Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-government-mandatory-vaccinations-1.6140131
162 comments
You're probably right.
There's also a push to make the vaccine mandatory for federal and healthcare workers.
Somehow it rubs me the wrong way for a not fully approved vaccine to be made mandatory though. Don't get me wrong, I'm doubly vaccinated and I believe everyone should be.
But should we force people? In a country where 82%/72% (1) of eligible people are already vaccinated once/twice?
(1) https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html
(1) https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html
Except they're not going to be forced? You don't have a right to be employed. You may be able to wfh or find a job that will allow that. But being required to be vaxxed to go to the office seems reasonable to provide a safe work place.
You meant: "...being required to be vaxxed to go to the office seems reasonable to provide a safe work place for the unvaccinated."
At least in quebec vaccine passports are seen in a super bad light (at least to most people i have interacted with). But yeah it's for sure an election tactic, hiding more important discussion like how they threw away their promise to reform the electoral system (EDIT: Probably because it makes them lose [1])
[1] https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-resul...
[1] https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-resul...
Do you hang out in an antivax crowd?
Vaccine passport are enormously popular in Canada.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/majority-support-vacc...
I couldn’t find Quebec specific data, but I live here and haven’t seen anything to suggest people view them differently.
Vaccine passport are enormously popular in Canada.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/majority-support-vacc...
I couldn’t find Quebec specific data, but I live here and haven’t seen anything to suggest people view them differently.
Not everyone who opposes a vaccine passport belongs to an "antivax" crowd. I've encountered a lot of a variance on the issue, often in surprising contexts. I was at the dentist last week and after vetting me mildly she explained there's a faction of their practice who oppose mandatory vaccines. She said they formed a group to share and discuss the issue and engage with other health care professionals who may not be as politically astute.
No but about 80% of adults are vaccinated and about 70% in Canada support vaccine passport.
So there isn’t much wiggle room. Unless a good swath of the unvaccinated support vaccine passports….
So there isn’t much wiggle room. Unless a good swath of the unvaccinated support vaccine passports….
I am fully vaccinated and I am trying to convince all the people I interact with face to face to vaccinate, but I still don't want to send to Gulag all the people who refuse. Even if 99% support something, it does not automatically make it right.
That's true. I suppose my only skepticism surrounds the 70% polling in favor of passports. That seems very high. But my skepticism rests on anecdotal experiences so that doesn't mean much -- and admittedly I haven't looked closely into the polling data. But I am frustrated with the smoothing over the nuances of the issue by lumping people into a certain crowd. I think there's merit in an anti-passport position without falling into lunacy.
One notes that in BC/Western Canada, dentists gathered en masse at a convention while case rates were cranking upward. A shit-ton of them caught covid. One also notes that for decades, they’ve been working on people’s mouths, spraying nasty oral bacteria into the air, without wearing masks. What I’m saying here is that dentists have never been particularly intelligent about their own health safety.
My dentists/hygienists in Canada have been using masks for quite some time now.
My dentist has been wearing gloves, eye protection, and a mask for the last 15 years.
Good point. Of course I happen to live in BC. I forgot about that one.
I'm not sure of their vaccination status, and to be fair my sample size is small because it's been announced recently and there's only so much people you can interact with. That said, we've had a protest here on day 1 and the people I have spoken to are more against a perceived overreach than of the vaccine, although I am young and most non-vaccinated people are in my age group (because of the side effects afai can tell).
I'm weary of polls, especially those paid for by news networks, but even then this was done in may, before the variants became well know/transmission more understood/efficiency more know.
I'm weary of polls, especially those paid for by news networks, but even then this was done in may, before the variants became well know/transmission more understood/efficiency more know.
[deleted]
Complete opposite interactions for vaccine passports and I live in Saint-Remi, Quebec.
> Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice.
What does “opposed to vaccines” even mean? Vaccines for anybody? Vaccines for themselves? Mandatory vaccines?
I sincerely doubt 10% of even Canada is in favor of mandating everyone be vaccinated to live what was once a normal life.
EDIT: I meant that last sentence in reverse, ie doubt that only 10% is against mandatory vaccinations. I’d wager it’s much higher.
What does “opposed to vaccines” even mean? Vaccines for anybody? Vaccines for themselves? Mandatory vaccines?
I sincerely doubt 10% of even Canada is in favor of mandating everyone be vaccinated to live what was once a normal life.
EDIT: I meant that last sentence in reverse, ie doubt that only 10% is against mandatory vaccinations. I’d wager it’s much higher.
Exactly this. I keep seeing so much discussion lately where support for vaccination in general (or for oneself) is being conflated with support for mandatory vaccination (for everyone). These are not the same thing! This all-or-nothing "with us or against us" discourse is really not helpful, and it often serves to shut down any healthy debate about the merits (or drawbacks) of two related but still separate items.
And this kind of extreme binary categorization seems to be everywhere lately...
- Against some policies of some country's authoritarian regime? You're a racist!
- Vote for team blue (red)? You must despise everyone who votes for team red (blue)!
- For bike lanes? You're anti-car!
- Pro-carbon tax? You hate the economy!
- Concerned about men's issues? You must hate women!
It's almost as if holding any nuanced view and ability to debate about the many complex situations we face in life means you're more than likely to find yourself despised by those in either of the extreme camps on any given issue, which unfortunately seem to be growing to include more and more people as time goes on. As this unfolds, we're less likely to be able and willing to find compromises, have empathy for, and better understand one another. How are we going to come together to work on solving some very hard problems of the future when we're all just shouting past each other, thinking that anyone who doesn't hold the exact same set of viewpoints as one does on so many varied issues is an idiot?
And this kind of extreme binary categorization seems to be everywhere lately...
- Against some policies of some country's authoritarian regime? You're a racist!
- Vote for team blue (red)? You must despise everyone who votes for team red (blue)!
- For bike lanes? You're anti-car!
- Pro-carbon tax? You hate the economy!
- Concerned about men's issues? You must hate women!
It's almost as if holding any nuanced view and ability to debate about the many complex situations we face in life means you're more than likely to find yourself despised by those in either of the extreme camps on any given issue, which unfortunately seem to be growing to include more and more people as time goes on. As this unfolds, we're less likely to be able and willing to find compromises, have empathy for, and better understand one another. How are we going to come together to work on solving some very hard problems of the future when we're all just shouting past each other, thinking that anyone who doesn't hold the exact same set of viewpoints as one does on so many varied issues is an idiot?
The conflation is probably not that far off in this case. There are some numbers downthread but I think it likely a significant percentage of vaccinated people are perfectly fine with, for example, United requiring flight personnel to be vaccinated, the many universities requiring vaccination to attend in the fall, events requiring vaccination, and the increasing drumbeat of companies requiring vaccination to enter an office.
Even in the US, I think you'd find there was significantly greater than 10% support for vaccine mandates for certain activities, jobs, etc.
Politico ran a poll that found that 56% of Americans would support a blanket vaccine mandate with essentially no exceptions (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017b-3299-d185-a97b-3f9fc..., question POL11_5) so yeah it's way higher than 10%.
I hadn't seen that particular poll but there's apparently a very widespread mood among vaccinated people that any pressure on unvaccinated is fair game to:
- Better protect vaccinated people given vaccines aren't 100%
- Get things opened back up faster
- Better protect vaccinated people given vaccines aren't 100%
- Get things opened back up faster
GP said "everyone" - meaning police showing up at people's doorsteps, pinning them down, and giving them shots.
Mandatory means different things to different people. A few may view mandatory in the holding people down light. Which I assume very few people would be in favor of outside of perhaps very limited situations.
But it's more common to view mandatory as something more along the lines of if you don't get vaccinated (barring medical exemptions) fine but a lot of places--perhaps including where you work--will be closed to you.
But it's more common to view mandatory as something more along the lines of if you don't get vaccinated (barring medical exemptions) fine but a lot of places--perhaps including where you work--will be closed to you.
40% of the Canadian population is unvaccinated, approximately 15 million people.
71.744% of the Canadian population has received at least one dose
82.404% of Canadians 12+ have received at least one dose
Source: https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html
82.404% of Canadians 12+ have received at least one dose
Source: https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html
So the >80% is for 12 and older.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-cover...
For the whole population, it's a bit over 60% so the "misinformation" you're referring to is approximately correct.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-cover...
For the whole population, it's a bit over 60% so the "misinformation" you're referring to is approximately correct.
No, the numbers I gave are the numbers for receiving the first dose.
OP did not say fully vaccinated but instead having been vaccinated. Are you not vaccinated once you have one dose? If not, what verb would you use after receiving your first dose?
OP did not say fully vaccinated but instead having been vaccinated. Are you not vaccinated once you have one dose? If not, what verb would you use after receiving your first dose?
You're being pedantic. "Vaccinated" as it's used, for example, by organizations requiring vaccinations is to have had both doses (in the case of the 2 dose vaccines) and wait the two weeks or whatever after the second dose. At that point, you're considered vaccinated and not before.
What happens for families with children under 12 who want to travel by train or air? I didn't see anything specific mentioned for this unvaccinated group.
"accommodations will be made for "those few who are unable to be vaccinated," such as testing and screening."
> For the whole population, it's a bit over 60% so the "misinformation" you're referring to is approximately correct.
The context is important, that 40% was a response to someone that said that a great proportion of people are for the vaccine (now whether his 10% figure is right or wrong, that's a whole other things that I won't debate here), thus his point for giving that figure is to give doubt over whether enough people are for the vaccine or not.
