4 ms·

> vaccine skeptic analysis seems to stop at the cases and concludes that the vaccine is ineffective This is not accurate. It's the mandates which most people h

> vaccine skeptic analysis seems to stop at the cases and concludes that the vaccine is ineffective This is not accurate. It's the mandates which most people have problems with, not the vaccine. Mandating something which doesn't prevent transmission under coercion from the government is illogical. The current shots are basically potential severe symptom mitigator - which if you think you would benefit, you should take it. It should not be mandated. Here in Canada: The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly recognized "the right of a patient to decide what, if anything, should be done with his body" and that no treatment can be given to a competent patient without their "voluntary informed consent." A treating doctor avoids liability for battery only with a valid and informed consent. The doctor must explain the risks and is legally and ethically obliged to treat within the confines of that consent. An aspect of the respect for human dignity is the right to make fundamental personal decisions without interference from the state. However, the same liability considerations do not apply to a patient's right to refuse treatment which is an inherent component of the supremacy of the patient's right over his own body. That right to refuse treatment is not premised on an understanding of the risks of refusal. A patient has the right to refuse treatment regardless of whether it is necessary to preserve their life or health. People must have the right to make choices that accord with their own values "regardless of how unwise or foolish those choices may appear to others". The right "to decide one’s own fate" includes the unqualified right to refuse life-saving medical treatment." Source for Canada SCC rulings on voluntary informed consent: https://canlii.ca/t/1ftjt https://canlii.ca/t/1ftjt https://canlii.ca/t/1mjv6 https://canlii.ca/t/1mjv6 https://canlii.ca/t/1p78q https://canlii.ca/t/1p78q https://canlii.ca/t/g1757 https://canlii.ca/t/g1757 https://canlii.ca/t/24432 https://canlii.ca/t/24432

