Vaccine thread

[4petesake]

16 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. 

 

 

[Satchmo]

Just now, Xanlet said:

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.

If the declaration was anything but drivel it would have been part of the pandemic response.  Research the response to it before you suggest it should have been.  Or just imagine what the effect would have been if it had been adopted as our policy.

 

Public policy was based on evidence IMO.  It did change as time went on and new information came to light.  I really don't know at this point what you would consider defensible though I'm sure 98% of us would have a different opinion of what is or is not.

 

Don't forget we pay for stuff like reporting.   If some civil servant has not updated the web site to your satisfaction then write your MP or MLA and let them know. 

 

There is a bar.  You either can't see it or you can but just do not like where it has been set.

  

 

[JIAHN]

1 hour 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.

Can you provide a link to the average age of death in Canada from Covid.

 

Because I am getting a completely different average than you............my average is approx. 70

 

this is taking all age groups into the equation. 

 

As I understand it...83.8 years is higher than what the average male lives for................I think you data is screwed up!

 

 

[Xanlet]

Just now, JIAHN said:

Can you provide a link to the average age of death in Canada from Covid.

 

Because I am getting a completely different average than you............my average is approx. 70

 

this is taking all age groups into the equation. 

 

As I understand it...83.8 years is higher than what the average male lives for................I think you data is screwed up!

 

 

From Statistics Canada for the year 2020 and comparing it to the life expectancy in 2019

 

Source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2021002-eng.htm

 

Note: life expectancy calculated in a year is different from the average age of death in that same year (referring to 2019)

[JIAHN]

LOL

 

The average life expectancy  in Canada is 82.60 years old

male..............79.8

female...........83.9

 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Xanlet said:

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?

 

They did, you saying that they didn't doesn't make it true.

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

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. 

 

 

I initially thought you meant 'got it's as in taking the vaccine.

 

 

[JIAHN]

11 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

From Statistics Canada for the year 2020 and comparing it to the life expectancy in 2019

 

Source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2021002-eng.htm

 

Note: life expectancy calculated in a year is different from the average age of death in that same year (referring to 2019)

 

So what you are suggesting is that the vaccine actually worked, causing the mortality age to rise.........interesting......Good point! Thank you!

[the destroyer of worlds]

43 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.

Thankfully your standard never qualifies.  A global pandemic is definitely a reasonable limit.  So your Charter of Rights argument falls flatter than the argument for Flat Earth.

[Xanlet]

Just now, the destroyer of worlds said:

Thankfully your standard never qualifies.  A global pandemic is definitely a reasonable limit.  So your Charter of Rights argument falls flatter than the argument for Flat Earth.

The vaccine does not halt the spread, so there are no reasonable grounds for denying someone their right to mobility over something that doesn't prevent transmission anyway.

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, JIAHN said:

 

So what you are suggesting is that the vaccine actually worked, causing the mortality age to rise.........interesting......Good point! Thank you!

I think the vaccine worked for older people and people at risk for a certain number of months. My position throughout the whole thread is that there should have been a more circumspect view as to the risks and benefits of different groups of people and a more tailored approach rather than what we got which was a one-size-fits-all mandate. As I also went over earlier in the thread, I think the "rare" severe adverse reactions did not get appropriate attention either which led to what might be considered an unwise calculation relating to the vaccine and younger people.

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

The vaccine does not halt the spread, so there are no reasonable grounds for denying someone their right to mobility over something that doesn't prevent transmission anyway.

The vaccine reduced the severity of disease, the number of hospitalizations and deaths, and helped increase herd immunity in the general population.   All of which helped prevent the spread in the end.

[the destroyer of worlds]

12 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The vaccine does not halt the spread, so there are no reasonable grounds for denying someone their right to mobility over something that doesn't prevent transmission anyway.

Multiple Countries and our own government said otherwise.  Sorry, but your semantic argument and unrealistic bar setting is not going to win this one.  

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour 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.

LOL...no it was not mandated.

[the destroyer of worlds]

10 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

I think the vaccine worked for older people and people at risk for a certain number of months. My position throughout the whole thread is that there should have been a more circumspect view as to the risks and benefits of different groups of people and a more tailored approach rather than what we got which was a one-size-fits-all mandate. As I also went over earlier in the thread, I think the "rare" severe adverse reactions did not get appropriate attention either which led to what might be considered an unwise calculation relating to the vaccine and younger people.