So yeah I would argue that saying 40% of people are against, by including people that can't get vaccinated in Canada (younger than 12) and people that didn't get both dose, to show that not that many people are against the virus, is disinformation. He didn't used theses words, but he was responding to something and not simply stating facts about how many people got vaccinated.
82.521% of the population that could get vaccinated, got the vaccine in their body. That does show that a good proportion of Canada population are not against the vaccine.
The context is important, that 40% was a response to someone that said that a great proportion of people are for the vaccine (now whether his 10% figure is right or wrong, that's a whole other things that I won't debate here), thus his point for giving that figure is to give doubt over whether enough people are for the vaccine or not.
So yeah I would argue that saying 40% of people are against, by including people that can't get vaccinated in Canada (younger than 12) and people that didn't get both dose, to show that not that many people are against the virus, is disinformation. He didn't used theses words, but he was responding to something and not simply stating facts about how many people got vaccinated.
82.521% of the population that could get vaccinated, got the vaccine in their body. That does show that a good proportion of Canada population are not against the vaccine.
82% of the age-eligible population is either fully vaccinated or has started the process with the first shot.
This needs to be legally challenged. No way does this not violate charter of rights and freedoms and probably Nuremberg codes.
If you let a government force or punitively coerce its people to put a drug in their body for a disease with less than 1% mortality, same magnitude as a flue. You no longer have bodily autonomy. You're a slave to the state. They can do anything they want in the future, under any nebulas threat they want.
Keep in mind that a much more reasonable alternative already exists of just letting people be tested before boarding.
The principal of informed consent must be preserved. A person should make medical decisions with their doctor, and be informed of the risks and benefits and then chose freely.
The ability for people to travel, and see their loved ones, opportunity to work and live where they want is what distinguishes free societies from those that are oppressive and murderous.
The hallmark of the rise of authoritarian states, and one of the first rights to be taken away it the ability to travel freely.
If you let a government force or punitively coerce its people to put a drug in their body for a disease with less than 1% mortality, same magnitude as a flue. You no longer have bodily autonomy. You're a slave to the state. They can do anything they want in the future, under any nebulas threat they want.
Keep in mind that a much more reasonable alternative already exists of just letting people be tested before boarding.
The principal of informed consent must be preserved. A person should make medical decisions with their doctor, and be informed of the risks and benefits and then chose freely.
The ability for people to travel, and see their loved ones, opportunity to work and live where they want is what distinguishes free societies from those that are oppressive and murderous.
The hallmark of the rise of authoritarian states, and one of the first rights to be taken away it the ability to travel freely.
Your rights end when exercising them puts the health and safety of others at risk. Other people have rights, remember.
It's always been that way. It's the reason gun ownership, driving, drinking, smoking and countless other activities all have restrictions.
I'm not opposed to the idea of testing (within 24 hours of travel) as an alternative requirement though.
It's always been that way. It's the reason gun ownership, driving, drinking, smoking and countless other activities all have restrictions.
I'm not opposed to the idea of testing (within 24 hours of travel) as an alternative requirement though.
1. Vaccinated people transmit COVID as well. In fact, they're more likely not to show symptoms, so probably more likely to travel and unknowingly infect others.
2. People have covid over a period of two weeks to a month, and in some portion of that they transmit the disease. Of those that haven't had covid yet, most that will get it, will self isolate. The probability that you are transmitting disease at any moment is very small, and is tiny fraction of one's life. This ban is for years to come, life affecting. More likely to cause poverty and real misery that effects life outcomes much more than COVID.
3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already, who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine that only recognize the virus by a spike protein.
4. At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk. We can't make the world safe for everyone at all times. There are inherent risks with being a human, and disease is one of them. Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability that they are spreading disease is wrong headed. Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people. And who can reduce that risk by getting vaccinated for their own protection.
5. Based on the trends in Israel, (early high vaccination rate)the virus just mutated, and evolved, and is happily reinfecting the vaccinated. This happened in a span of months. The further back someone has been vaccinated the more likely they are to get sick.
6. Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well. By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex. And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs. Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.
This kind of thinking will just lead to more misery than COVID its self. Lockdowns are causing poverty, drug addiction and suicides of young people. Its taking decades off their lives, unlike COVID which mostly is deadly to those in their last year of life.
2. People have covid over a period of two weeks to a month, and in some portion of that they transmit the disease. Of those that haven't had covid yet, most that will get it, will self isolate. The probability that you are transmitting disease at any moment is very small, and is tiny fraction of one's life. This ban is for years to come, life affecting. More likely to cause poverty and real misery that effects life outcomes much more than COVID.
3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already, who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine that only recognize the virus by a spike protein.
4. At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk. We can't make the world safe for everyone at all times. There are inherent risks with being a human, and disease is one of them. Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability that they are spreading disease is wrong headed. Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people. And who can reduce that risk by getting vaccinated for their own protection.
5. Based on the trends in Israel, (early high vaccination rate)the virus just mutated, and evolved, and is happily reinfecting the vaccinated. This happened in a span of months. The further back someone has been vaccinated the more likely they are to get sick.
6. Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well. By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex. And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs. Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.
This kind of thinking will just lead to more misery than COVID its self. Lockdowns are causing poverty, drug addiction and suicides of young people. Its taking decades off their lives, unlike COVID which mostly is deadly to those in their last year of life.
>This kind of thinking will just lead to more misery than COVID its self. Lockdowns are causing poverty, drug addiction and suicides of young people. Its taking decades off their lives, unlike COVID which mostly is deadly to those in their last year of life.
First of all, none of the above misery is exclusive to young people. None. You seem to think young people are suffering more than most and it's not clear why.
I don't want to go through line by line here because I truly feel like you're not thinking this whole thing through. So I have a proposal for how we continue this debate.
Let's imagine a scenario: Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... What happens next?
Do we still treat the sick? If so, what happens when the healthcare system reaches its breaking point? Do we cut back on treating other illnesses? What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy? What will happen to international trade and personal travel? Will Canada be blacklisted?
Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger generation be an inevitable part of growing old? What about old people who have devoted their lives to this country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths affect families? Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor (or nurse)?
This is a genuine question. I really want to understand what people such as yourself think will happen if we abolished these things.
Side note: for the record, yes it is (very) illegal for someone with an STD to have unprotected sex with an unknowing partner in Canada.
First of all, none of the above misery is exclusive to young people. None. You seem to think young people are suffering more than most and it's not clear why.
I don't want to go through line by line here because I truly feel like you're not thinking this whole thing through. So I have a proposal for how we continue this debate.
Let's imagine a scenario: Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... What happens next?
Do we still treat the sick? If so, what happens when the healthcare system reaches its breaking point? Do we cut back on treating other illnesses? What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy? What will happen to international trade and personal travel? Will Canada be blacklisted?
Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger generation be an inevitable part of growing old? What about old people who have devoted their lives to this country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths affect families? Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor (or nurse)?
This is a genuine question. I really want to understand what people such as yourself think will happen if we abolished these things.
Side note: for the record, yes it is (very) illegal for someone with an STD to have unprotected sex with an unknowing partner in Canada.
> I don't want to go through line by line here because I truly feel like you're not thinking this whole thing through.
Can we have some more respect for each other? It's a basic premise in the UK parliament, and I would wager the Canadian parliament too, that the opponent is making their argument in good faith. It's assumed they want the best for the country and people too. Without this assumption, debates quickly descend into useless ad hominum attacks which just waste everyone's time. We could do with adopting this principle here too.
Related to this, I'd like to point out that those hesitating to get vaccinated are not just the stereotypical "idiots", but also those with the highest levels of qualification [1].
[1] https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educati...
Can we have some more respect for each other? It's a basic premise in the UK parliament, and I would wager the Canadian parliament too, that the opponent is making their argument in good faith. It's assumed they want the best for the country and people too. Without this assumption, debates quickly descend into useless ad hominum attacks which just waste everyone's time. We could do with adopting this principle here too.
Related to this, I'd like to point out that those hesitating to get vaccinated are not just the stereotypical "idiots", but also those with the highest levels of qualification [1].
[1] https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educati...
Sure, I will try to respond.
> Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... > What happens next?
I am not for halting vaccines. Anyone that wants one should get one. Nothing happens. Those that are at high risk and want a vaccine should get one.
> Do we still treat the sick?
yes, obviously. This is a medical problem for sure, but its nowhere near overwhelming. We had months to prepare to expend capacity.
Keep in mind that in Ontario, at the height of the pandemic, the overall death rate was 7-80 deaths / day.
Total Deaths in Ontario:
2019-2020* 115,126
2018-2019 109,019
And the overall death rate is roughly inline with the population growth, which is about 1.7 percent. If official number of COVID deaths is accurate. 9,400 people died of COVID.
Assuming those 9,400 deaths were all in the ICU and none at home or palliative care. There are 400 hospitals in the Province. So average of COVID deaths per hospital/per year is 9400/400 = 23.5
> What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy?
23.5 extra deaths/hospital/year. You think will do that?
>Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger >generation be an inevitable part of growing old?
The average age of a person that dies from COVID is around 85 years old. At that age, you are way past average life expectancy of 82 in Canada. So you did pretty well. You lead a full life before COVID got you. Again not the panic situation you think it is. Also, chances are if COVID did not get you at 85, something else would shortly.
>What about old people who have devoted their lives to this >country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly >affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths >affect families?
No one is ignoring the elderly. There are not millions of Covid deaths in Canada. Canada is very well prepared to treat the sick. We have new treatments that work. They can take vaccines to reduce their risk.
>Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will
>suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just
> stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop
> giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor
> ?(or nurse)?
