4 ms·

...the step from "vaccine requirements on federally regulated transport services" is a hell of a lot closer to "drivers license to operate a car" or "recognized

...the step from "vaccine requirements on federally regulated transport services" is a hell of a lot closer to "drivers license to operate a car" or "recognized ID to board a plane" than it is to "full China-style surveillance system tracking system that monitor where every citizen is". I think your interpretation of this is hyperbolic.

roenxi 5y ago
If holding employment, catching a train or attending a festival are conditional on having a drivers license then I'm unhappy about that too. The explicit purpose of this is to exclude people from society if they disagree with the government's cost/benefit calculations. There is evidence in the article that the vaccines reduce the risks of COVID by 2-3 orders of magnitude, which gets it into the range of a bad flu. We know that a lot of people have already had COVID and pose a lower risk than someone who is vaccinated. These compliance systems are going to do more harm than good. It is never going to work out well when the government brings in authoritarian compliance measures to protect a majority from a minority who are being accused of causing all the problems of today. That script has been put into production before.
- coronqueue 5y ago
  Where is your data to support your extraordinary claim that "a lot of people have already had COVID and pose a lower risk than someone who is vaccinated"? https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v... "The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated." "The researchers saw even more variability when they looked at neutralizing antibodies—those known to bind to the virus and prevent it from infecting cells. Neutralizing antibody levels in recovered people varied over a range of 40,000-fold, and up to 20 percent of people didn't have any detectable level of neutralizing antibody." For vaccines, we have data showing they are highly effective: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/Vaccine_Effectiveness_2Doses.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/Vaccine_Effec... We have data showing reduction in transmission as a result of vaccination. We don't have comparable data for people who have merely been previously infected, and in fact the data we do have seems to provide evidence that they pose higher risk. The immune system is not as reliable when it is having to fight off an infection while mounting its response vs when it is able to mount an immune response while not under attack from the virus. We're quite happy here with our freedom to go to a restaurant or attend a festival without exposing ourselves to the risk of being around unvaccinated people.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Your source is comparing reinfection risk. Reinfection risk is very low [0]. It can't drive a pandemic. And, fairly critically, it is crazy to start isolating people from social life over that low reinfection risk. You've been exposed to people who are unvaccinated for all sort of dangerous diseases through your life and nobody has tried to lock them out of society for that. EDIT I suppose I'll throw in here this isn't about whether vaccination is good or not. Anyone who hasn't made up their mind at this point isn't persuaded by evidence. This is about how to treat people who make choices that the government disagrees with. Locking them off aeroplanes isn't the way. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/
    - mthoms 5y ago
      >This is about how to treat people who make choices that the government disagrees with I hate to tell you this. Putting restrictions on non-vaccinated people is not some Government conspiracy. It's literally what the vast majority of the people of Canada want for their safety. That includes your neighbours and (possibly) your family members. That's what the government is supposed to do. Sure, you could make some "tyranny of the majority" argument here but in the case of anti-vaxers, you'll be hard pressed to find any sympathy from most Canadians. It's not a government conspiracy. It's the will of the people it represents. I know that doesn't make nearly as good a narrative, but it's the hard truth.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        It's not like we didn't do this with measles, mumps, polio, smallpox, rubella, tuberculosis...
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Something being popular is no guarantee at all that it is a good idea. The US just left Afghanistan this year, for example. Anyone claiming that 20 year debacle was a mistake going in to it was not in for a pleasant time - but they were right. The Patriot Act is much more long-lived than Bin Laden. The worst time to do this is hastily and when people are feeling scared; these are some serious bridges being crossed. The systems being set up to deal with people who aren't scared of the coronavirus are going to be permanent and are a very decisive step in reshaping Western culture using the model trailed in China.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 5y ago

If holding employment, catching a train or attending a festival are conditional on having a drivers license then I'm unhappy about that too. The explicit purpose of this is to exclude people from society if they disagree with the government's cost/benefit calculations. There is evidence in the article that the vaccines reduce the risks of COVID by 2-3 orders of magnitude, which gets it into the range of a bad flu. We know that a lot of people have already had COVID and pose a lower risk than someone who is vaccinated. These compliance systems are going to do more harm than good. It is never going to work out well when the government brings in authoritarian compliance measures to protect a majority from a minority who are being accused of causing all the problems of today. That script has been put into production before.

coronqueue 5y ago
Where is your data to support your extraordinary claim that "a lot of people have already had COVID and pose a lower risk than someone who is vaccinated"? https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-vaccination-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v... "The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated." "The researchers saw even more variability when they looked at neutralizing antibodies—those known to bind to the virus and prevent it from infecting cells. Neutralizing antibody levels in recovered people varied over a range of 40,000-fold, and up to 20 percent of people didn't have any detectable level of neutralizing antibody." For vaccines, we have data showing they are highly effective: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/Vaccine_Effectiveness_2Doses.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/Vaccine_Effec... We have data showing reduction in transmission as a result of vaccination. We don't have comparable data for people who have merely been previously infected, and in fact the data we do have seems to provide evidence that they pose higher risk. The immune system is not as reliable when it is having to fight off an infection while mounting its response vs when it is able to mount an immune response while not under attack from the virus. We're quite happy here with our freedom to go to a restaurant or attend a festival without exposing ourselves to the risk of being around unvaccinated people.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Your source is comparing reinfection risk. Reinfection risk is very low [0]. It can't drive a pandemic. And, fairly critically, it is crazy to start isolating people from social life over that low reinfection risk. You've been exposed to people who are unvaccinated for all sort of dangerous diseases through your life and nobody has tried to lock them out of society for that. EDIT I suppose I'll throw in here this isn't about whether vaccination is good or not. Anyone who hasn't made up their mind at this point isn't persuaded by evidence. This is about how to treat people who make choices that the government disagrees with. Locking them off aeroplanes isn't the way. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/
  - mthoms 5y ago
    >This is about how to treat people who make choices that the government disagrees with I hate to tell you this. Putting restrictions on non-vaccinated people is not some Government conspiracy. It's literally what the vast majority of the people of Canada want for their safety. That includes your neighbours and (possibly) your family members. That's what the government is supposed to do. Sure, you could make some "tyranny of the majority" argument here but in the case of anti-vaxers, you'll be hard pressed to find any sympathy from most Canadians. It's not a government conspiracy. It's the will of the people it represents. I know that doesn't make nearly as good a narrative, but it's the hard truth.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      It's not like we didn't do this with measles, mumps, polio, smallpox, rubella, tuberculosis...
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Something being popular is no guarantee at all that it is a good idea. The US just left Afghanistan this year, for example. Anyone claiming that 20 year debacle was a mistake going in to it was not in for a pleasant time - but they were right. The Patriot Act is much more long-lived than Bin Laden. The worst time to do this is hastily and when people are feeling scared; these are some serious bridges being crossed. The systems being set up to deal with people who aren't scared of the coronavirus are going to be permanent and are a very decisive step in reshaping Western culture using the model trailed in China.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]