Canadian Snowbirds heading home-Antigen Rapid Tests required

[Canuck_Travelle]

Seeing that soon there will be a swell of Canadian Snowbirds heading home and seeing the protocol at the border is a requirement of a certified Rapid Test (Antigen) test not more than 24 hours prior to crossing has anyone crossed yet or know of anyone crossing?

Anyone have any more info on this like did they or do they know of anyone crossing, where did they get the test, costs, was it certified, was there any problem at the border showing the Border personnel the test and acceptance.

Really appreciate any info, thanks....

[silversand]

I agree with you, this thread has got way off track, let's as Moisheh suggests keep it about Canadians returning home and the silly mandates that Trudeau and Company want to push on all us Snowbirds.

...yes. Sorry. Back on track....

[Canuck_Travelle]

moisheh wrote:
Why do I think this is 2021 all over again? Isn' this thread all about Trudeau's ridiculous mandates?

I agree with you, this thread has got way off track, let's as Moisheh suggests keep it about Canadians returning home and the silly mandates that Trudeau and Company want to push on all us Snowbirds.

[moisheh]

Why do I think this is 2021 all over again? Isn' this thread all about Trudeau's ridiculous mandates?

[silversand]

BC Snob wrote:
If the employer decides not the government mandated
The document does not say the employer must require vaccination.

The South African government created the framework and legal space in which private employers can engage mandatory vaccinations within their enterprise. The horse before the cart.

[silversand]

BC Snob wrote:
More believable study than simply comparing rates in states with and without mask mandates

....we will have to agree to disagree on this. To me, the proof is in the infection rate of an entire population with strict mask laws (ie. Rhode island RIDOH Executive order mandatory masking indoors; recently lifted), in the case of Rhode Island, a population of ~1.1 million. How effective was that Executive Order in the face of Omicron BA.1 ??

IF masking had worked, in say, Rhode Island (or, Quebec; or Ontario; or...or...or...or...) during the Omicron onslaught, regardless of other Executive Order restriction in this (and other States and Canadian Provinces), it would have, well, worked! In spite of everyone in the State wearing masks indoors, the Omicron infection numbers tell the story. The fact that NOTHING mitigative worked shows in the massive infection rate during Omicron.....everywhere in the World. Even in countries that are approaching staggering (in a good way) fully vaccinated status: Canada: 81.4% | 80%+ in UK (with 38 million boosters given!) back just as Omicron was hitting, those countries then had indoor masking. What did indoor masking do? If it was effective at all, we would not have seen the MASSIVE and unprecedented Omicron infections we just saw (and AGAIN are seeing as I type, 1 in 19 Britons are presently infected with SYMPTOMATIC Omicron LOL!). I'll bet this infection level gets to 1 in 3 by next week, at the present climb in infections. But intensive care admissions are very, very low (for the last BA.1 round) in the UK and Canada (because of highly vaccinated populations).

Here....lets look at it another way: why is masking failing to make a any dent in Omicron's onslaught? If masking is a panacea, why haven't the "pandemic" numbers reversed? Masking with fully vaccinated (say, 80% fully vaccinated) populations make little and no difference in the global Omicron waves. What *third* mitigation do we need to implement to reverse the pandemic? Anyone?

Can anyone think of anything? Short of locking down the entire planet's human population for 1 or 2 years from today forward (and destroying life as we know it....but why, in the face of vastly declining Covid deaths, even in the US?).

[BCSnob]

If the employer decides not the government mandated
The document does not say the employer must require vaccination.

[silversand]

BC Snob wrote:
Go read it.
Link

No mandated vaccination

You have an outdated document. My document supersedes yours, and is signed and dated: 28/05/2021: here-->


See N044700 Page 51, Section 2.

"If the employer decides that vaccination is mandatory in respect of the employees....etc...etc...