Since this seems like a hyperbolic exaggeration. I want you to consider that currently life or death decisions are made at hospitals all the time. We could extend the life of very ill old people right now, if we spent a few extra million per patient. Since hospitals don't have that kind of money. We are letting people die whose life we could prolong with extraordinary measures. Hope you realize that. These decisions are made at hospitals all the time. Give you an example.
Dick Cheney is walking around with an artificial heart. Its an operation that would costs millions, but would extend the life of all those very old people that had heart attacks. Why do you think this is not being done? Why do you think hospitals will only offer such procedures to young patients if at all.
> Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... > What happens next?
I am not for halting vaccines. Anyone that wants one should get one. Nothing happens. Those that are at high risk and want a vaccine should get one.
> Do we still treat the sick?
yes, obviously. This is a medical problem for sure, but its nowhere near overwhelming. We had months to prepare to expend capacity.
Keep in mind that in Ontario, at the height of the pandemic, the overall death rate was 7-80 deaths / day.
Total Deaths in Ontario:
2019-2020* 115,126
2018-2019 109,019
And the overall death rate is roughly inline with the population growth, which is about 1.7 percent. If official number of COVID deaths is accurate. 9,400 people died of COVID.
Assuming those 9,400 deaths were all in the ICU and none at home or palliative care. There are 400 hospitals in the Province. So average of COVID deaths per hospital/per year is 9400/400 = 23.5
> What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy?
23.5 extra deaths/hospital/year. You think will do that?
>Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger >generation be an inevitable part of growing old?
The average age of a person that dies from COVID is around 85 years old. At that age, you are way past average life expectancy of 82 in Canada. So you did pretty well. You lead a full life before COVID got you. Again not the panic situation you think it is. Also, chances are if COVID did not get you at 85, something else would shortly.
>What about old people who have devoted their lives to this >country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly >affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths >affect families?
No one is ignoring the elderly. There are not millions of Covid deaths in Canada. Canada is very well prepared to treat the sick. We have new treatments that work. They can take vaccines to reduce their risk.
>Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will
>suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just
> stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop
> giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor
> ?(or nurse)?
Since this seems like a hyperbolic exaggeration. I want you to consider that currently life or death decisions are made at hospitals all the time. We could extend the life of very ill old people right now, if we spent a few extra million per patient. Since hospitals don't have that kind of money. We are letting people die whose life we could prolong with extraordinary measures. Hope you realize that. These decisions are made at hospitals all the time. Give you an example.
Dick Cheney is walking around with an artificial heart. Its an operation that would costs millions, but would extend the life of all those very old people that had heart attacks. Why do you think this is not being done? Why do you think hospitals will only offer such procedures to young patients if at all.
> most that will get it, will self isolate
Sadly if that was enough we wouldn't be here talking about it.
> 3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already
They can get vaccinated too.
> who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine
Source?
> At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk.
Sure, but they don't put as much risk as COVID. If it does, the same steps as covid will be implemented. Quarantine isn't new, it's just rare that so much more is needed.
> Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability
On a minuscule probability? If it was minuscule, again, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. The propagation rate are crazy, even considering everything we do to lower it. There's nothing minuscule about it.
> Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people.
But that put an high strain on our health system for no other reason than the imaginary fear about the vaccine.
I always said it. If only 1% were dying, even if I disagree with it that idea, we wouldn't have done any of this, we would just have taken the decision to let them die, even though it so many people. The big issue is the hospitalization rate. There's so many surgeries that have to be postpone, so that we can keep alive anti-vax long enough.
> Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well.
Yup, at a far lower rate and much less risker of hospitalization than COVID, but yeah. I personally seriously hope that we will treat flu season differently, but people like you make me less hopeful for that to happen. All that said is while still considering that it put much less strain on our health system than COVID.
> 5. Based on the trends in Israel, (early high vaccination rate)the virus just mutated, and evolved, and is happily reinfecting the vaccinated. This happened in a span of months. The further back someone has been vaccinated the more likely they are to get sick.
If that is true, it's just as much true for the immunity given by getting the virus. I mean you do know that clearly as you said "reinfecting" for someone that got vaccinated...
> By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex.
If you lie about your STD to a sex partner, there could definitely be legal repercussion to that.
> And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs.
Going to a bar doesn't facilitate the spread of STD, there must be much more involved for STD to be propagated. Is it the scale of covid too? Here in Quebec 6% of case require hospitalization. I don't believe that in average someone with an STD give it to up to 8 others.... oh and dying from an STD is much less likely too.
> Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.
Funny that you say that, I know plenty that can't give blood ;). Even considering they only slightly increase the risk of propagation and it can be tested easily.
> Its taking decades off their lives
Decades? Come on, sure you were completly ignoring any statistics before that statement, but that's just a whole other level of absurdity. Both world war were horrible, the spanish flu happened during that time, some pretty importants economics crash, plenty of events that clearly increased suicide because of how awful they were (unlike covid, which didn't seems to have an impact) and still the life expectancy just kept increasing. You still think though that this single event will takes off decade of our life? God damn it.
Sadly if that was enough we wouldn't be here talking about it.
> 3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already
They can get vaccinated too.
> who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine
Source?
> At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk.
Sure, but they don't put as much risk as COVID. If it does, the same steps as covid will be implemented. Quarantine isn't new, it's just rare that so much more is needed.
> Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability
On a minuscule probability? If it was minuscule, again, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. The propagation rate are crazy, even considering everything we do to lower it. There's nothing minuscule about it.
> Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people.
But that put an high strain on our health system for no other reason than the imaginary fear about the vaccine.
I always said it. If only 1% were dying, even if I disagree with it that idea, we wouldn't have done any of this, we would just have taken the decision to let them die, even though it so many people. The big issue is the hospitalization rate. There's so many surgeries that have to be postpone, so that we can keep alive anti-vax long enough.
> Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well.
Yup, at a far lower rate and much less risker of hospitalization than COVID, but yeah. I personally seriously hope that we will treat flu season differently, but people like you make me less hopeful for that to happen. All that said is while still considering that it put much less strain on our health system than COVID.
> 5. Based on the trends in Israel, (early high vaccination rate)the virus just mutated, and evolved, and is happily reinfecting the vaccinated. This happened in a span of months. The further back someone has been vaccinated the more likely they are to get sick.
If that is true, it's just as much true for the immunity given by getting the virus. I mean you do know that clearly as you said "reinfecting" for someone that got vaccinated...
> By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex.
If you lie about your STD to a sex partner, there could definitely be legal repercussion to that.
> And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs.
Going to a bar doesn't facilitate the spread of STD, there must be much more involved for STD to be propagated. Is it the scale of covid too? Here in Quebec 6% of case require hospitalization. I don't believe that in average someone with an STD give it to up to 8 others.... oh and dying from an STD is much less likely too.
> Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.
Funny that you say that, I know plenty that can't give blood ;). Even considering they only slightly increase the risk of propagation and it can be tested easily.
> Its taking decades off their lives
Decades? Come on, sure you were completly ignoring any statistics before that statement, but that's just a whole other level of absurdity. Both world war were horrible, the spanish flu happened during that time, some pretty importants economics crash, plenty of events that clearly increased suicide because of how awful they were (unlike covid, which didn't seems to have an impact) and still the life expectancy just kept increasing. You still think though that this single event will takes off decade of our life? God damn it.
Immigrants to the United States are already subject to being required to have certain vaccines. [1]
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
Immigration is generally considered a priviledge that can be restricted freely. Being able to live a normal life is a much more fundamental right.
Does this include international travelers? Is it legal to prevent someone from going back to their country if they are not vaccinated? What about incoming passengers? Are they going to have ties with all incoming airlines to check vaccination status?
Preventing someone from leaving and preventing someone from leaving by commercial airline or train is not the same thing. The U.S. does a similar thing where they might instruct airlines to prevent boarding at a foreign airport as that’s not a U.S. border and a citizen only has the irrevocable right to re-enter at an actual border.
Ultimately, legal is whatever the laws of the country you’re in say plus whatever aid your embassy is able to coax out of them.
That said, I don’t have answers to your specific questions about these rules.
Ultimately, legal is whatever the laws of the country you’re in say plus whatever aid your embassy is able to coax out of them.
That said, I don’t have answers to your specific questions about these rules.
Legal is what the government of a given country says is legal. My understanding is that New Zealand for example allows returning travelers but they have to stay in designated quarantine hotels and those are basically unavailable.
> Legal is what the government of a given country says is legal.
Governments are generally restricted by a constitution.
Governments are generally restricted by a constitution.
I meant the scenario where a Canadian resident but non-citizen wants to return to his country, but he's not vaccinated. Is the Canadian government going to prevent him from boarding a plane?
I would think almost certainly. And that's an issue they'll probably have to take up with their embassy if the airline can't make an exception.
> Is it legal to prevent someone from going back to their country if they are not vaccinated?
I think that all depends on the country. I'd imagine it would be some variation of requiring a test and a quarantine.
I think that all depends on the country. I'd imagine it would be some variation of requiring a test and a quarantine.
Germany is now giving the dozes away as there's low demand. I wonder if the same rules will be in place in Europe.
Who is actually paying for all of this? America is giving away doses, but for some reason I can’t fathom the drug companies doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
If there’s all this money laying around for COVID doses, ad everybody gets a shot no questions asked, maybe they could put that same energy behind insulin!
If there’s all this money laying around for COVID doses, ad everybody gets a shot no questions asked, maybe they could put that same energy behind insulin!
The US federal government is purchasing doses from drug companies at pre-negotiated prices and then giving them away to foreign countries.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...