soperj 5y ago
No one is mandating that you be vaccinated in Canada. They're just saying don't go to restaurants or bars or other places if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease.
- busymom0 5y ago
  Air-travel is an essential service according to Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (Crown corporation). https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/covid19-response https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/covid19-response You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots. Is that not mandatory then? Also the courts have stated before that: > "at the very least, liberty must include those freedoms of lawful conduct always enjoyed by Canadians and by our predecessors in the Anglo-Saxon heritage. If we have enjoyed a right for many centuries then it must surely be included in "liberty" whether specifically stated in the Charter or not." If one had been able to access centuries old liberties like gyms, restaurants, weddings, funerals etc without disclosing private medical data, then they are covered under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter regarding liberty and privacy is covered under both s.7 and s.8 of the Charter. > if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease This is inaccurate. Even in mild symptom cases, vaccinated and unvaccinated infections harbour the same levels of viral load. The Delta variant is able to grow in the noses of vaccinated people to the same degree as if they were not vaccinated at all and both groups can unknowingly and unwittingly transmit the virus for 3 days before experiencing any symptoms in 75% of the Delta variant infections.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots. From your link: As of October 30, 2021, all travellers 12 years and four (4) months of age and older departing from Canadian airports must, upon request, present a valid record of their COVID-19 vaccination status **or molecular COVID-19 test result**. Emphasis added. So no, there's no vaccine mandate for air travel if a negative test is accepted.
    - busymom0 5y ago
      Read the very next paragraph of what you quoted: > After November 30, 2021, all passengers must be fully vaccinated and present valid proof of being fully vaccinated, with very limited exceptions. COVID-19 test results will no longer be accepted after this date. > As of November 15, 2021, screening officers will be conducting random proof of vaccination checks of non-passengers at CATSA security screening checkpoints. The checks will take place at 15 airports located in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Toronto (Pearson International and Billy Bishop), Ottawa, Montreal (Trudeau), Quebec City, and St. John’s. Upon request, non-passengers will be required to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 in order to enter an airport’s restricted area. I know about this because I have an ongoing lawsuit with the Canadian government.
KiwiJohnno 5y ago
I am a bit on the fence with Vaccine mandates, I wish they weren't necessary. But I get the key reason for them, which you have missed, is it isn't really about the health choices of the person getting vaccinated. If your vaccination status affected no-one but yourself then I would be strongly against any vaccine mandate. If you are unvaccinated you are more likely to get infected, that is your risk. But, if you do get infected then you are MUCH more likely to pass the virus onto other people, including cancer patients etc who cannot be vaccinated. You are also likely to clog up the hospital system for an extended time, causing everyone else to receive a poor standard of care as the healthcare system strains. This is the issue. Someone's decision to not get vaccinated has severe impacts on other people. Its NOT just about them, and if they say it is just about them then they are being incredibly selfish.
- busymom0 5y ago
  What you are describing falls under "discrimination based on perceived disability" which both Canadian Supreme Court and US Supreme Court have repeatedly frowned upon. The Ontario Human Rights Code includes "any degree of infirmity" in the definition of disability. They also recognize that the definition of disability extends to the actual or perceived possibility that a person may develop a disability in the future. "Anticipated" disabilities are covered where a person is not currently disabled, but are treated adversely because of a perception that they will eventually become disabled, become a burden, pose a risk, and/or require accommodation. OHRC requires that focus should always be on the current abilities of a person and the situation’s current risks rather than on limitations or risks that may or may not arise in the future. Our courts have repeatedly recognized that all aspects of contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV etc, constitute a disability. This includes the period of asymptomatic infection. In cases such as Biggs v. Hudson and others, Canadian courts have often relied on the United States Supreme Court ruling in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline which stated that a person with the contagious disease of tuberculosis was considered a "handicapped individual" and soundly rejected the argument that the exclusion could be justified on the basis of "pernicious mythologies" or "irrational fear." The court held that it would be wrong to permit discrimination “between the effects of a disease on others and the effects of a disease on a patient and use that distinction to justify discriminatory treatment.” Therefore, tuberculosis is included in the definition of "disability". Due to the similar contagious nature and social stigma associated with COVID-19, it also fits the definition of a "disability". Look up Biggs v. Hudson for Canadian or School Board of Nassau County v. Arline for SCOTUS ruling regarding perceived disability discrimination which was about Tuberculosis and included asymptomatic infection. In Gehman v. Seyffert, BC's human rights tribunal allowed discrimination based on perceived disability to be amended when a landlord kicked out a tenant just because she was coughing and he thought she had COVID. Anderson v. Exxon Co. is another US case that stated that "prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be unrelated to job performance or to be non-existent." Also, your assumption is incorrect. The week between Nov 6 and Nov 13, 53.96% of Canada's cases were fully vaxed, whereas 38.52% were unvaccinated and rest were partially vaxxed or under the 14 day period. I understand that Canada has high vaccination rate. But that doesn't explain the much faster growth of the fully vaccinated cases after 3-6 months of the vaccination and the rate of fully vaccinated is much higher than the rate of vaccinations. As I pointed out in my other comment, mild cases in vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29400950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29400950 If the goal is to prevent the spread of COVID, why would you only focus on the 39% and not on the 54% (and quickly rising due to waning effectiveness as vast majority of Canada's vaccinations occurred in the last 3-4 months). And why would you not allow testing as a sufficient measure - which would be even better than allowing 54% fully vaccinated cases? In fact, in Ontario, the government admits testing is good enough because they didn't mandate it for health care workers as well as the politicians themselves: > "We expect that if people have not received the vaccine, they are being tested regularly before they go into anyone’s homes or before they go to work in hospitals. But there are safeguards in place for people currently. If they’re not vaccinated, they need to be tested regularly to ensure that it is safe for them to go into someone’s home." https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-42/session-2/2021-10-25/hansard#P213_16144 https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/... The Ontario government has also allowed natural immunity for Member of Parliaments but not for citizens: > "But on August 18, the government whip issued notice to government MPPs that they’re required to vaccinate unless they can provide a medical exemption or a physician’s note that vaccination is “unnecessary by reason of past infection or laboratory evidence of immunity.”" https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-42/session-2/2021-10-05/hansard https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/...
smaryjerry 5y ago
This is exactly right. Vaccine mandates are the problem, as the US government has done for government employees, and Biden is attempting to do for all employers with over 100 employees. Almost every single person agrees the vaccines are a good thing (now that Trump is out of office) but this specific vaccine goes a step further and does not stop the spread of the virus. Some articles and data extrapolation studies claim it reduces the spread by 5 to even 50 percent in some cases, but it is extremely obvious vaccinated are spreading the disease nearly as much as non vaccinated. Since hospitals never were overwhelmed since COVID began, I don’t even know why the US government is still allowed to make the case that we should be in a state of emergency and under emergency rules passed by the president and governors. All of the lockdowns and emergency orders should have been halted until hospitals were actually overwhelmed, not just projected to be overwhelmed. When it is a real emergency the army will need to set up bases or ships to be hospitals, not just a few doctors working overtime, like they always did already.
taylodl 5y ago
I think the prevention of the collapse of medical care is a worthwhile government goal. Prior to the vaccines our medical care system was on the verge of collapse. The areas remaining under vaccinated are still in danger of having impacted medical care. People are dying from non-covid illnesses because they can't get the medical care they need due to the medical responders being overwhelmed by covid. The vaccines have made it so that the breakthrough cases are mild and generally don't require hospitalization. This allows us to get our medical infrastructure back on track. Having said that, medical infrastructure collapse is on a county basis. Maybe vaccine mandates should be handled at the county level?