[BCSnob]

More believable study than simply comparing rates in states with and without mask mandates

[silversand]

....In the Johnson County, Iowa mask study:

"Among the limitations to this study is that many persons could not be contacted or declined to cooperate with public health investigations. There are almost certainly substantial differences between case-patients and contacts that we were able to interview and those who declined to provide information or were unable to be reached. In addition, all of the data, with the exception of test results, were self-reported by either contacts or case-patients. Self-reported data can be unreliable. During investigations, case-patients may have had an incentive to provide false information to prevent friends, co-workers, or classmates from quarantining; or they may have demonstrated response bias by telling interviewers what they thought we wanted to hear. Although bias cannot be ruled out, we believe that persons who cooperate with public health investigations are more likely to provide accurate and honest information and to follow other public health guidance, such as social distancing and mask use"

[BCSnob]

Go read it.
Link

No mandated vaccination

South Africa can’t make Covid-19 vaccines mandatory — Health department

[silversand]

BC Snob wrote:
South Africa (beta and omicron) does not have a government vaccination mandate, some employers do.

South Africa has a vaccination mandate, as outlined in: DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR document NO. R. 499 11 June 2021, entitled:

Consolidated Direction on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces. Section 27(2) under the Disaster Management Act law, enshrined by their parliament. Quote: "To prevent and combat the spread of Covid-19 in certain workplaces in South Africa.

[BCSnob]

Go read the study, it wasn’t done in a lab

Here are other recent (2022) non-lab studies that found masking was effective at reducing secondary attack rates
Link
Link
Link

South Africa (beta and omicron) does not have a government vaccination mandate, some employers do.

Back to your original question; until there is a test for immunity simply saying if someone was sick they can be considered immune is a scientifically flawed policy.

This tread is now yours, I have work to do.

[silversand]

BC Snob wrote:
The reason I provided the published study is that is was more controlled in evaluating the benefits of masking; comparing the likelihood in onward transmission with vs without masking as opposed to statewide data "polluted" with and without mask use.

...of course tightly controlled mask efficacy research in a lab will show under ideal lab conditions what a mask can "do". However, this is utterly useless / meaningless under REAL mask use in the wild!

Forget about ideal laboratory mask research (humans don't live in labs, supervised by PPE experts). An improperly fitted, sized, and recycled mask in the real world in the wild, is about as protective as a space suit with a pin hole in it. The only metric to look at is: ....in places with mandated by law mask wearing, what are the ongoing infection numbers? Why use masks AT ALL (outside of the hospital/health care environment) if these infection numbers are as high as unmandated/voluntary mask wearing jurisdictions?

Global vaccination mandates:

....global vaccination mandates in my context means what jurisdictions around the Globe have mandated vaccination (NOT a single supra-national enforcement agency). Mandates have to be investigated country by country. Other than some war-torn African and Middle Eastern nations, can you name a SINGLE country where there has been zero vaccination mandate? Jeez, even places like Slovenia, had some form of Covid vaccination mandate. Some countries were "soft" on enforcement, like Belgium (for cultural reasons)...others brutally strict, like Canada (locking their citizens down in house arrest: the severity driven by Provincial rules).

[BCSnob]

You stated: "The problem with "mask wearing" is the following: ...."
Then how do you know any of the data you quoted is reliable in evaluating the effectiveness of masking? The reason I provided the published study is that is was more controlled in evaluating the benefits of masking; comparing the likelihood in onward transmission with vs without masking as opposed to statewide data "polluted" with and without mask use. We manufacture a highly sensitive test for a biomarker that is in saliva. In order to test new lots of this product we must wear masks to prevent false positives in product testing from contamination by those performing the test. We use cloth, surgical, kn95, or n95 masks for this work and find a very significant reduction in false positive results. If these masks were ineffective at filtering exhaled particles we would require the use of fitted respirators during product testing.

Lockdowns are a different issue than masking which you now choose to discuss. They won't work because people don't understand that a lockdown is to minimize human-to-human interaction; human-to-human interactions (inadvertent and planned) continued during these lockdowns. The lockdowns were not going to stop the spread of the virus; the lockdowns could slow the spread of the virus so that the health systems would be better able to keep up as opposed to being in "Crisis Standards of Care" for the entire pandemic (we can treat and save you, we can't help you go over here and die).

There hasn't been a "global vaccination mandate"; there have been a few national vaccination mandates. Poor nations did not receive (rich nations hogged supplies) and/or were unable to distribute vaccines for several reasons, not the least of which is that the most effective vaccines could not be distributed where there wasn't -80 storage (that has changed recently).