Vaccine thread

[bishopshodan]

My anti-vax nephew-in-law finally got it. He's struggling. Has an auto-immune condition too but he listened to all his online friends and railed against 'the man'.

 

It's going around at work too. Pain in the butt putting on all the PPE to do my rounds in their isolation units, but the healthcare dept demands it. 

 

[JIAHN]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

That graph is from almost 2 years ago, I would love a current one but, as I mentioned, they stopped reporting the vaccinated status of hospitalizations. Don't you think it would be useful to see that ratio today?

 

Funny how you refuse to answer Alf. But still do not even know your answer to your own question. AKA..."I would love......"

[JIAHN]

Now, I do not mean this, but to answer those that say, that the death rate was mostly in the elderly............

 

 

Maybe we should just let the Fentanyl just take its course.............after all, it is only killing 16 year olds to 45 year olds, on Average!

[4petesake]

31 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

 

He was still under a mandate which barred him from public places without wearing at least a cloth mask, which I think everyone can now agree was a bad policy which was unjustified.

 

The point of the matter is that "doing his own research" literally led him to the correct position on this topic... because the experts in public health were actually wrong on cloth masks!

 

Now, I am obviously not familiar with all his views, but on the topic of cloth masks, it's pretty cut and dry.

 

You are bound and determined to give him an out for something simply because it agrees with your pov. This was 6 weeks before mask mandates came out in BC. Doing his own research led him to nothing except being an ass. 

 

Why are we back to cloth masks?

[Xanlet]

3 minutes ago, JIAHN said:

I ask this with respect....meaning no ill will. But who the heck are you? What type of degree do you have? Are you an expert in virology? Other than voicing your opinion, exactly what is your expertise in this area? Mine...none! I just believe that the vast majority of experts, have agreed with how we responded. I am sorry if this offends you, but picking and choosing your arguing points, but but not using executive thought process, will lead you to extinction.....I will follow the accepted science

It is not what we knew about it that made scientist afraid, it is what we did not know about it. That took time! Not acting to shut down society, could have ended up being very disruptive, costing millions of additional lives. You must remember, we were getting very scant information from China, where in some cities, it was killing young and old alike, and China had a lock down which makes our pale by comparison. People that bring out statistics like yours, certainly do not care about the elderly, at best. Take in point where in Italy, The Italian government announce that in 24 hours, there would be a lockdown, so what do the young people do? They go out and party in mass. Alot of them lost older relative that have been directly blamed on their actions....but I guess, "Oh well" they were old, so who cares! Secondly, the 83.3 year mortality rate, is an average. I have 2 friends who are RGN's and both were over whelmed.....Imagine if they were to have quit, or suffered from stress burn out. It was real, and if you talked to them, the would shake their head at you. (You may or may not know F - all, but I know what they would think!)

Are you interested in Governments that do nothing? 6 ft was one of the earliest safety measures, and an educated guess. I don't blame him, it was early in the pandemic and was relaxed as information came in. There is no crystal ball, except what you may possess. I doubt anyone else had one!

I can bet you, that those in favor out number those that were not, 100 to 1. For you to selectively pick one or two, and then stand up and say look, look! Is laughable....the majority of science did not know, and I would imagine there are many that had other opinions that were proven wrong, that now feel pretty foolish

I find it laughable that you argue all this with no understanding. yes the immediate concern was to slow the virus, so not to be over run, but again, they did not know how to combat it. Why would you allow yourself to be exposed to die, or have your wife die. or your children, or your mother of father, or the truck drivers that brought you food, or the doctors or nurses, etc............

 

Tell, me, if the next virus turns out to kill people age 45 and up at a rate of 50%, are you going to argue this? I doubt it, or if you do, you will either kill someone, or be killed yourself, because of your arrogant thoughts. What if you influence the government to wait longer, next time and it kills your girlfriend, or buddy. You do not seem to fathom the consequences....

But you have all the right answers! LOL

I appreciate the effort on your part to discuss this topic.

 

Each opinion I have raised has been founded in evidence, which I have posted throughout this thread.

 

A policy or opinion is never correct because a person with letters next to their name says it is correct. The correct policy should be grounded in evidence.

 

If I have made a mistake regarding any of my sources, I welcome the criticism, but if you wish to speak only of conclusions, I stand by the ones I have expressed so far.

