I think it was the correct approach, simply because that choice (imposing quarantines, restricting entry) is what has been used since time immemorial to combat epidemics and pandemics. I support that approach even though it caused me to be trapped in Tunisia for 5 weeks at the start of the pandemic.

What is different today - and it's a relatively recent difference - is the ease and low cost at which people can move around the world. As recently as the 1960s, international travel was expensive and slow (ships, not planes) and few people travelled internationally. When it became necessary to impose a quarantine, no-one really complained, because only a tiny fraction of the population was affected by the quarantine restrictions. Consider also that up until the 1960s, all adults had first-hand experience watching others in their community die from periodic epidemics of typhus, diphtheria, polio... all diseases that most people who are younger than 65 today have no experience of.

Today, international travel is common. Heck, I'm writing this post from southern Mexico, and I had breakfast this morning in Canada. None of my friends or family would consider such movement unusual. Before I retired, it was not unusual for me to be on 3 or 4 different continents in one week.

Hi Mark:

You are correct. It has been almost universally accepted during this pandemic that a citizen or permanent resident of a country has the right to return to their country of citizenship or permanent residence. The only exception to this that I am aware of has been Australia.

I don't think that person who posed the question / raised the topic ('tohellandback') is a citizen or permanent resident of Canada. He or she obviously has some social or occupational interest in going to Canada, but most likely is not a citizen or permanent resident... hence the reason why he/she can't travel to Canada. This is further complicated by the person not being vaccinated with a vaccine that has been accepted by Canada until very recently (he/she was vaccinated with Sinovac, a Chinese product of dubious efficacy).

Michael