Oh they got more than enough attention.  Anti-vaxxers to this day point to them as evidence that vaccines are dangerous.  That simply isn't the case.  No matter the semantics you use to argue otherwise.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

Further to my previous point, I think it's safe to say most people with serious health issues got vaccinated. So of the 48% of the unvaccinated hospitalizations, its probably safe to many were relatively healthy, or at least they thought they were, yet they made up half of hospitalizations while being less than 20% of the population. The other 50% of the hospitalizations included vaccinated people with serious comorbidities, people who are at serious risk of dying from seasonal flu, and yet many survived. I'd say the vaccine worked pretty well considering the circumstances.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

Let's just let all the anti-vaxxers take all the ivermectin they want. We can see them all at the Darwin Awards. Maybe they even make a new category for them?!?!

 

 

 

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

So from my personal experience:

 

- my son's mother managing a vaccination clinic for interior health and getting first hand numbers of vaccinated, unvaccinated, COVID+ results, severe illness, hospitalizations and deaths

 

- me working as a researcher through UBC identifying and modelling the trends above using various differential equation methods, and

 

- assisting chemistry lab techs in direct analysis of multiple variants

 

I can say it's 100% clear that the vaccines were effective and just as safe as, if not safer than, any other widely used medication, supplement and even most commercially processed foods and beverages.

 

I don't need to go look up some garbage that someone else spewed, distorted and fed to their online clan of followers to get likes and subscribes.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

And for anyone who wants to play the political card, that it was some form of control by governments or whomever, let's flip that coin and point out the obvious that various groups just tried to use the situation to overthrow governments because they don't like who's in power and not getting their own way.

[Satchmo]

Here’s what a Nobel Prize-winning scientist wants you to know about the Covid-19 vaccines and the future of RNA

 “Proteins are the key to life, and DNA tells the body how to make each of them, but it doesn’t do it directly, it has a messenger that acts as an intermediary.”

That’s where RNA comes in. As a messenger, it takes the instructions from our DNA to the area where the protein is created.

“We saw that with the mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines that it can be a good messenger,”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/science/thomas-r-cech-nobel-prize-scn-cec/index.html

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

13 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Here’s what a Nobel Prize-winning scientist wants you to know about the Covid-19 vaccines and the future of RNA

 “Proteins are the key to life, and DNA tells the body how to make each of them, but it doesn’t do it directly, it has a messenger that acts as an intermediary.”

That’s where RNA comes in. As a messenger, it takes the instructions from our DNA to the area where the protein is created.

“We saw that with the mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines that it can be a good messenger,”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/science/thomas-r-cech-nobel-prize-scn-cec/index.html

 

 

And! That RNA research has been ongoing since the 1950s... For those who say not enough time was put into making the vaccines.

[the destroyer of worlds]

15 hours ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

 

 

And! That RNA research has been ongoing since the 1950s... For those who say not enough time was put into making the vaccines.

And continue.  Moderna has a mRNA flu vaccine that passed through Phase 3 clinical trial late last year.  They claim is is more effective than the current flu vaccines.

[JIAHN]

@Xanlet

 

One of the things I notice about your argument, is that you resent the mandating of the vaccine.

 

News for you...The Government mandates things every day............

 

I can not fire a gun past your house

I can not speed down the road

I can not turn my music up loud after 11 pm, out side your house.....

 

But I want to do all those things..........The FN government just will not let me do it!

 

Do you understand?

 

 

Edited June 8 by JIAHN

[Xanlet]

10 hours ago, JIAHN said:

@Xanlet

 

One of the things I notice about your argument, is that you resent the mandating of the vaccine.

 

News for you...The Government mandates things every day............

 

I can not fire a gun past your house

I can not speed down the road

I can not turn my music up loud after 11 pm, out side your house.....

 

But I want to do all those things..........The FN government just will not let me do it!

 

Do you understand?

 

 

A fundamental human right is the right to refuse any medical procedure. The government should be in the business of safeguarding fundamental human rights, not violating them.

 

There are certain core tenets of medical ethics that exist for a reason. You cannot impose a risk or danger on one person and justify it by a benefit to a third party.

 

Take the classic thought experiment of a hospital with ten dying patients who all require a different organ transplant. Now imagine a healthy person is in the waiting room for a checkup who just so happens to carry compatible organs for all ten people who need them. On basic arithmetic, you can say that killing the healthy person, harvesting their organs, and saving ten people is a categorical good, since leaving him alone dooms ten people to death, while harvesting his organs kills one and saves ten.

