New posts

BC COVID Restrictions

April 19, 2021, 4:18 p.m.
Posts: 222
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

Posted by: syncro

Honestly, at this point I don't care. I stopped caring about a lot of things in life a ways back, covid has just helped that along. If going building is one of the few things keeping me sane then fuck the rules, that's what I'm going to do.

I am just messing with you.

April 19, 2021, 4:26 p.m.
Posts: 1767
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

I know, but I'm being real in saying there's not much I care about these days.

April 19, 2021, 5:20 p.m.
Posts: 74
Joined: March 12, 2021

Posted by: RAHrider

I heard on the radio today that the reason they are keeping schools open here is because transmission actually goes up when the kiddies stay home. 

I heard the same thing and I would like to see how/where they acquired this data.

I didn't have a cold/flu for my entire adult live until I had kids and sent them to daycare/school.  My oldest is now in grade 5 and this year was actually the first year since he has been in school that he hasn't brought home a cold/flu from school - and I think that is a direct result of all the hand washing that takes place in the classroom now.

But the whole line that "transmission doesn't happen in schools" is complete and utter BS.

I have been working from home and have had 0 COVID exposures in the last year.  

My wife is a teacher, and her particular school has had a few COVID exposure letters.

Based on my own personal experience with what is actually happening, there is much less risk of COVID transmission if my kids stayed home.

I am pretty sure the real reason they won't close schools is because public schools, especially elementary schools, are the biggest free daycare provider in our province.  If the kids have to stay home, so will many of the parents who don't have alternative childcare arrangements.

Remember last year when they shut everything down again because we reached 50 cases in one day?  We probably  need to do that again to put a serious dent in our current numbers and "flatten the curve".

April 19, 2021, 5:20 p.m.
Posts: 1258
Joined: Nov. 6, 2006

Posted by: earleb

Blow up the bridges. The Island of North Vancouver has a nice ring to it.

Actually it would be a peninsula. Just sayin’.

What if it were postal codes?


 Last edited by: FLATCH on April 19, 2021, 5:51 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
April 19, 2021, 6:01 p.m.
Posts: 1767
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

Posted by: syncro

I'm not going to Squamish either way, it's just a question. At the end of the day though I think the whole avoiding non-essential travel thing is pointless when there are so many people traveling for work and other "essential" things.

So seriously, would that ^^^ be a bad thing?

Both things can be true.

Current guidance is "no non-essential travel outside your neighborhood". So if one travels to squamish for work, and brings their bike to get in a lap after, I think it's looking for a loophole to get their squamish fix in.

Is that causing additional risk. No. The Covid risk associated with a solo ride in the forest is near as I see it, so close to zero one should be more worried of an eagle attack.

But that's for solo riding. People travelling to ride with people from other households in a different neighborhood or city? How far off is that from jumping the skytrain to Kits beach for a saturday night dance party?

Somewhere between those two is a reasonable medium. I've landed on solo rides, generally in my neighborhood.

For sure, but the forthcoming rules represent a real conundrum. What seems more acceptable travel wise;  Granville and 70th to Seymour or Willingdon and Lougheed to Seymour? The Vancouver trip is over twice the distance as the Burnaby trip yet is somehow ok due to arbitrary borders. Another example is Willingdon and Lougheed to Woodlot. That trip is 4 times the distance of heading to Seymour but is again deemed acceptable based on arbitrary borders. Based on the rules I could go out to the Woodlot to meet up for a ride with 10 people from my zone yet doing a solo ride on the shore is a no-no. It's makes no sense. Give people a radius they have to stick to and that answers any questions about where they can go.

April 19, 2021, 7:43 p.m.
Posts: 1212
Joined: May 4, 2006

Crazy...last week Bonnie told North Van people that they couldn't travel to Richmond (out of "community" "advisory") yet now it's ok to travel up to Pemberton or Powell River (all within VCH area). 

And Burnaby people can't cross Boundary Rd...

No wonder so many people are flaunting the "rules"

April 19, 2021, 8:43 p.m.
Posts: 74
Joined: March 12, 2021

Posted by: syncro

For sure, but the forthcoming rules represent a real conundrum. What seems more acceptable travel wise;  Granville and 70th to Seymour or Willingdon and Lougheed to Seymour? The Vancouver trip is over twice the distance as the Burnaby trip yet is somehow ok due to arbitrary borders. Another example is Willingdon and Lougheed to Woodlot. That trip is 4 times the distance of heading to Seymour but is again deemed acceptable based on arbitrary borders. Based on the rules I could go out to the Woodlot to meet up for a ride with 10 people from my zone yet doing a solo ride on the shore is a no-no. It's makes no sense. Give people a radius they have to stick to and that answers any questions about where they can go.

Not that I want to see this (from a selfish, riding perspective), but this radius idea makes the most sense and is easy enough for most people to grasp.

April 19, 2021, 8:57 p.m.
Posts: 1767
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

The question becomes what is a fair/reasonable radius? If it was set at 5km a heck of a lot of people would be shut out of riding and access to nature.