 

Also, the fact that 83.8 years of age is the average goes to show how little mortality there was at younger age levels, since 83.8 is well above the general life expectancy, and is well above the total average age of death in 2019, which was 76.5 in Canada.

 

Yes, these topics can be very upsetting, but it is my firm belief that they should be considered rationally and without emotion to ensure the right lessons are learned moving forward.

[Xanlet]

15 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

no, you haven't. The Cochrane report doesn't justify your personal view. 

 

Why are you doing this? 

The Cochrane Review shows evidence that non-medical masks have no impact on community spread.

 

Is this not an important thing to know? Shouldn't the BCCDC take that into account before making a definitive declaration about masks?

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

I appreciate the effort on your part to discuss this topic.

 

Each opinion I have raised has been founded in evidence, which I have posted throughout this thread.

 

A policy or opinion is never correct because a person with letters next to their name says it is correct. The correct policy should be grounded in evidence.

 

If I have made a mistake regarding any of my sources, I welcome the criticism, but if you wish to speak only of conclusions, I stand by the ones I have expressed so far.

 

Also, the fact that 83.8 years of age is the average goes to show how little mortality there was at younger age levels, since 83.8 is well above the general life expectancy, and is well above the total average age of death in 2019, which was 76.5 in Canada.

 

Yes, these topics can be very upsetting, but it is my firm belief that they should be considered rationally and without emotion to ensure the right lessons are learned moving forward.

Defend The Great Barrington Declaration then as an example of an opinion based on evidence.

 

And please, (this is now my now the third request) tell me When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

[Xanlet]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Again your supposition suggests you believe there to be some conspiracy to hide data. Considering the data already available clearly showed the antivaxxers filled up the hospital when compared to the vaccinated why continue such an expensive thing. We already had enough data to know conclusively the results. Put the money elsewhere. Like in continued boosters to keep people safe? 

It's hardly a conspiracy. It's a simple observation that when the data supported the narrative, they reported it, when it no longer fulfilled that, they stopped reporting it. Curious timing, don't you think?

 

My main concern is that young people with almost zero risk were mandated to take the vaccine when it does present some level of risk of severe adverse reactions. Also, as you mentioned, it is a vaccine which requires frequent boosters because the immunity it does provide is short lived.

 

These are things which should all be taken into account when the government is mandating it for people, but none of it was. There was a single top down, one-size-fits-all mandate which I believe was misguided.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Defend The Great Barrington Declaration then as an example of an opinion based on evidence.

 

And please, (this is now my now the third request) tell me When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

I referenced The Great Barrington Declaration as evidence that a faction of experts had dissenting opinions from public health officials. There is a pervasive opinion which was voiced earlier in this thread that 99% of experts agreed wholeheartedly with everything the government mandated and I think that is incorrect.

 

When dissenting voices chimed in, they were marginalized. Now, dissenting opinions can be wrong just as official opinions can be wrong, but it is the dialogue which is important. I find the concept of "settled science" alarming when it is invoked to shut down dissenting views. Any subject considered "settled" should welcome challenge because the evidence will be on its side. Criticism is a chance to improve your opinion, to hopefully become better informed; at least this is the potential of healthy criticism.

 

Shall this count as answering your second question as well? Nothing is ever done perfectly, but we must demand accountability when things are shown to have been done badly.

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

It's hardly a conspiracy. It's a simple observation that when the data supported the narrative, they reported it, when it no longer fulfilled that, they stopped reporting it. Curious timing, don't you think?

 

My main concern is that young people with almost zero risk were mandated to take the vaccine when it does present some level of risk of severe adverse reactions. Also, as you mentioned, it is a vaccine which requires frequent boosters because the immunity it does provide is short lived.

 

These are things which should all be taken into account when the government is mandating it for people, but none of it was. There was a single top down, one-size-fits-all mandate which I believe was misguided.

Were people mandated to get vaccinated? Healthcare providers for sure, but the rest of us? 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Alflives said:

Were people mandated to get vaccinated? Healthcare providers for sure, but the rest of us? 

Are you familiar with the vaccine passport? Yes, it was mandated. Basic rights of citizenship were infringed upon unless you got it.

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Are you familiar with the vaccine passport? Yes, it was mandated. Basic rights of citizenship were infringed upon unless you got it.