 

If you have a normal moral compass or think about the ramifications of such a policy, you should see why this would be a horrendously bad policy to implement, and that, even though on raw numbers the ten people are doomed to die in the service of the right of the one healthy person, it is a right that must be upheld.

 

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates that even if you could hypothetically demonstrate that infringing on one person's bodily integrity could save numerous other lives, it still does not give you the right to do so. I hope I have at least conveyed why I feel strongly on this topic by this example.

 

The right to bodily integrity is of vital importance. We have much historical evidence to show that allowing the state to impose medical procedures is a terrible precedent to set. Remember, the current government may use this power in a way you approve of, but will the next government? What if the conservatives get in and decide that some kind of invasive therapy against certain other populations benefits society as a whole? If you open the door to this kind of government force, you may find it difficult to change course once Pandora's box has been opened.

 

In terms of what the government can mandate, there is a long history of legal precedents going all the way back to English Common Law about how much the government can interfere with one person's liberty in respect to another's. Notice in your example, each act was a direct behavior that cause a negative outcome. In fact, each and every one of your examples has a whole history of law behind it (gun ownership rights, public road way regulations, noise bylaws, etc.). I find these things fascinating and would be happy to litigate each and every one (but perhaps that would stray too far from the scope of this thread)

 

As pertains to the vaccine, surely the primary benefit is simply to the person who has chosen to take the vaccine themselves, which means you are pushing for a marginal, second or third order benefit by forcing other people to take it. In my view, this is such a tenuous stretch that it can be dismissed instantly, as I have already outlined why, in my view, a much stronger benefit would still be unjustified.

 

If you've read this far, thanks, I know I rambled a bit, but I am both very interested in this topic and believe it to be a very important conversation to have.

Edited June 8 by Xanlet

[Bob Long]

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

A fundamental human right is the right to refuse any medical procedure. The government should be in the business of safeguarding fundamental human rights, not violating them.

 

There are certain core tenets of medical ethics that exist for a reason. You cannot impose a risk or danger on one person and justify it by a benefit to a third party.

 

Take the classic thought experiment of a hospital with ten dying patients who all require a different organ transplant. Now imagine a healthy person is in the waiting room for a checkup who just so happens to carry compatible organs for all ten people who need them. On basic arithmetic, you can say that killing the healthy person, harvesting their organs, and saving ten people is a categorical good, since leaving him alone dooms ten people to death, while harvesting his organs kills one and saves ten.

 

If you have a normal moral compass or think about the ramifications of such a policy, you should see why this would be a horrendously bad policy to implement, and that, even though on raw numbers the ten people are doomed to die in the service of the right of the one healthy person, it is a right that must be upheld.

 

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates that even if you could hypothetically demonstrate that infringing on one person's bodily integrity could save numerous other lives, it still does not give you the right to do so. I hope I have at least conveyed why I feel strongly on this topic by this example.

 

The right to bodily integrity is of vital importance. We have much historical evidence to show that allowing the state to impose medical procedures is a terrible precedent to set. Remember, the current government may use this power in a way you approve of, but will the next government? What if the conservatives get in and decide that some kind of invasive therapy against certain other populations benefits society as a whole? If you open the door to this kind of government force, you may find it difficult to change course once Pandora's box has been opened.

 

In terms of what the government can mandate, there is a long history of legal precedents going all the way back to English Common Law about how much the government can interfere with one person's liberty in respect to another's. Notice in your example, each act was a direct behavior that cause a negative outcome. In fact, each and every one of your examples has a whole history of law behind it (gun ownership rights, public road way regulations, noise bylaws, etc.). I find these things fascinating and would be happy to litigate each and every one (but perhaps that would stray too far from the scope of this thread)

 

As pertains to the vaccine, surely the primary benefit is simply to the person who has chosen to take the vaccine themselves, which means you are pushing for a marginal, second or third order benefit by forcing other people to take it. In my view, this is such a tenuous stretch that it can be dismissed instantly, as I have already outlined why, in my view, a much stronger benefit would still be unjustified.

 

If you've read this far, thanks, I know I rambled a bit, but I am both very interested in this topic and believe it to be a very important conversation to have.

 

No one was forced to take a vaccine.