the border will remain closed... who knows? PM Trudeau suggested it will be closed for quite a while... "Until the virus is significantly more under control everywhere around the world, we're not going to be releasing the restrictions at the border"

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...ll-stay-closed

[Mike OReilly]

More on the Can/US border, and the unequal treatment of air travel.

Why some travellers get permission to cross the Canada-U.S. border and others don't

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

More on the Can/US border, and the unequal treatment of air travel.

Why some travellers get permission to cross the Canada-U.S. border and others don't

I think US allowing Canadians is understandable -- the infection rate in Canada is 3x less than in the U.S.


For the same reason you can imagine that the Canadian policy is understandable. HOWEVER, there are other ways to allow travel to take place while preventing travellers from bringing infection -- why isn't Canada using those instead of just blocking all travel? In Finland, for example, you can come across the border from anywhere for any purpose, despite the fact that the infection rate is more than 10x less than in the worst affected European countries. You are required to arrive with a fresh negative test, self-isolate (honor system), then take another test within 3 days. If that is negative, then you're good to go.


Why would you wreak havoc with the economy and turn upside down people's lives and family lives, with blanket travel bans, when you can do something more reasonable like that?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think US allowing Canadians is understandable -- the infection rate in Canada is 3x less than in the U.S.

True. Sadly, ours is on the rise (although no where near the US levels). I've jokingly suggested one way to open the border is for us to drive up our rates to match theirs. Then there would be no need for a border closure.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For the same reason you can imagine that the Canadian policy is understandable. HOWEVER, there are other ways to allow travel to take place while preventing travellers from bringing infection -- why isn't Canada using those instead of just blocking all travel? In Finland, for example, you can come across the border from anywhere for any purpose, despite the fact that the infection rate is more than 10x less than in the worst affected European countries. You are required to arrive with a fresh negative test, self-isolate (honor system), then take another test within 3 days. If that is negative, then you're good to go.

I guess you should ask the policy makers. I can only speculate. Probably something to do with the size of our border, the huge numbers of people crossing, and the sheer number of entry points. Plus the sad fact that the honour system probably wouldn't be as effective in this case .

But there is trial running right now in Alberta that pretty much does what you suggest. You can fly into Calgary, or drive across at one land crossing (Coutts), and get tested. If negative, and with no other symptoms, you self-isolate for a 2-3 days, then you're free. You must take a second test around day 7.

It's a trial, that if successful, may be rolled out nation wide. Here's hoping...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Last I heard non-essential travel was still banned. Essential workers, and other select groups, can enter Canada. But not tourists. This includes Americans.

Ironically, while there is a joint agreement to stop all discretionary travel between Canada and the USA, America continues to allow Canadians to fly south for non-essential reasons. The reverse is NOT true. The land border is closed both ways, but for some bizarre reason, Canadians can fly to the USA.

If you are deemed an essential traveler, the best airport to use right now is Calgary. It is running an experimental program that reduces the mandatory quarantine period from 14 days to as little as three.

Yeah, I was thinking of Canadians flying in vs driving to the USA.

Land and Air are different rules. The whole thing makes little sense.

If they were serious, truck drivers from country A would cross drop at Country B's customs parking lot and immediately turn around back to Country A. Then a driver from Country B would hook up to the trailer and take it to it's final destination. It could all be done with zero contact...but I don't believe it really has much to do with controlling the spread.

[BugzyCan]

I think the perception of the vaccine as the cure-all is misconstrued. The vaccine will prevent you from contracting Covid (hopefully), but it will not prevent you from carrying it around, so if you think you are OK to go visit old people because you had your shot, that is wrong. You can still transmit it to them.

Also, like wearing face masks, people have to choose to do it, and many refuse (out of stupidity, denial, or following a crazy leader), and likely a large population of people will also refuse to have the vaccine, so Covid will be around a lot longer than people think.

If we shut the entire country down for one month, the virus would be gone forever, but nobody will agree to that.

If we gave everyone the vaccine on the same day, it would die a quick death too, but this is impossible.

You watch, in six months, or a year, the virus will have mutated around the vaccine and will come back stronger than ever.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by BugzyCan

I think the perception of the vaccine as the cure-all is misconstrued. The vaccine will prevent you from contracting Covid (hopefully), but it will not prevent you from carrying it around, so if you think you are OK to go visit old people because you had your shot, that is wrong. You can still transmit it to them.

......

If we shut the entire country down for one month, the virus would be gone forever, but nobody will agree to that.

If we gave everyone the vaccine on the same day, it would die a quick death too, but this is impossible.

You watch, in six months, or a year, the virus will have mutated around the vaccine and will come back stronger than ever.