Show me where being inside restaurants and bars are basic rights of citizenship guaranteed in the Canadian Charter.

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Are you familiar with the vaccine passport? Yes, it was mandated. Basic rights of citizenship were infringed upon unless you got it.

Maybe we disagree on the definition of mandate? Who was forced to get vaccinated? Healthcare workers needed to get vaccinated and those working in care homes. Common folk though? 10% of Canadians went unvaccinated. That’s 3+ million people. They were the ones filling up our hospital beds too. That was their choice. 

Edited June 6 by Alflives

[Xanlet]

Just now, King Heffy said:

Show me where being inside restaurants and bars are basic rights of citizenship guaranteed in the Canadian Charter.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art6.html

 

I'll go for the most obvious one and the one the truckers protested.

 

The vaccine passports prevented Canadians from passing the border, violating this right in the charter.

 

This alone shows the Vaccine Passports violated Citizens' rights.

[Satchmo]

7 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

I referenced The Great Barrington Declaration as evidence that a faction of experts had dissenting opinions from public health officials. There is a pervasive opinion which was voiced earlier in this thread that 99% of experts agreed wholeheartedly with everything the government mandated and I think that is incorrect.

 

When dissenting voices chimed in, they were marginalized. Now, dissenting opinions can be wrong just as official opinions can be wrong, but it is the dialogue which is important. I find the concept of "settled science" alarming when it is invoked to shut down dissenting views. Any subject considered "settled" should welcome challenge because the evidence will be on its side. Criticism is a chance to improve your opinion, to hopefully become better informed; at least this is the potential of healthy criticism.

 

Shall this count as answering your second question as well? Nothing is ever done perfectly, but we must demand accountability when things are shown to have been done badly.

I did not ask you that.  Can you defend it?   Can you explain why it should not have been marginalized?  If you or no one else can then I have no qualms about it being marginalized.  IMO It was chaff when we needed wheat.

 

My second question was not answered.  We had to deal with a complex and catastrophic situation and you tell us we did not meet your demands for perfection.  Look at what the oldest of the Greatest Generation had to deal with  - a flu epidemic, a great depression, a world war.   None of those situations were dealt with perfectly yet all were dealt with.   Just what do you expect of us?   I think you set the bar too high.  

 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Xanlet]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Maybe we disagree on the definition of mandate? Who was forced to get vaccinated? Healthcare workers needed to get vaccinated and those working in care homes. Common folk though? 10% of Canadians went unvaccinated. That’s 3+ million people. They were the ones filling up our hospital beds too. That was their choice. 

This is inaccurate on two counts. One, the vaccine passports violated the rights of every Canadian as pertains to Mobility Rights which I just posted.

 

Second, we just went over the fact that, even in 2022, vaccinated and unvaccinated were nearly 50/50 for hospitalizations. Let's be a little more accurate regarding who was "filling up out hospital beds"

[the destroyer of worlds]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art6.html

 

I'll go for the most obvious one and the one the truckers protested.

 

The vaccine passports prevented Canadians from passing the border, violating this right in the charter.

 

This alone shows the Vaccine Passports violated Citizens' rights.

Now do Section 1.

 

FYI:  Vaccination requirements for entry are nothing new.  And Canada was not the only country to have vaccination requirements.  Again nothing new and not a violation.

[Xanlet]

Just now, the destroyer of worlds said:

Now do Section 1.

 

FYI:  Vaccination requirements for entry are nothing new.  And Canada was not the only country to have vaccination requirements.  Again nothing new and not a violation.

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

 

Mandating a vaccine which does not provide sterilizing immunity does not qualify as a reasonable limit which can be demonstrated as justified in a free and democratic society in my opinion.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

This is inaccurate on two counts. One, the vaccine passports violated the rights of every Canadian as pertains to Mobility Rights which I just posted.

 

Second, we just went over the fact that, even in 2022, vaccinated and unvaccinated were nearly 50/50 for hospitalizations. Let's be a little more accurate regarding who was "filling up out hospital beds"

90% of people were vaccinated in 2022. Yet the 10% of the unvaccinated accounted for 50% of the hospitalized. So 35 million vaccinated people took up 1/2 the beds. While 3 million unvaccinated took up the other 1/2. Do you not see the difference here?This is exactly why we stopped spending mining on publishing such data. It was a known fact. That’s like flat earthers insisting the government needs to spend billions to prove the earth is round. It’s silly. Known facts are known facts. There’s no need to waste time, effort, or money proving what’s a truism. 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

6 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art6.html

 

I'll go for the most obvious one and the one the truckers protested.