Interesting! Both that and the pre-negotiated part. IIRC, the was not allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices for medicare, but that may have changed.
Medicare did not pay.
Also, the deal was worked out before they were done, and they would have been paid even if the drugs did not work.
Also, the deal was worked out before they were done, and they would have been paid even if the drugs did not work.
Both the US and particularly the EU over-bought. In particular, the EU increased Pfizer/Biontech orders after the AZ delays became apparent, but the committed AZ is still arriving (just late) and is now largely useless.
The EU was always going to over-buy, even without the AstraZeneca fiasco, to give to countries in need: https://apnews.com/article/europe-health-coronavirus-pandemi...
Theyre printing money to pay for everything which is causing massive inflation.
So basically everyone with a current cash position is paying for it.
Primarily the people holding the ~$137 trillion in US household assets are paying for it (along with the share of all USD-priced assets being held by foreigners). Very little of that value is held in cash. Anything priced in dollars is affected, not just USD cash positions. US housing is priced in dollars, as one example.
If they 'print' large sums to fund the forever budget deficits, it also debases the value of US stocks as well (it debases the sales/earnings of the businesses (to the extent their earnings are USD-related), and their share prices). In the case of stocks, there's a chance the businesses can outrun or keep up with the debt monetization destruction to an extent (varying by the growth of the company in question). Cash savings on the other hand, which is presently yielding next to nothing, that takes a near full shot from any loss of value by the dollar.
The present consumer inflationary pressure will recede as US growth implodes back toward mediocrity (this decade the US will struggle to average above 1.5-2.3% annual GDP growth). Then we'll be back to a scenario not dramatically different from much of 2010-2019 (where perma low interest rates and huge budget deficits did not spur dramatic traditional inflation). To keep inflationary pressure elevated in the face of mediocre economic growth, they'll have to keep sending people stimulus checks constantly and there will have to be persistent global supply chain problems. Otherwise you end up with the Japan scenario, where they ran extraordinary budget deficits far beyond anything the US has done so far (relative to the economy in question), and still couldn't spur traditional inflation. That's because the debt being accumulated at low yield rates acts as a heat sink, it essentially eats the capital (the capital goes into the freezer, yields jack squat, and never comes back out; an ever greater share of the nation's supposed wealth ends up in the freezer yielding eg 0.5% per year, it's basically dead at that point) that would otherwise be out there in the economy sloshing around spurring far worse inflationary problems.
If they 'print' large sums to fund the forever budget deficits, it also debases the value of US stocks as well (it debases the sales/earnings of the businesses (to the extent their earnings are USD-related), and their share prices). In the case of stocks, there's a chance the businesses can outrun or keep up with the debt monetization destruction to an extent (varying by the growth of the company in question). Cash savings on the other hand, which is presently yielding next to nothing, that takes a near full shot from any loss of value by the dollar.
The present consumer inflationary pressure will recede as US growth implodes back toward mediocrity (this decade the US will struggle to average above 1.5-2.3% annual GDP growth). Then we'll be back to a scenario not dramatically different from much of 2010-2019 (where perma low interest rates and huge budget deficits did not spur dramatic traditional inflation). To keep inflationary pressure elevated in the face of mediocre economic growth, they'll have to keep sending people stimulus checks constantly and there will have to be persistent global supply chain problems. Otherwise you end up with the Japan scenario, where they ran extraordinary budget deficits far beyond anything the US has done so far (relative to the economy in question), and still couldn't spur traditional inflation. That's because the debt being accumulated at low yield rates acts as a heat sink, it essentially eats the capital (the capital goes into the freezer, yields jack squat, and never comes back out; an ever greater share of the nation's supposed wealth ends up in the freezer yielding eg 0.5% per year, it's basically dead at that point) that would otherwise be out there in the economy sloshing around spurring far worse inflationary problems.
Good points, thanks. The point I was trying to make is just that cash positions will bear the brunt of the money printing. Outstanding mortgage and other debt still benefits from the low interest rates and the fact that cheaper money in the future will pay back the loan.
Do you think inflation will fall back to normal levels because consumers will not have enough money to pay for the inflated prices producers will be demanding? If that causes US growth to implode as you hypothesize, I think that will lead to quite a depression. Interest rates at 0 can't help at that point.
If they keep sending people stimulus checks forever, it seems that portends extreme continued inflation, since the govt. is giving out free dollars with no way to reclaim them in the future. So I really feel the most realistic outcome for the US is the Japan scenario unfortunately.
Do you think inflation will fall back to normal levels because consumers will not have enough money to pay for the inflated prices producers will be demanding? If that causes US growth to implode as you hypothesize, I think that will lead to quite a depression. Interest rates at 0 can't help at that point.
If they keep sending people stimulus checks forever, it seems that portends extreme continued inflation, since the govt. is giving out free dollars with no way to reclaim them in the future. So I really feel the most realistic outcome for the US is the Japan scenario unfortunately.
Yes, but it is also an investment, albeit a forced one. For example, if we didn’t do this the economy would crater and everyone would be poorer.
There are a lot of assumptions in that statement.
Yes, but they've been printing money continually for decades. So at least this installment is going to something with a deliberate and good purpose, rather than just bidding up the housing and stock markets as most of it does.
Going directly to The People(tm) you mean? Yes, I think it has been more beneficial for more people this time, but also, during qe after 2008 the govt. was able to basically "buy back" that money by recovering the losses after markets recovered, then shredding those dollars. This time, I don't think that will be possible.
Yes, individual welfare is better for our society than corporate welfare. Philosophically I shy away from both, but it's foolish to argue against the former while the latter gets a complete pass from both major parties. This political dynamic is one of the major factors underpinning our growing wealth divide.
Even though the Fed eventually got those 2008 dollars back, they still affected the market (otherwise what would have been the point). The losers were those who were prudently (imprudently, apparently) holding cash, and would have otherwise received higher interest rates due to the demand. By creating new temporary dollars for bailouts, the Fed destroyed that demand. And the moral hazard allowed companies to keep loading up on debt such that they needed another bailout for Covid, which was reflexively carried out without any objections from congress.
These new dollars never coming back in will be a good thing long term, as creating direct price inflation will prevent the Fed from being able to continue lowering rates and thus prevents them from creating even more asset inflation than they already have.
Even though the Fed eventually got those 2008 dollars back, they still affected the market (otherwise what would have been the point). The losers were those who were prudently (imprudently, apparently) holding cash, and would have otherwise received higher interest rates due to the demand. By creating new temporary dollars for bailouts, the Fed destroyed that demand. And the moral hazard allowed companies to keep loading up on debt such that they needed another bailout for Covid, which was reflexively carried out without any objections from congress.
These new dollars never coming back in will be a good thing long term, as creating direct price inflation will prevent the Fed from being able to continue lowering rates and thus prevents them from creating even more asset inflation than they already have.
Totally agree about the moral hazard problem. And I'll have to research how direct price inflation is going to prevent the fed from being able to continue to lower rates. Thanks!
It's straightforward. One of their chief mandates is to keep the CPI at a specific level of price inflation (2%). But their chief tool of lowering interest rates doesn't directly affect the CPI, as all the new money goes to the financial industry rather than to consumers. The CPI only goes up after that new money gets divvied up and spent on new ventures, and after asset valuations finally make it into the monthly cost of housing (which only occurs after they've raised the rates for other reasons, as (new) mortgage payments stay the same until then).
But don't they want the cpi to go down right now? They can only do that by shredding dollars right?
But they don't want it to go up much more than 2% either. So when it does, they'll have to stop lowering rates as they've been doing over the past three decades.
They have been able to keep lowering rates because technology and offshoring make real prices ever cheaper, while faux austerity keeps the newly printed money out of the hands of consumers. This has allowed them to point to the CPI and say that inflation is still low, despite higher asset inflation. Direct consumer stimulus stops their ability to keep ignoring inflation, by causing CPI inflation instead of asset inflation.
They have been able to keep lowering rates because technology and offshoring make real prices ever cheaper, while faux austerity keeps the newly printed money out of the hands of consumers. This has allowed them to point to the CPI and say that inflation is still low, despite higher asset inflation. Direct consumer stimulus stops their ability to keep ignoring inflation, by causing CPI inflation instead of asset inflation.
Officially it's less. But you simply just keep stripping out items from the CPI basket when they make it move it too much.
They aren’t. It’s just a bit more debt for them. What is causing massive inflation are the super low interest rates that we’ve been dependent on for the last 6 years (or even 20 years if we look long term). When Trump claimed the economy couldn’t boom without low interest rates, they should have been a huge alarm bell for everyone.
The federal government seems to be paying the bill in Germany.
We've got a vaccine passport in France and it boosted vaccination substantially. Italy is the same, AFAIK.
The doses were always "free". Testing used to be as well, now it's 15€ I think.
The doses were always "free". Testing used to be as well, now it's 15€ I think.
Here are some reasons I think this is a very bad idea:
1. The risk/benefit analysis for people under 40 is not as clear as is claimed. "Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds" [0]. That's just clots; not myocarditis, or pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness, Bell's palsy, missing periods, and more. Yes, there are some young people who have died with Corona - the vast majority of them had comorbidities.
2. This goes against human rights. Many civil liberties and privacy groups are against "vaccine passports", including the WHO special envoy on COVID-19. If you're response to that is "well I had to take a shot to go to France", well, that's not quite the same as using a train, or keeping your job and career.
3. "But the herd immunity" - No. Herd immunity is not realistically possible with these leaky vaccines. That's even ignoring animal reservoirs and variants; such as could come from deer, mice, rats, cats, dogs, ferrets, mink, monkeys etc - all of which have been shown to be capable of catching Corona and spreading it among themselves.