There is no such thing as a "cure all" but if the vaccines play out anything closed to what they are claiming, this is as close to a "cure all" as you will find.

No it won't change anything this week when the vaccines are approved but not distributed... but once you are vaccinated along with the bulk of the population, no you aren't going to be carrying it around because you won't have been exposed. Also, the old folks will have had their shot already, so it won't matter if they are exposed.

Huge difference between everyone isolating for a month vs distributing the vaccine.
- Isolating the entire population of the world for a month is orders of magnitude harder than vaccinating everyone in a day.
- More importantly, a vaccine doesn't have to be distributed in a day to be effective. Using isolation needs to be simultaneous and darn close to 100% for it to work. If even a small number of cases slip thru, as soon as isolation ends, you will quickly be back where you started. It's not an issue of getting people to "agree"...it's simply not possible logistically. Are you going to leave people having a stroke in their home to die because you don't want to break isolation?

Could it mutate...yeah but a few things make that a lot less scary than your comment suggests:
- Most of the time, the mutations are to less dangerous forms.
- Prior exposure to similar viruses tends to result in better immune response.
- They will be watching and planning for updated vaccines (similar to annual flu shots)

So while it's possible it could mutate into the next black death, it's also highly unlikely and it won't be a surprise. If anything, they will over react to any significant changes in the virus.

[GordMay]

Rapid Vaccination of Large Populations - 1976 As a Case Study

“Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program” ~ by David J. Sencer and J. Donald Millar
“... The proposal recommended by the director of CDC was the second course, namely, for the federal government to contract with private pharmaceutical companies to produce sufficient vaccine to permit the entire population to be immunized against H1N1. The federal government would make grants to state health departments to organize and conduct immunization programs. The federal government would provide vaccine to state health departments and private medical practices. Since influenza caused by A/Victoria was active worldwide, industry was asked to incorporate the swine flu into an A/Victoria product to be used for populations at high risk...
... The proposal was presented to 4 committees of the Congress, House and Senate authorization committees and House and Senate appropriation committees. All 4 committees reported out favorable legislation, and an appropriation bill was passed and signed.
The estimated budgeted cost of the program was $137 million. When Congress passed the appropriation, newspapers mischaracterized the cost as "$1.9 billion" because the $137 million was included as part of a $1.9 billion supplemental appropriation for the Department of Labor. In the minds of the public, this misconception prevailed...”
➥ https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1007_article

“1976 U.S. swine flu vaccination program may offer lessons for COVID-19 pandemic” ~ CBC
Before it was cut short, the program's goal was to vaccinate every American by the end of 1976.
➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/swine...ovid-1.5825276

“The fiasco of the 1976 ‘swine flu affair" ~ BBC
With a pandemic looming, the US president announced a warp-speed effort to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the country. As Richard Fisher discovers, the mistakes that followed hold lessons for today.
➥ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...affair-of-1976

[Capn Jimbo]

Originally Posted by BugzyCan

I think the perception of the vaccine as the cure-all is misconstrued. The vaccine will prevent you from contracting Covid (hopefully), but it will not prevent you from carrying it around, so if you think you are OK to go visit old people because you had your shot, that is wrong. You can still transmit it to them.

Also, like wearing face masks, people have to choose to do it, and many refuse (out of stupidity, denial, or following a crazy leader), and likely a large population of people will also refuse to have the vaccine, so Covid will be around a lot longer than people think.

If we shut the entire country down for one month, the virus would be gone forever, but nobody will agree to that.

If we gave everyone the vaccine on the same day, it would die a quick death too, but this is impossible.

You watch, in six months, or a year, the virus will have mutated around the vaccine and will come back stronger than ever.

Facts:


1. It is too early to determine if post-vaccination will eliminate, reduce or weaken a viral load - if any - thus allowing - or not - a vaccinated person to spread the virus.

2. The virus has had over a year to mutate "stronger" and has not done so. All viruses do mutate, but if anything tend to do so as to become weaker. Of course a "stronger" mutation is possible, but again, this is anything but predictable.

3. There is no need to "vaccinate everyone on the same day". So-called herd immunity does not require that. A combination of many fewer vaccinations, strict and common measures (masks, distancing, hygiene, etc.), good testing and tracing and a very few stay-at-home, hotspot interventions will be quite successful.

As an advanced practice nurse, public health, I do agree that a one month total stay-at-home order would stop the virus; however #3 would be equally effective and far less disruptive. Still, our fractured politics is a major problem actually promoting failure.

Public health is concerned using broad perspectives: emotional, physical, mental, economic, community, etc. Misinformation and speculation contributes to the spread and longevity.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Copacabana

Dockhead, has it been your experience recently that all passengers wear masks on flights and for the duration of the flight? Any stubborn individuals who refuse to wear a mask? If so, how does the staff react? (I ask because I have a flight coming up and I don't want to bring the virus to my elderly mother in Canada...).