 

The vaccine passports prevented Canadians from passing the border, violating this right in the charter.

 

This alone shows the Vaccine Passports violated Citizens' rights.

Our vaccine requirements did not infringe on Canadian truckers crossing the border, that was the US. Our vaccine requirements prevented unvaccinated Americans from coming into Canada. The rights we "violated" weren't Canadian. 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

 

Mandating a vaccine which does not provide sterilizing immunity does not qualify as a reasonable limit which can be demonstrated as justified in a free and democratic society in my opinion.

Where exactly were the antivaxxers restricted from going? Please provide specific examples. 

[Satchmo]

5 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

 

Mandating a vaccine which does not provide sterilizing immunity does not qualify as a reasonable limit which can be demonstrated as justified in a free and democratic society in my opinion.

Sterilizing immunity is your bar? I told you you set it too high.   I was glad enough to hear it would keep me off a ventilator.

 

Edited June 7 by Satchmo

[Xanlet]

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I did not ask you that.  Can you defend it?   Can you explain why it should not have been marginalized?  If you or no one else can then I have no qualms about it being marginalized.  IMO It was chaff when we needed wheat.

 

My second question was not answered.  We had to deal with a complex and catastrophic situation and you tell us we did not meet your demands for perfection.  Look at what the oldest of the Greatest Generation had to deal with  - a flu epidemic, a great depression, a world war.   None of those situations were dealt with perfectly yet all were dealt with.   Just what do you expect of us?   I think you set the bar too high.  

 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Defend what part of it? It was a declaration of what the authors would have liked to see be the focus of the pandemic response.

 

To answer your question, I expect public policy to be founded in evidence and actually have a basis that can be defended, and that policies are updated quickly when new evidence is brought to light. Here we are, 4 years after the pandemic, and the BC Center for Disease Control still declares that all masks work! Set the bar too high? It seems there is no bar at all with these kinds of statements.

[King Heffy]

19 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art6.html

 

I'll go for the most obvious one and the one the truckers protested.

 

The vaccine passports prevented Canadians from passing the border, violating this right in the charter.

 

This alone shows the Vaccine Passports violated Citizens' rights.

Which country was preventing Canadians from entering the United States again?

[Xanlet]

3 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Our vaccine requirements did not infringe on Canadian truckers crossing the border, that was the US. Our vaccine requirements prevented unvaccinated Americans from coming into Canada. The rights we "violated" weren't Canadian. 

A simple look at wiki could have prevented you from making a false statement, but here we are:

 

"In late 2021, both Canada and the US accommodated unvaccinated cross-border truckers by exempting them from COVID-19 vaccine requirements to prevent exacerbating existing supply chain disruptions. The exemptions in Canada ended on January 15, 2022, and the US exemption ended on January 22, 2022. Of the 120,000 Canadian licensed truck drivers who regularly serve cross-border routes, approximately 85 per cent were vaccinated against COVID-19 by January, leaving up to 16,000 Canadian truckers potentially affected by the restriction. "

 

Here is the official Government of Canada website making the statement:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2021/11/government-of-canada-announces-adjustments-to-canadas-border-measures.html

 

"The Government of Canada is also announcing that as of January 15, 2022, certain groups of travellers, who are currently exempt from entry requirements, will only be allowed to enter the country if they are fully vaccinated with one of the vaccines approved for entry into Canada. These groups include:

• individuals travelling to reunite with family (unvaccinated children under 18 years of age will retain exemption if travelling to reunite with an immediate or extended family member who is a Canadian, permanent resident, or person registered under the Indian Act);
• international students who are 18 years old and older; 
• professional and amateur athletes;
• individuals with a valid work permit, including temporary foreign workers (outside of those in agriculture and food processing); and
• essential service providers, including truck drivers."

The vaccine requirements did infringe on Canadian citizens, which is further noted in the quick facts section of that webpage: "All travellers, regardless of how long they were away from Canada, continue to be required to submit their mandatory information via ArriveCAN (free mobile app or website), including proof of vaccination in English or French and a quarantine plan prior to arriving in Canada."