4. In the past hundred years there are countless examples of governments and pharmaceutical companies performing horrific acts, and covering them up. This goes double for the poor and minorities. Can you really blame native people in Canada for distrusting government?
5. The same mistrust can be understandably applied to the mainstream media who sell us more war, anxiety, fear and distrust every year. Mandating, or "soft" mandating vaccines will mostly achieve riots. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are heavily invested in tear-gas and riot gear manufacturers.
6. These vaccines are for-profit, yet were provided on condition of full legal indemnity. How can it inspire confidence in people to claim a vaccine is so safe that it can be mandated, while at the same time saying that absolutely no responsibility for any symptom or side-effect whatsoever will be taken by the manufacturers? Pick one! These companies have already made tens of billions of dollars, using research that has taxpayer money behind it on multiple levels.
7. These vaccines are not traditional vaccines. Yes, they have been studied for many years, but also, there is no long term data. The side effects which we know of are poorly understood, i.e., GBS and CFS.
8. Many governments seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", and "soft" mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Making good use of subsidised antigen tests, or implementing effective, privacy sensitive contact tracing, seem even lower on the agenda. I don't know how many ICU beds or nurses Canada has hired, or how they are testing, but I suspect there are the same shortcomings there as elsewhere. That's not just bad policy, and bad health management, it's eyebrow raising.
9. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon. Cures and treatments could be coming too. Burning people's career for standing up for their right to determine what concoction is shot directly into their blood right now seems short sighted at best.
[0] - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html *
* Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
1. The risk/benefit analysis for people under 40 is not as clear as is claimed. "Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds" [0]. That's just clots; not myocarditis, or pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness, Bell's palsy, missing periods, and more. Yes, there are some young people who have died with Corona - the vast majority of them had comorbidities.
2. This goes against human rights. Many civil liberties and privacy groups are against "vaccine passports", including the WHO special envoy on COVID-19. If you're response to that is "well I had to take a shot to go to France", well, that's not quite the same as using a train, or keeping your job and career.
3. "But the herd immunity" - No. Herd immunity is not realistically possible with these leaky vaccines. That's even ignoring animal reservoirs and variants; such as could come from deer, mice, rats, cats, dogs, ferrets, mink, monkeys etc - all of which have been shown to be capable of catching Corona and spreading it among themselves.
4. In the past hundred years there are countless examples of governments and pharmaceutical companies performing horrific acts, and covering them up. This goes double for the poor and minorities. Can you really blame native people in Canada for distrusting government?
5. The same mistrust can be understandably applied to the mainstream media who sell us more war, anxiety, fear and distrust every year. Mandating, or "soft" mandating vaccines will mostly achieve riots. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are heavily invested in tear-gas and riot gear manufacturers.
6. These vaccines are for-profit, yet were provided on condition of full legal indemnity. How can it inspire confidence in people to claim a vaccine is so safe that it can be mandated, while at the same time saying that absolutely no responsibility for any symptom or side-effect whatsoever will be taken by the manufacturers? Pick one! These companies have already made tens of billions of dollars, using research that has taxpayer money behind it on multiple levels.
7. These vaccines are not traditional vaccines. Yes, they have been studied for many years, but also, there is no long term data. The side effects which we know of are poorly understood, i.e., GBS and CFS.
8. Many governments seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", and "soft" mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Making good use of subsidised antigen tests, or implementing effective, privacy sensitive contact tracing, seem even lower on the agenda. I don't know how many ICU beds or nurses Canada has hired, or how they are testing, but I suspect there are the same shortcomings there as elsewhere. That's not just bad policy, and bad health management, it's eyebrow raising.
9. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon. Cures and treatments could be coming too. Burning people's career for standing up for their right to determine what concoction is shot directly into their blood right now seems short sighted at best.
[0] - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html *
* Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
Immigrate to the United States and you're required to have the following vaccines:
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
I'm also personally very unhappy about mandatory vaccination or excessive pressure, but from a different angle: I'm worried that by doing so governments are basically fueling a resistance whose root cause is based on basic sacrosanct human principles such as freedom, dignity, independence, etc, but if human psychology is such that if you're making a stand you also have to provide additional reasons, just to prove that you're still rational.
I don't think many people (if any) would publicly state "I know that vaccines are technically the most rational thing we could do given the information we have, but I'm still not going to accept them because the government is patronizing me, so screw them, I'm going to go against my interest just to stand for my rights". Most people will try to sound more reasonable than that and add that perhaps it's a bad idea in the first place, etc etc
> * Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
From the linked article:
"Crucially, the study authors found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 developed blood clots at a far higher rate than those who had received either of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines."
From what I understood, the main question is: do you believe that you can avoid catching covid indefinitely.
If you really believe that you can indefinitely do extensive testing, contact tracing, social distancing, remote working (and so your partner and family) then perhaps, the probability of a vaccine complication outweighs the probability of getting covid multiplied by the probability of having some serious consequences of covid.
On the other hand, if you believe that sooner or later covid will just burn through the population, then you have to assume that you'll get it, and whatever are the problems caused by vaccines they have to be compared with covid itself.
And the comparison has to be fair!
Sure most young healthy people go through covid without serious issues. Most such people also get through vaccines without clots. The ones who do have clots induced by vaccines are more likely to have had bigger problems had they caught covid. In other words vaccines are working as intended. It's not my words; it's from the article you cited!
A few years ago I was beginning to believe in the reasonableness of the argument that most vaccines we give to our kids may be no longer necessary. The argument seemed compelling: those diseases right now seem gone and the amount of vaccine induced problems surpass the disease itself (at least until it came back).
However, I expected this logic go change once you have an actual epidemic burning through the population. Instead the same people just changed the spiel, finding new and new arguments, sowing doubt for the sake of it.
Many have lost trust in institutions because of their past misdeeds. In the same vein I also lost trust in the anti-vax rhetoric.
I think we can avoid to be trapped in a binary mindset. It's not just "with us or against us.". You can have a healthy distrust of authorities and still also recognize that there are millions of highly educated medical professionals in the world that understand the tradeoffs and are a support base for the scientific consensus that is guiding the government policies.
Yes, government will execute thinks badly again and again in many things; in particular I think it's most likely that governments will handle badly the human aspect: their inability to understand where dissent comes from and how to effectively address is quintessential politics.
But assuming that you have a smoking gun that proves that vaccines are dangerous in a pre-print study that shows how blood clots also happen in vaccinated people is just fueling FUD in this deeply asymmetric information war we're living through.
I'm personally convinced that if there was overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous no amount of government intervention, or big pharma mafia, can effectively silence that. We're not even talking about one single government? If there was a hidden truth some weak link would have snapped already.
If you have better evidence I'm all ears. But please something solid.
I don't think many people (if any) would publicly state "I know that vaccines are technically the most rational thing we could do given the information we have, but I'm still not going to accept them because the government is patronizing me, so screw them, I'm going to go against my interest just to stand for my rights". Most people will try to sound more reasonable than that and add that perhaps it's a bad idea in the first place, etc etc
> * Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
From the linked article:
"Crucially, the study authors found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 developed blood clots at a far higher rate than those who had received either of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines."
From what I understood, the main question is: do you believe that you can avoid catching covid indefinitely.
If you really believe that you can indefinitely do extensive testing, contact tracing, social distancing, remote working (and so your partner and family) then perhaps, the probability of a vaccine complication outweighs the probability of getting covid multiplied by the probability of having some serious consequences of covid.
On the other hand, if you believe that sooner or later covid will just burn through the population, then you have to assume that you'll get it, and whatever are the problems caused by vaccines they have to be compared with covid itself.
And the comparison has to be fair!
Sure most young healthy people go through covid without serious issues. Most such people also get through vaccines without clots. The ones who do have clots induced by vaccines are more likely to have had bigger problems had they caught covid. In other words vaccines are working as intended. It's not my words; it's from the article you cited!
A few years ago I was beginning to believe in the reasonableness of the argument that most vaccines we give to our kids may be no longer necessary. The argument seemed compelling: those diseases right now seem gone and the amount of vaccine induced problems surpass the disease itself (at least until it came back).
However, I expected this logic go change once you have an actual epidemic burning through the population. Instead the same people just changed the spiel, finding new and new arguments, sowing doubt for the sake of it.
Many have lost trust in institutions because of their past misdeeds. In the same vein I also lost trust in the anti-vax rhetoric.
I think we can avoid to be trapped in a binary mindset. It's not just "with us or against us.". You can have a healthy distrust of authorities and still also recognize that there are millions of highly educated medical professionals in the world that understand the tradeoffs and are a support base for the scientific consensus that is guiding the government policies.
Yes, government will execute thinks badly again and again in many things; in particular I think it's most likely that governments will handle badly the human aspect: their inability to understand where dissent comes from and how to effectively address is quintessential politics.
But assuming that you have a smoking gun that proves that vaccines are dangerous in a pre-print study that shows how blood clots also happen in vaccinated people is just fueling FUD in this deeply asymmetric information war we're living through.
I'm personally convinced that if there was overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous no amount of government intervention, or big pharma mafia, can effectively silence that. We're not even talking about one single government? If there was a hidden truth some weak link would have snapped already.
If you have better evidence I'm all ears. But please something solid.
First off, being "patronized" is not the same thing as having an experimental vaccine shot directly into your muscle against your will, lest you lose the right to travel or keep your job.
