11 ms·

Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

130 points by miles 5y ago

peakaboo 5y ago
Papers please.
f6v 5y ago
Germany is now giving the dozes away as there's low demand. I wonder if the same rules will be in place in Europe.
- underseacables 5y ago
  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!
  - nradov 5y ago
    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-million-covid-19-vaccine-doses-overseas-11627981201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...
    - underseacables 5y ago
      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.
      - lokar 5y ago
        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.
  - cdot2 5y ago
    Theyre printing money to pay for everything which is causing massive inflation.
    - fzzzy 5y ago
      So basically everyone with a current cash position is paying for it.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        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.
        revnode 5y ago
        There are a lot of assumptions in that statement.
      - adventured 5y ago
        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.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    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.
    - hadrien01 5y ago
      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-pandemic-2893e2935eabcd902a154fee1b9c7cbc https://apnews.com/article/europe-health-coronavirus-pandemi...
  - f6v 5y ago
    The federal government seems to be paying the bill in Germany.
- Bayart 5y ago
  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.
MichaelZuo 5y ago
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?
- oblio 5y ago
  81% for adults.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  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
- maxerickson 5y ago
  People are being forced to forgo transportation, they are not being forcibly vaccinated.
  - totony 5y ago
    /s ?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      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.
      - totony 5y ago
        Replace vaccinated by any race. Does that sound good? I say that in a non-facetious way to expose bias. We don't say "you have the right to X, BUT if you use that right you don't have the right to do what everyone else does." That's not a right. "You have a right to free expression, but if you express dissent you are barred from using the Internet (it's too dangerous!)".
HarryHirsch 5y ago
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/galveston/article/27-COVID-19-cases-reported-on-Carnival-cruise-16384682.php 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.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  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 https://twitter.com/EdTubb/status/1426182876383612931 and https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ontario/resource/eed63cf2-83dd-4598-b337-b288c0a89a16 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.
  - sleavey 5y ago
    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-myth/ https://www.hartgroup.org/vaccination-prevents-transmission-...
mabbo 5y ago
It's likely because of the election. 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.
- totony 5y ago
  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-results-would-have-looked-like-with-electoral-reform-125848 https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-resul...
  - ckdarby 5y ago
    Complete opposite interactions for vaccine passports and I live in Saint-Remi, Quebec.
  - graeme 5y ago
    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-vaccine-passports-for-variety-of-indoor-outdoor-activities 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.
    - totony 5y ago
      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.
azth 5y ago
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?
- fortran77 5y ago
  > 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.
- ghaff 5y ago
  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.
  - azth 5y ago
    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?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      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.
  - account42 5y ago
    > Legal is what the government of a given country says is legal. Governments are generally restricted by a constitution.
- amarshall 5y ago
  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.
bernardv 5y ago
Great news. Vaccination requirements are nothing new - I’ve had a WHO issued vaccination passport since the ‘70s.
- totony 5y ago
  Weren't vaccine passport only if you want to enter a country you're not a resident of? Countries have their sovereignty, they can bar you entry for any reason.
mandmandam 5y ago
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 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-19-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-similar-to-pfizer-spanish-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
whatever_dude 5y ago
Good.
dukeofdoom 5y ago
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.
- mthoms 5y ago
  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.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    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.

130 points by miles 5y ago

peakaboo 5y ago

Papers please.

f6v 5y ago

Germany is now giving the dozes away as there's low demand. I wonder if the same rules will be in place in Europe.

underseacables 5y ago
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!
- nradov 5y ago
  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-million-covid-19-vaccine-doses-overseas-11627981201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...
  - underseacables 5y ago
    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.
    - lokar 5y ago
      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.
- cdot2 5y ago
  Theyre printing money to pay for everything which is causing massive inflation.
  - fzzzy 5y ago
    So basically everyone with a current cash position is paying for it.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      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.
      - revnode 5y ago
        There are a lot of assumptions in that statement.
    - adventured 5y ago
      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.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  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.
  - hadrien01 5y ago
    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-pandemic-2893e2935eabcd902a154fee1b9c7cbc https://apnews.com/article/europe-health-coronavirus-pandemi...
- f6v 5y ago
  The federal government seems to be paying the bill in Germany.
Bayart 5y ago
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.

MichaelZuo 5y ago

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?

oblio 5y ago
81% for adults.
jeromegv 5y ago
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
maxerickson 5y ago
People are being forced to forgo transportation, they are not being forcibly vaccinated.
- totony 5y ago
  /s ?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    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.
    - totony 5y ago
      Replace vaccinated by any race. Does that sound good? I say that in a non-facetious way to expose bias. We don't say "you have the right to X, BUT if you use that right you don't have the right to do what everyone else does." That's not a right. "You have a right to free expression, but if you express dissent you are barred from using the Internet (it's too dangerous!)".

HarryHirsch 5y ago

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/galveston/article/27-COVID-19-cases-reported-on-Carnival-cruise-16384682.php 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.

jeromegv 5y ago
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 https://twitter.com/EdTubb/status/1426182876383612931 and https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ontario/resource/eed63cf2-83dd-4598-b337-b288c0a89a16 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.
- sleavey 5y ago
  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-myth/ https://www.hartgroup.org/vaccination-prevents-transmission-...

mabbo 5y ago

It's likely because of the election. 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.

totony 5y ago
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-results-would-have-looked-like-with-electoral-reform-125848 https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-resul...
- ckdarby 5y ago
  Complete opposite interactions for vaccine passports and I live in Saint-Remi, Quebec.
- graeme 5y ago
  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-vaccine-passports-for-variety-of-indoor-outdoor-activities 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.
  - totony 5y ago
    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.

azth 5y ago

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?

fortran77 5y ago
> 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.
ghaff 5y ago
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.
- azth 5y ago
  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?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    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.
- account42 5y ago
  > Legal is what the government of a given country says is legal. Governments are generally restricted by a constitution.
amarshall 5y ago
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.

bernardv 5y ago

Great news. Vaccination requirements are nothing new - I’ve had a WHO issued vaccination passport since the ‘70s.

totony 5y ago
Weren't vaccine passport only if you want to enter a country you're not a resident of? Countries have their sovereignty, they can bar you entry for any reason.

mandmandam 5y ago

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 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-19-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-similar-to-pfizer-spanish-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...

whatever_dude 5y ago

Good.

dukeofdoom 5y ago

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.

mthoms 5y ago
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.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  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.