I hear you. My Mother will be 97 in February. I’m in North Carolina and would drive to see her. It’s a day and a half drive. Her Dr. wants me to quarantine for 7 days once I’m in town. I’m not going until we’ve had the vaccine.

Another thought my gym has a standing rule. When you walk in you must wear a mask and have your temperature taken every time you walk in. This is not negotiable! Perhaps the airline could take a lesson.

[Up Helly Aa]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

There is no such thing as a "cure all" but if the vaccines play out anything closed to what they are claiming, this is as close to a "cure all" as you will find.

No it won't change anything this week when the vaccines are approved but not distributed... but once you are vaccinated along with the bulk of the population, no you aren't going to be carrying it around because you won't have been exposed. Also, the old folks will have had their shot already, so it won't matter if they are exposed.

Huge difference between everyone isolating for a month vs distributing the vaccine.
- Isolating the entire population of the world for a month is orders of magnitude harder than vaccinating everyone in a day.
- More importantly, a vaccine doesn't have to be distributed in a day to be effective. Using isolation needs to be simultaneous and darn close to 100% for it to work. If even a small number of cases slip thru, as soon as isolation ends, you will quickly be back where you started. It's not an issue of getting people to "agree"...it's simply not possible logistically. Are you going to leave people having a stroke in their home to die because you don't want to break isolation?

Could it mutate...yeah but a few things make that a lot less scary than your comment suggests:
- Most of the time, the mutations are to less dangerous forms.
- Prior exposure to similar viruses tends to result in better immune response.
- They will be watching and planning for updated vaccines (similar to annual flu shots)

So while it's possible it could mutate into the next black death, it's also highly unlikely and it won't be a surprise. If anything, they will over react to any significant changes in the virus.

Many will not like my opinion. It is refreshing to listen to a little common sense and not all of this panic and political hogwash. It is a virus....it spreads...they have been with us since the beginning of mankind. The human immune system fights of off viruses in 99.999% of all cases. If we are not exposed to new viruses our immune system weakens. Mask at best simply slow the spread. They do not stop it. Viruses vary widely in death rates......especially when those counting have a political agenda. I have had it and got through fine. Two weeks of feeling lousy. They have a very good handle on treating for it early now. I am over 80.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Capn Jimbo

Facts:


1. It is too early to determine if post-vaccination will eliminate, reduce or weaken a viral load - if any - thus allowing - or not - a vaccinated person to spread the virus.

2. The virus has had over a year to mutate "stronger" and has not done so. All viruses do mutate, but if anything tend to do so as to become weaker. Of course a "stronger" mutation is possible, but again, this is anything but predictable.

3. There is no need to "vaccinate everyone on the same day". So-called herd immunity does not require that. A combination of many fewer vaccinations, strict and common measures (masks, distancing, hygiene, etc.), good testing and tracing and a very few stay-at-home, hotspot interventions will be quite successful.

As an advanced practice nurse, public health, I do agree that a one month total stay-at-home order would stop the virus; however #3 would be equally effective and far less disruptive. Still, our fractured politics is a major problem actually promoting failure.

Public health is concerned using broad perspectives: emotional, physical, mental, economic, community, etc. Misinformation and speculation contributes to the spread and longevity.

1. This is technically true...if you are the only one with the vaccine and everyone else is still spreading it but it's overstating the risk. Odds are it will reduce the ability to transmit the virus to some degree as the whole idea is your body will better fight it off (typically more quickly) and once fought off and cleared from your system, you can't transmit it. Exactly how much impact that will have is unknown but it would be unlikely not to derive some benefit. More importantly, in practice, the vaccine is going to be widely distributed over a short time which means very quickly, the overall spread will reduce and you will be far less likely to be exposed. If you aren't exposed, you won't be carrying it and spreading it.

2. Agreed. Anything is possible but statistically it's likely become less harmful.

3. You are mixing two different subjects.
- The various isolation/distancing countermeasures have always been a delaying tactic (at least once it spread beyond a few hundred cases in Wuhan). The idea of isolating the entire world population for a month is about on the same level of foolishness as drinking aquarium cleaner. It's simply a logistical impossibility and in no way remotely a feasible solution. Isolation could have worked when it was a small number of cases in an isolated area...once it was spread around the world in large numbers, it's closing the door after the horse was out of the barn.
- The vaccine (assuming it's successful) is an end solution. There may be some follow up depending on it's long term durability but once distributed, the virus is behind us and we can largely return to normal. (agreed, that there is no need for it to happen on the same day...though of course the faster the better so we can get to the end sooner).