Second, wrt the mortality rates, you're missing the time variable; as are the researchers in the study which compares AZ to Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines. Yes, if everyone caught Corona in a six month period, the mortality rate comparison would skew toward vaccines being better - but that's not the case; and there are signs that the mRNA vaccine's effectiveness "seems to "drop off a cliff" after six months.
The first study I cited factored that time variable in; to measure the mortality risk in a large population (France) over a period of time.
And importantly, I didn't claim either link as a holy grail. I said may; to show that there is room for doubt. Because there is. If there wasn't, then the vaccine companies wouldn't need full legal indemnity, would they?
Remember when there was no doubt whatsoever that the virus came from nature, and definitely not the novel coronavirus lab a few miles from the initial outbreak, where they'd been putting corona into humanised mice, and failing safety standards? I remember. I remember the memes mocking it in the name of science, and the censorship of any doctor or journalist who dared try to question that narrative.
You talk a lot about trusting doctors and institutions, and not trusting the dirty anti-vaxers who pulled the wool over your eyes in the past - that's you stuff.
You seem to imply I have a "with us or against us" attitude. I don't; I'm for whatever works.
If the system you're trying to sell belief in worked in a healthy way, there would be accountability for the governments who brought the forever wars, the media who sold them to us, the doctors who prescribed all the opium which just appeared suddenly after we went into Afghanistan. Remember what W said back then, to get us into Afghanistan in the first place? "You're either with us or against us".
But there was none. There is none. The guy who helped cheerlead Dems into that horror under W, then expanded it under Obama, is now President; and making deals with the Taliban begging them not to burn the Embassy in Kabul.
Second, wrt the mortality rates, you're missing the time variable; as are the researchers in the study which compares AZ to Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines. Yes, if everyone caught Corona in a six month period, the mortality rate comparison would skew toward vaccines being better - but that's not the case; and there are signs that the mRNA vaccine's effectiveness "seems to "drop off a cliff" after six months.
The first study I cited factored that time variable in; to measure the mortality risk in a large population (France) over a period of time.
And importantly, I didn't claim either link as a holy grail. I said may; to show that there is room for doubt. Because there is. If there wasn't, then the vaccine companies wouldn't need full legal indemnity, would they?
Remember when there was no doubt whatsoever that the virus came from nature, and definitely not the novel coronavirus lab a few miles from the initial outbreak, where they'd been putting corona into humanised mice, and failing safety standards? I remember. I remember the memes mocking it in the name of science, and the censorship of any doctor or journalist who dared try to question that narrative.
You talk a lot about trusting doctors and institutions, and not trusting the dirty anti-vaxers who pulled the wool over your eyes in the past - that's you stuff.
You seem to imply I have a "with us or against us" attitude. I don't; I'm for whatever works.
If the system you're trying to sell belief in worked in a healthy way, there would be accountability for the governments who brought the forever wars, the media who sold them to us, the doctors who prescribed all the opium which just appeared suddenly after we went into Afghanistan. Remember what W said back then, to get us into Afghanistan in the first place? "You're either with us or against us".
But there was none. There is none. The guy who helped cheerlead Dems into that horror under W, then expanded it under Obama, is now President; and making deals with the Taliban begging them not to burn the Embassy in Kabul.
It’s surprising since an 81% vaccination rate is already near the top of forecasts. Will a 90% or 95% rate make that much of a difference to justify forcing people to do so?
Yes, it should make a difference. We get measles outbreaks in the US in areas with much higher compliance rates than 81%. And that's without counting all the people who are not eligible yet.
Measles is insanely transmissible though, twice as much as Delta and four-five times as much as the original Wuhan wild type.
On the other hand it doesn't mutate much and the vaccine has a greater efficiency.
On the other hand it doesn't mutate much and the vaccine has a greater efficiency.
Yes, this just proves my point. We are able to mostly stop a more transmissible disease with sufficiently high vaccine compliance. If we aren't stopping covid, that is a sign that compliance is not high enough.
It's actually 63% of the full population that is double-vaccinated in Canada. Yes some of those are not eligible (kids), but still a big amount of people are eligible and not taking it.
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1426486746058006531
https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1426486746058006531
People are being forced to forgo transportation, they are not being forcibly vaccinated.
/s ?
Seems perfectly reasonable. I would be against vaccinating people by force. I'm not against telling them they can't fly, eat at a restaurant, or attend a concert if they choose to not be vaccinated.
ADDED: Governmental mandates vs. rules established by private organizations is a reasonable debate. I probably prefer the latter in most cases. For example, I'm attending an event in about a month and they're requiring vaccinations and masks. If you're not OK with that, just don't go.
ADDED: Governmental mandates vs. rules established by private organizations is a reasonable debate. I probably prefer the latter in most cases. For example, I'm attending an event in about a month and they're requiring vaccinations and masks. If you're not OK with that, just don't go.
totony(2)
81% for adults.
That's general population, not traveling population. A traveler can be a vector of infection in more ways than someone who stays local.
Good.
It's been established that vaccinated people can get Covid and that they can infect others. Just yesterday - an outbreak on a cruise ship: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/galvesto...
This is a pointless exercise, people must get vaccinated to reduce the load on the healthcare system, but widespread vaccination on its own won't make enclosed spaces safe.
This is a pointless exercise, people must get vaccinated to reduce the load on the healthcare system, but widespread vaccination on its own won't make enclosed spaces safe.
Just stop twisting the truth. Yes vaccinated people can get covid, but at a much lower rate, and when they do, they spread it less. In fact in Ontario (largest province in Canada), you are 30x more likely to get COVID if you are unvaccinated (and 50x more likely to get in the ICU).
Source https://twitter.com/EdTubb/status/1426182876383612931
and
https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ont...
And everyone vaccinated that got COVID on that cruise had low or no symptoms, which is a pretty good outcome if you compare to all those unvaccinated people in hospitals in Florida right now.
Source https://twitter.com/EdTubb/status/1426182876383612931
and
https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ont...
And everyone vaccinated that got COVID on that cruise had low or no symptoms, which is a pretty good outcome if you compare to all those unvaccinated people in hospitals in Florida right now.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the picture all the anecdotes paint. Closer to home, a colleague reports that her sister-in-law brought Covid home from a conference and then have it to her husband. Both were vaccinated (Pfizer/J&J).
Yes, being vaccinated keeps out out of hospital and out of a coffin, that's enough reason to get the shot. But it doesn't prevent synptomatic infection as well as we've been told (latest numbers indicate 50 % efficacy against Delta), and there's still the risk of long Covid (~ 20 %). The older you are and the longer ago yhour shot was the greater the risk.
We need to limit large gatherings again and increase ventilation. I work at a university and am frankly sick of being asked to take risks to my health while others can hide out until there's the Delta/Lambda booster, all in the name of propping up the value of commercial real estate.
Yes, being vaccinated keeps out out of hospital and out of a coffin, that's enough reason to get the shot. But it doesn't prevent synptomatic infection as well as we've been told (latest numbers indicate 50 % efficacy against Delta), and there's still the risk of long Covid (~ 20 %). The older you are and the longer ago yhour shot was the greater the risk.
We need to limit large gatherings again and increase ventilation. I work at a university and am frankly sick of being asked to take risks to my health while others can hide out until there's the Delta/Lambda booster, all in the name of propping up the value of commercial real estate.
We can't limit large gathering forever. Since the virus can never be eradicated and will always be around the most likely scenario is that almost all of us will eventually get infected regardless of what infection control steps we take. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing bad outcomes.
Is getting COVID after having been jabbed twice within the last 6-months worse than the regular flu in terms of mortality risk or ICU risk?
Should be either comparable or much better for most age ranges. Most important, it becomes much harder to overload the healthcare system. If the vaccine prevents you from getting into ICU most of the time, it's "as if" you multiplied the number of ICU beds by 10-20.
Behavior should be factored into those numbers - unvaccinated people are less likely to believe covid is serious (on average) ergo are more likely to be putting themselves in risky situations and/or less likely to wear masks. Studies are all over the place on vaccine effectiveness - clearly much better than zero, but not a reason to be complacent.
I'm not an expert in this field but I am a scientist and have been looking at the various data released on this point, because it's foundational to the reasoning behind the push for universal vaccination using unapproved drugs. I think that which you say is being twisted, the "truth", doesn't yet exist on this topic. We simply don't have scientific consensus yet on whether the current vaccines are fully neutralising. Lots of conflicting data for experts to untangle. I would not start calling people truth twisters until we know more. As an example of scientific studies with opposite conclusions to those you linked, see e.g. the links in the fourth paragraph here [1]. The fifth paragraph also provides a hypothesis as to why the vaccines aren't fully neutralising.
[1] https://www.hartgroup.org/vaccination-prevents-transmission-...
[1] https://www.hartgroup.org/vaccination-prevents-transmission-...
Did you actually look at the data? Deaths in Israel went from over a 1400 in the month of January to 20 in July, with a vaccination rate of [0] 67%. I would say that that's a pretty darn good result, wouldn't you?
Again, from the data in your link: 91.4% efficacy against severe Covid - IE: ventilators or death, 88% efficacy against hospitalization. I'll take those chances.
The kicker for the article is quoting an "epidemiologist" - Andrew Bostom - that is not one. His argument: Israel sees a high percentage of deaths due to Covid among the vaccinated, ergo the CDC data is wrong. Omitting that Israel deaths are less than 1/10th of what they were in January, while in the U.S. they are at 1/3. So - as you may guess - not really close.
You won't get scientific consensus if you reject the numbers that don't support your theory.
I have been fully vaccinated and I do still wear a mask in public - following CDC guidelines put into place because we know that the vaccine is not fully neutralizing.