April 19, 2021, 9:42 p.m.
Posts: 96
Joined: Feb. 13, 2018

Posted by: Ride.DMC

Posted by: syncro

For sure, but the forthcoming rules represent a real conundrum. What seems more acceptable travel wise; Granville and 70th to Seymour or Willingdon and Lougheed to Seymour? The Vancouver trip is over twice the distance as the Burnaby trip yet is somehow ok due to arbitrary borders. Another example is Willingdon and Lougheed to Woodlot. That trip is 4 times the distance of heading to Seymour but is again deemed acceptable based on arbitrary borders. Based on the rules I could go out to the Woodlot to meet up for a ride with 10 people from my zone yet doing a solo ride on the shore is a no-no. It's makes no sense. Give people a radius they have to stick to and that answers any questions about where they can go.

Not that I want to see this (from a selfish, riding perspective), but this radius idea makes the most sense and is easy enough for most people to grasp.

Radius is harder to enforce. With geographical limits set by health authority it is easier to know where to direct the authorities to do the road checks because the boundaries are pretty obvious. The province publishes maps that show you the exact boundaries of the health authorities. Those boundaries apply to every single person the same exact way. It would be near impossible to enforce a radius-based restriction without going full Ontario style, which it turns out is extraordinarily unpopular (to the extent that several police forces in Ontario indicated they would not use their new powers to stop people randomly). I think the restrictions in Australia (or parts of it) were radius based for a while. I believe they pursued a COVID zero strategy though and so people had to accept (temporarily at least) much, much more aggressive restrictions than we’ve had here. I’m not expressing any opinion on which I think is preferable but I think that goes a long way to explaining why we don’t have radius-based restrictions here (at least not yet).

Another thing: I don’t think we should read the today’s announcement as suggesting that it is cool to travel to Whistler if you live in Vancouver. That has been pretty clearly discouraged by the authorities for a long time now. It just isn’t strictly prohibited for the next 5 weeks the way that travelling from Vancouver to the Okanagan, Island, Interior (or even Burnaby or Moody).


 Last edited by: Bushpilot on April 19, 2021, 9:50 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
April 19, 2021, 10:15 p.m.
Posts: 1212
Joined: May 4, 2006

Another thing: I don’t think we should read the today’s announcement as suggesting that it is cool to travel to Whistler if you live in Vancouver. That has been pretty clearly discouraged...

Well why don't our "leaders" grow a pair and make a clear decision! 😉

April 19, 2021, 10:35 p.m.
Posts: 6019
Joined: April 10, 2005

So who is going to be pulling people over? Some cops in some areas have refused to do this.

April 20, 2021, 12:16 a.m.
Posts: 3564
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted by: syncro

I know, but I'm being real in saying there's not much I care about these days.

Look into your heart.....

April 20, 2021, 4:25 a.m.
Posts: 1258
Joined: Nov. 6, 2006

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: earleb

Blow up the bridges. The Island of North Vancouver has a nice ring to it.

Actually it would be a peninsula. Just sayin’.

What if it were postal codes?

Was looking into this with my morning coffee and if you really want to get serious about this, postal codes would be the way to go. I would link it here but I’ve never taken the time to figure that out. Anyway there are over 100,000 codes in BC and I think if you were found to be out of your postal code for anything other than what would reasonably be considered essential you get smacked. So put the boats, campers and toys away for a few weeks.

April 20, 2021, 7:06 a.m.
Posts: 18112
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

Just close LSCR and Seymour roads to cars again please, that was awesome!  But not BC Parks forest, that was silly.

April 20, 2021, 9:03 a.m.
Posts: 14415
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

Posted by: syncro

For sure, but the forthcoming rules represent a real conundrum. What seems more acceptable travel wise; Granville and 70th to Seymour or Willingdon and Lougheed to Seymour? The Vancouver trip is over twice the distance as the Burnaby trip yet is somehow ok due to arbitrary borders. Another example is Willingdon and Lougheed to Woodlot. That trip is 4 times the distance of heading to Seymour but is again deemed acceptable based on arbitrary borders. Based on the rules I could go out to the Woodlot to meet up for a ride with 10 people from my zone yet doing a solo ride on the shore is a no-no. It's makes no sense. Give people a radius they have to stick to and that answers any questions about where they can go.

This latest set of guidelines are flat out dumb.

They essentially don't want to penalize or enforce the rules they have set out, so they end up with this confusing spiderweb of noise. It's a series of "you really shouldn't be doing this, but if you do..... " rules. Combine it with health authority boundaries that aren't in line with the goal they are seeking - namely stopping transmission between communities via travel.  It's frustrating as hell.

I road into LSCR on my gravel bike yesterday. I passed a big group ride of 10-12 people. Are all of those people part of the same bubble? That's still meant to be part of the guidance as I understood it. It's still low risk, but it's certainly higher risk than one trail builder going off into the forest on his own for the day. So yeah, I'm sticking to my small bubble and local neighborhood until one of these pharmacies gets me in for the AZ jab.

Don't even start me up on our plan on inter-provincial travel. "NEW SIGNS". Holy shit what a joke.


 Last edited by: Couch_Surfer on April 20, 2021, 9:03 a.m., edited 1 time in total.

Forum jump: