Mixed Messages

From my read, easing travel restrictions only has to do with covid issues, not the crime issue. Two very distinct issues. There should also be a list of US cities that should be avoided because of the crime rate too.

QCMan wrote:
From my read, easing travel restrictions only has to do with covid issues, not the crime issue. Two very distinct issues. There should also be a list of US cities that should be avoided because of the crime rate too.

There was a young single German woman in my recent travel group.
She was an experienced world traveler, knowledgeable - even I learned a few travel tips from her.
We invited her to visit the US, mentioning several of our favorite places.

She had too much fear due to the amount of gun violence in the US and declined our invitation.
She had applied for a job in Mexico and was hoping to get that.

I worked here almost all of my adult life. Traveling here and living here are two very different animals.

When you know the country's language, read the papers, the statistics, and listen to locals you have a very different take on things.

I guess rvers aren't targets of crime but it is around us all the time. It makes life for me a bit uncomfortable knowing we are returning to the terrors of 14 years ago.

Of course, a government whose policy is "no confrontation" and "prohibido a prohibir" (prohibited to prohibit) makes it that much more difficult.

But back to the main topic, the three countries aren't helping either situation by not coming to agreements on travel and other issues.

“As rvers, where, when and why should we or shouldn't we travel to any of the three countries?“

You are expecting too much “certainty” in a fluid pandemic situation with all three countries trying to protect their citizens. There are no cookie cutter options.

bighatnohorse wrote:

QCMan wrote:
From my read, easing travel restrictions only has to do with covid issues, not the crime issue. Two very distinct issues. There should also be a list of US cities that should be avoided because of the crime rate too.

There was a young single German woman in my recent travel group.
She was an experienced world traveler, knowledgeable - even I learned a few travel tips from her.
We invited her to visit the US, mentioning several of our favorite places.

She had too much fear due to the amount of gun violence in the US and declined our invitation.
She had applied for a job in Mexico and was hoping to get that.

That seems really crazy, but it goes to show how the US is being portrayed by media to those other nations right now.

rexlion wrote:

bighatnohorse wrote:

QCMan wrote:
From my read, easing travel restrictions only has to do with covid issues, not the crime issue. Two very distinct issues. There should also be a list of US cities that should be avoided because of the crime rate too.

There was a young single German woman in my recent travel group.
She was an experienced world traveler, knowledgeable - even I learned a few travel tips from her.
We invited her to visit the US, mentioning several of our favorite places.

She had too much fear due to the amount of gun violence in the US and declined our invitation.
She had applied for a job in Mexico and was hoping to get that.

That seems really crazy, but it goes to show how the US is being portrayed by media to those other nations right now.

Sad to see the negative effect the media is having on the country where I grew up! :o:M

"This is exactly what I was referring to in the other post. Mixed messages between three North American countries related to land travel. As I stated, we have the T-MEC agreement but it doesn't seem to mean very much.

As rvers, where, when and why should we or shouldn't we travel to any of the three countries?

Is it correct to take actions that are against our countries of origin and what are the risks?

Those questions refer to those who are having their rvs shipped across borders and then flying and those that frivolously travel back and forth throwing caution and precautions to the wind.

I may be preaching to the wrong choir."



As one that travels as if it is 2019, I see people do take precautions and are not frivolous in their travels. I have never seen so much bleach use by businesses and airports in my life.

I have taken vehicles north into the USA for non-Americans stuck on this side of the border. It makes it very costly for Canadians that want to travel.

I don't think that we should blindly listen to our government officials. To question our officials is part of Americans DNA. Personally I have lots of questions.

travelers sneaking through the cracks in the system....even Canada's draconian response toward "slowing the movement of virus" is (exceptionally) full of holes, ill thought-out, and frankly, proving to be of little benefit.

Every Nation's "response" has to be situational (even the Three Amigos), but carried-out operationally under the precautionary principle (being proactive, not reactive).

The huge issue plaguing the Three Amigos (and every other nation on Earth), is that some nations (4 of them out of 200+ Nations) actually HAVE vaccines in great quantities, while others have almost none. So, situationally, you have a huge imbalance country-to-neighboring-country: vaccinated to non vaccinated. How would the neighboring non vaccinated (and, possibly economically underprivileged, like Mexico) countries react? Totally shutting their borders, and cancelling 100% of passenger air traffic? Drilling down to the microscopic, RVers free flow across the Three Amigos borders, a bi or tri-lateral agreement was never meant to address dynamic imbalances like a pandemic delivers. Few if any Nations on Earth ever had any effective pandemic plan. There are no easy fixes, nor easy answers.

A global concerted pandemic response needed a global pandemic response "law" enforceable. This does not exist.

playaboy wrote:


I don't think that we should blindly listen to our government officials. To question our officials is part of Americans DNA. Personally I have lots of questions.

It's not American DNA, it's human beings in general in any country.

I prefer to believe in the science and there is so much data supporting it and you can find it by reading the thread for the "C" here on rv.net.

I guess I am not or have not been clear in making my point. It's not some of us here that creates the risk. It is flaunting our travels and by doing that, others who may not be science savvy or have common sense will see some of us and say, "well if they can do it so can I" and that's where the problem begins.

What I have discovered from friends, some family and rvers is that people really don't give a S--- about anybody but themselves and prefer to take risks that may put others in danger.

"What I have discovered from friends, some family and rvers is that people really don't give a S--- about anybody but themselves and prefer to take risks that may put others in danger."

Covid-19 is 99.6% survivable. You are not understanding why "some" people have different opinions than you. In the United States the very states that "locked down" the most are seeing "new cases" increasing. Empirical evidence indicates that draconian control efforts have not worked.I kinow this because I live in one where the newspaper yesterday claimed that Covid-19 hospitalizations have "doubled". I read that headline and thought OMG! Reading into the deceptively titled story I soon discovered there are 17 people in a hospital with 411 beds for various illnesses that tested positive for Covid-19.

I'll disagree with your summary dismissal of people of people who don't give a "s---" about anyone else. I care about humanity a lot. During my lifetime I have saved 4 other lives (house fire, ice, motor vehicle). I'll skip my other Bona Fides.

It will be interesting to see if this comment - which defends those people that you summarily attack is permitted to remain.