Is the vaccine a silver bullet? No. Does it save lives? Yes - in 98% of the cases.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
Again, from the data in your link: 91.4% efficacy against severe Covid - IE: ventilators or death, 88% efficacy against hospitalization. I'll take those chances.
The kicker for the article is quoting an "epidemiologist" - Andrew Bostom - that is not one. His argument: Israel sees a high percentage of deaths due to Covid among the vaccinated, ergo the CDC data is wrong. Omitting that Israel deaths are less than 1/10th of what they were in January, while in the U.S. they are at 1/3. So - as you may guess - not really close.
You won't get scientific consensus if you reject the numbers that don't support your theory.
I have been fully vaccinated and I do still wear a mask in public - following CDC guidelines put into place because we know that the vaccine is not fully neutralizing.
Is the vaccine a silver bullet? No. Does it save lives? Yes - in 98% of the cases.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
I think if you re-read my comment you'll see that I was specifically making a point about reduction in transmission in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals, not efficacy. Re-reading it myself, I see that might not have been 100% clear, so apologies if that's the case. For the record I don't doubt the vaccines reduce risk of death.
We have clear scientific consensus on the fact that vaccines reduce the negative effects of getting COVID, and reduce the likelihood of getting COVID in the first place.
So declaring that vaccine mandates won't affect populations 'because you can still get it' is effectively twisting the truth. Or at least applying some really bad logic.
The link you provided is unfortunately not helpful. Again, there is overwhelming evidence that actions taken by governments were successful in most ways in preventing spread during the pre-vaccination era. Huge spike is case rates were immediately neutralized by lockdowns etc.. The moral and legal case is ambiguous, but not the overall effect of the policies was clear. In my area, we had two huge spikes, after which there were lock-downs declared, and immediately the case rates dropped dramatically. I'm wary of the civil issues, but the results were clear.
The article provides no evidence that vaccines don't work, other than to indicate that protections against Delta variants is weaker, which we already knew.
This statement: "The principle defence against a respiratory virus actually takes place in the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract, and the high proportion of those with some degree of natural immunity fight off SARS-CoV-2 there, preventing it replicating significantly in the bloodstream. Therefore, it is not actually surprising that a vaccine which works mainly in the circulatory system has little effect on stopping what starts as a respiratory infection. If that is the case, it is illogical to expect any reduction in transmission."
Is hugely speculative, not Scientific.
The author of this piece failed to play their own devil's advocate because there's tons of data to debunk most of what he is trying to say, in a nutshell, the author is cherry picking.
So declaring that vaccine mandates won't affect populations 'because you can still get it' is effectively twisting the truth. Or at least applying some really bad logic.
The link you provided is unfortunately not helpful. Again, there is overwhelming evidence that actions taken by governments were successful in most ways in preventing spread during the pre-vaccination era. Huge spike is case rates were immediately neutralized by lockdowns etc.. The moral and legal case is ambiguous, but not the overall effect of the policies was clear. In my area, we had two huge spikes, after which there were lock-downs declared, and immediately the case rates dropped dramatically. I'm wary of the civil issues, but the results were clear.
The article provides no evidence that vaccines don't work, other than to indicate that protections against Delta variants is weaker, which we already knew.
This statement: "The principle defence against a respiratory virus actually takes place in the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract, and the high proportion of those with some degree of natural immunity fight off SARS-CoV-2 there, preventing it replicating significantly in the bloodstream. Therefore, it is not actually surprising that a vaccine which works mainly in the circulatory system has little effect on stopping what starts as a respiratory infection. If that is the case, it is illogical to expect any reduction in transmission."
Is hugely speculative, not Scientific.
The author of this piece failed to play their own devil's advocate because there's tons of data to debunk most of what he is trying to say, in a nutshell, the author is cherry picking.
I don't doubt the vaccines are effective at reducing negative effects on the vaccinated individual. Nothing in my comment above was intended to imply that.
The specific point I was trying to make is that there is conflicting evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission. Since governments around the world pushed vaccines for everyone partly on the hypothesis that it should reduce spread, this is a big problem. The truth about transmission reduction from vaccination is therefore in my mind critical. And so far from what I've read, there is not yet a clear scientific consensus on whether vaccines do indeed significantly reduce transmission.
And for the record, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a tunnel-visioned troll. I welcome being shown studies that do (or don't!) demonstrate reduction in transmission, which I will read and digest before the next HN debate on this topic. It's only by scientific inquiry and debate that we will get to the truth here.
The specific point I was trying to make is that there is conflicting evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission. Since governments around the world pushed vaccines for everyone partly on the hypothesis that it should reduce spread, this is a big problem. The truth about transmission reduction from vaccination is therefore in my mind critical. And so far from what I've read, there is not yet a clear scientific consensus on whether vaccines do indeed significantly reduce transmission.
And for the record, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a tunnel-visioned troll. I welcome being shown studies that do (or don't!) demonstrate reduction in transmission, which I will read and digest before the next HN debate on this topic. It's only by scientific inquiry and debate that we will get to the truth here.
The consensus has shifted to the point wherein the preponderance of evidence points to reduced transmission.
Here is Nature in Feb [1]
Here is Nature now [2]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z
Here is Nature in Feb [1]
Here is Nature now [2]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z
Thanks, [2] is interesting. Sadly lacking much information on the transmissibility of the delta variant, which is the dominant strain in most (?) western countries. Such information would tell us whether achieving herd immunity without direct infection from SARS-CoV-2 requires continual application of boosters forever (i.e. for each seasonal variant). I say this because there is evidence from other respiratory viruses that, after having transitioned from animal to human, they typically mutate to become more transmissible but less deadly, which we normally deal with by letting sweep through the country without mass vaccination (only for the vulnerable).
The data shows you are 30x more likely to receive a positive COVID test result if you are unvaccinated, not that you are 30x more likely to “get COVID.” You need to give the distribution of tests between vaccinated/unvaccinated to draw the latter conclusion.
> You need to give the distribution of tests between vaccinated/unvaccinated to draw the latter conclusion.
That wouldn’t give you the information you want.
That wouldn’t give you the information you want.
I don't understand this attitude. Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing. Same as masks.
It's not "pointless" at all, it's a government taking totally reasonable measures to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. Nothing is ever going to be 100% safe, but to not take obvious measures to increase safety is negligent.
I just have no sympathy for the anti-vaccine crowd and their wilful ignorance and bad faith arguments. Fine, it's your right to not get vaccinated. It's everyone else's right to prevent your recalcitrant ass from affecting others with your ridiculous theories and bad decision-making.
It's not "pointless" at all, it's a government taking totally reasonable measures to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. Nothing is ever going to be 100% safe, but to not take obvious measures to increase safety is negligent.
I just have no sympathy for the anti-vaccine crowd and their wilful ignorance and bad faith arguments. Fine, it's your right to not get vaccinated. It's everyone else's right to prevent your recalcitrant ass from affecting others with your ridiculous theories and bad decision-making.
Having survived Covid is better than some vaccines; forcing people to then pay Pharma companies is kind of a funny response, especially when there are still many people in the world that are under lockdown that want vaccines, you can easily argue it is not ethical.
I think it was a reasonable question, which I read as:
If I am vaccinated, and you are not, what do I gain from forcing you to get vaccinated? I am equally highly protected either way, right?
If I am vaccinated, and you are not, what do I gain from forcing you to get vaccinated? I am equally highly protected either way, right?
No you aren’t. A vaccine isn’t 100% effective. So say it prevents 9/10 COVID infections. If you are in an area where your normal probability of encountering an infectious level of virus is say 1/100, then your chances are 1/1000 of catching COVID. But if your local level of transmission is higher, so that your chance of contracting COVID over some time horizon is say 1/10, then your chances of getting ill is now 1/100.
And this all assumes that the vaccination works equally well for everyone. The effectiveness rates are and average. There will be people for whom it is highly effective, and others who get the vaccine who don’t get much protection at all.
It also ignores the reality of mutation rates. Mutations will happen no matter what, but the rate at which they occur is dependent on how many people are getting sick. So even if a vaccine offers protection now, if half the population is not vaccinated, and the virus is raging amongst them, then the chances of the virus developing a mutation that increases severity, or evades existing vaccine immunity, is much higher.
So the reality is that no, being protected is not a simple matter of an individual choosing to or not to get vaccinated. It’s community based. This isn’t unique for COVID either. It’s been true for every disease we’ve ever vaccinated against.
And this all assumes that the vaccination works equally well for everyone. The effectiveness rates are and average. There will be people for whom it is highly effective, and others who get the vaccine who don’t get much protection at all.
It also ignores the reality of mutation rates. Mutations will happen no matter what, but the rate at which they occur is dependent on how many people are getting sick. So even if a vaccine offers protection now, if half the population is not vaccinated, and the virus is raging amongst them, then the chances of the virus developing a mutation that increases severity, or evades existing vaccine immunity, is much higher.
So the reality is that no, being protected is not a simple matter of an individual choosing to or not to get vaccinated. It’s community based. This isn’t unique for COVID either. It’s been true for every disease we’ve ever vaccinated against.
It's disturbing to me that depending on what argument is being made, the vaccines are both highly effective and simultaneously not effective enough. It doesn't get to be both when it's convenient.
Both those things are true, though. In fact, both are true of most vaccines that are actually in use; perfect vaccines are rare.
Please explain how something "is X" and "is not X" at the same time, without changing the definition of X between assertions, and without referring to quantum superposition.
It seems obvious that many medical treatments/pre-treatments clearly lead to generally good outcomes (or are at least better than the untreated case) while many of them are still less effective or have more side effects than we would like.
We can say the same thing in many domains. Modern car safety has improved a lot and makes cars from a few decades ago look like deathtraps in comparison. But way too many people still die on roads so we're constantly trying to make improvements.
We can say the same thing in many domains. Modern car safety has improved a lot and makes cars from a few decades ago look like deathtraps in comparison. But way too many people still die on roads so we're constantly trying to make improvements.
That's a long way of saying that you're changing the definition of X between assertions. "Effective" doesn't mean the same thing in both contexts.
Vaccines are highly, but not perfectly, effective. The definition is the same, it's the adjective that's changing.
For true immunity without anyone else needing to be vaccinated they'd need to be perfectly effective. Since they're not, more of the community needs to be vaccinated. The less effective they are (or the more widespread or infectious the virus is) the larger the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated becomes.
For true immunity without anyone else needing to be vaccinated they'd need to be perfectly effective. Since they're not, more of the community needs to be vaccinated. The less effective they are (or the more widespread or infectious the virus is) the larger the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated becomes.
If you have the polio vaccine, you basically cannot get polio and have lifelong immunity. That's an effective vaccine. It doesn't require everyone else to get frequent booster shots. The current covid vaccine does not measure up to the polio vaccine.
Why is it disturbing? Can both not be true?
Vaccine effectiveness goes up the more people have them. So let’s say a vaccine confers 60% immunity (not what the actual vaccines provide, whose numbers are much more complicated), that is basically friction that slows the virus’s spread around. Now, if almost everyone is vaccinated, that friction is enough for the virus to fizzle out and the pandemic to end. If only a few people are vaccinated, then the virus still has a lot of friction free hosts to infect, and because it is thriving, it can even mutate faster to get around the vaccine’s friction.
Think of the vaccine as a collective attempt to stop the virus, not as a personal attempt. The more people are vaccinated, the higher chance this pandemic will end and we can get back to normal. Anti vaxxers are extremely annoying here. Also, hopefully the vaccine is approved for children soon.
Think of the vaccine as a collective attempt to stop the virus, not as a personal attempt. The more people are vaccinated, the higher chance this pandemic will end and we can get back to normal. Anti vaxxers are extremely annoying here. Also, hopefully the vaccine is approved for children soon.
No, you are not. If I am not vaccinated I am far more likely to carry the virus to you, and your vaccine, while good, is not 100% protection. So you have a significant decrease in your risk by forcing me to be vaccinated.
Do we apply this thinking to any other public health threats? Smoking for example, particularly for those forced to be around smokers like their children? I'm curious to hear the arguments for why this virus needs to be treated differently to all others that have come before, and to other public health issues.
Not trying to start a fight here. I just haven't been convinced yet why our old behaviour towards threats like CoV-2 doesn't apply to it itself.
Not trying to start a fight here. I just haven't been convinced yet why our old behaviour towards threats like CoV-2 doesn't apply to it itself.
We do apply the same logic. You can choose to be a smoker, but you can’t choose to be one in certain public spaces, including airplanes and trains. This type of mandate is no different. You can still choose to be a non-vaccinated individual, but not in particular areas.
I did mention in my comment above that children of smokers don't have a choice being around second hand smoke. Yet most governments consider the harm to the health of the child to be less critical than the smoker's individual freedom to smoke.
I'm not some freedom loving libertarian, I'm normally quite left leaning, but the dual standards I see applied by governments here really bother me. I can't help but think their response was driven more by fear than sense.
I'm not some freedom loving libertarian, I'm normally quite left leaning, but the dual standards I see applied by governments here really bother me. I can't help but think their response was driven more by fear than sense.
> I did mention in my comment above that children of smokers don't have a choice being around second hand smoke. Yet most governments consider the harm to the health of the child to be less critical than the smoker's individual freedom to smoke.
I don't think most people are suggesting mandatory vaccination of parents; the rules actually being imposed in developed countries are much more similar to indoor smoking bans (ie. you are allowed put yourself and your children in danger, but you're not allowed put the general public in danger.)
I don't think most people are suggesting mandatory vaccination of parents; the rules actually being imposed in developed countries are much more similar to indoor smoking bans (ie. you are allowed put yourself and your children in danger, but you're not allowed put the general public in danger.)
No one is taking away the children of anti-vaxxers, they are saying you can’t use public transportation. The same principle is at play: you can live you life in a way that negatively impacts the health of your children, because you have authority over your children. But when it becomes a threat to others that aren’t in your stewardship, you no longer have that freedom.
What is the double standard here? You aren’t even comparing the same situations.
What is the double standard here? You aren’t even comparing the same situations.
> You aren’t even comparing the same situations.
We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society.
Governments can't mandate for every eventuality, they have to make policies covering broad areas. We're discussing public health policy here, i.e. the ways in which governments can reduce harmful effects on the health of the populace through rules and regulations. My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. The justification would be one of public health. And if anything, such a policy would be even less controversial than mandating vaccines because a smoker can simply stop smoking temporarily to be around other people whereas people cannot stop breathing and therefore potentially spreading viruses. Yet it seems governments have skipped over all of these easier public health issues, and gone straight to mandating that people get vaccinated to enter publicly funded places from a public health justification. To me, regardless of how effective or not these mandates have been and are, I smell bullshit when I hear governments justifying such rules with public health arguments because they have not from their previous actions demonstrated that they are merely following through with their public health manifesto. I rather fear they're mandating vaccines to enter public spaces because the public demanded something be done. Governments in representative democracies aren't doing their job if they do merely that which the public want; they are supposed to lead even if the majority of the public disagree.
We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society.
Governments can't mandate for every eventuality, they have to make policies covering broad areas. We're discussing public health policy here, i.e. the ways in which governments can reduce harmful effects on the health of the populace through rules and regulations. My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. The justification would be one of public health. And if anything, such a policy would be even less controversial than mandating vaccines because a smoker can simply stop smoking temporarily to be around other people whereas people cannot stop breathing and therefore potentially spreading viruses. Yet it seems governments have skipped over all of these easier public health issues, and gone straight to mandating that people get vaccinated to enter publicly funded places from a public health justification. To me, regardless of how effective or not these mandates have been and are, I smell bullshit when I hear governments justifying such rules with public health arguments because they have not from their previous actions demonstrated that they are merely following through with their public health manifesto. I rather fear they're mandating vaccines to enter public spaces because the public demanded something be done. Governments in representative democracies aren't doing their job if they do merely that which the public want; they are supposed to lead even if the majority of the public disagree.
> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death.
You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with.
This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.
You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with.
This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.
> And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.
Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way:
Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html
Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale:
Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati...
"Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."
Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way:
Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html
Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale:
Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati...
"Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."
To the children point specifically, the state rightly gives wide latitude for parental decisions and actions before it is considered child abuse. Mistakes certainly happen (in both directions) but for the most part society draws a reasonable line based on current norms.
> Do we apply this thinking to any other public health threats? Smoking for example, particularly for those forced to be around smokers like their children?
Yes, of course. Most developed countries ban indoor smoking in most or all places outside the home.
Yes, of course. Most developed countries ban indoor smoking in most or all places outside the home.
Can you give some examples?
I think the slippery slope argument this creates is what is frightening a lot of people.
[deleted]
Yes, you can let the others do the work and often be just as well off. Society is a giant prisoner's dilemma (or more like 'grifers dilemma') like that.
That's why vaxxes are not like seatbelts, i.e. just affecting the user, they affect everyone.
We take vaccines to protect others as much as we do ourselves, because if we act responsibly then things will work out, but nearly everyone needs to participate.
In this case it's a little bit like 'positive responsibilities'. Normally, we could say 'don't steal' and that would be enough, but in this case it leans towards 'get your vax' i.e. an active action.
It's not as black and white, it's reasonable to have conscientious and other objectors. And of course I don't think 'requirements' are necessary unless specific health concerns. But on the whole, by and large, we need to get vaxxed here i.e. we need enough civic participants to move the situation forward so that the various kinds of objectors can survive so as to maintain their right to object, ironically.
That's why vaxxes are not like seatbelts, i.e. just affecting the user, they affect everyone.
We take vaccines to protect others as much as we do ourselves, because if we act responsibly then things will work out, but nearly everyone needs to participate.
In this case it's a little bit like 'positive responsibilities'. Normally, we could say 'don't steal' and that would be enough, but in this case it leans towards 'get your vax' i.e. an active action.
It's not as black and white, it's reasonable to have conscientious and other objectors. And of course I don't think 'requirements' are necessary unless specific health concerns. But on the whole, by and large, we need to get vaxxed here i.e. we need enough civic participants to move the situation forward so that the various kinds of objectors can survive so as to maintain their right to object, ironically.
> I don't understand this attitude. Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing. Same as masks.
This is only true for both if there are no side effects to doing either of them. If there are side effects, and there are, then it is not that simple.
I don't know why, but with COVID, people seem to have conveniently forgotten that in science, all factors matter. [1]
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...
This is only true for both if there are no side effects to doing either of them. If there are side effects, and there are, then it is not that simple.
I don't know why, but with COVID, people seem to have conveniently forgotten that in science, all factors matter. [1]
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...
carthusian(2)
Trudeau is calling for an election in the next few weeks. By announcing this now, he dares the opposition to say it's the wrong move, so that he can say he's protecting Canadians and the conservatives won't. Keep me in charge to stay safe. Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice.
And if the opposition says it's the right move, he can say "even the conservatives agree with my decision, clearly I'm doing the right things".
Edit: and to be clear, I think it's the right move regardless.