soperj 5y ago

No one is mandating that you be vaccinated in Canada. They're just saying don't go to restaurants or bars or other places if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease.

busymom0 5y ago
Air-travel is an essential service according to Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (Crown corporation). https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/covid19-response https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/covid19-response You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots. Is that not mandatory then? Also the courts have stated before that: > "at the very least, liberty must include those freedoms of lawful conduct always enjoyed by Canadians and by our predecessors in the Anglo-Saxon heritage. If we have enjoyed a right for many centuries then it must surely be included in "liberty" whether specifically stated in the Charter or not." If one had been able to access centuries old liberties like gyms, restaurants, weddings, funerals etc without disclosing private medical data, then they are covered under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter regarding liberty and privacy is covered under both s.7 and s.8 of the Charter. > if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease This is inaccurate. Even in mild symptom cases, vaccinated and unvaccinated infections harbour the same levels of viral load. The Delta variant is able to grow in the noses of vaccinated people to the same degree as if they were not vaccinated at all and both groups can unknowingly and unwittingly transmit the virus for 3 days before experiencing any symptoms in 75% of the Delta variant infections.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots. From your link: As of October 30, 2021, all travellers 12 years and four (4) months of age and older departing from Canadian airports must, upon request, present a valid record of their COVID-19 vaccination status **or molecular COVID-19 test result**. Emphasis added. So no, there's no vaccine mandate for air travel if a negative test is accepted.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    Read the very next paragraph of what you quoted: > After November 30, 2021, all passengers must be fully vaccinated and present valid proof of being fully vaccinated, with very limited exceptions. COVID-19 test results will no longer be accepted after this date. > As of November 15, 2021, screening officers will be conducting random proof of vaccination checks of non-passengers at CATSA security screening checkpoints. The checks will take place at 15 airports located in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Toronto (Pearson International and Billy Bishop), Ottawa, Montreal (Trudeau), Quebec City, and St. John’s. Upon request, non-passengers will be required to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 in order to enter an airport’s restricted area. I know about this because I have an ongoing lawsuit with the Canadian government.

KiwiJohnno 5y ago

I am a bit on the fence with Vaccine mandates, I wish they weren't necessary. But I get the key reason for them, which you have missed, is it isn't really about the health choices of the person getting vaccinated. If your vaccination status affected no-one but yourself then I would be strongly against any vaccine mandate. If you are unvaccinated you are more likely to get infected, that is your risk. But, if you do get infected then you are MUCH more likely to pass the virus onto other people, including cancer patients etc who cannot be vaccinated. You are also likely to clog up the hospital system for an extended time, causing everyone else to receive a poor standard of care as the healthcare system strains. This is the issue. Someone's decision to not get vaccinated has severe impacts on other people. Its NOT just about them, and if they say it is just about them then they are being incredibly selfish.

busymom0 5y ago
What you are describing falls under "discrimination based on perceived disability" which both Canadian Supreme Court and US Supreme Court have repeatedly frowned upon. The Ontario Human Rights Code includes "any degree of infirmity" in the definition of disability. They also recognize that the definition of disability extends to the actual or perceived possibility that a person may develop a disability in the future. "Anticipated" disabilities are covered where a person is not currently disabled, but are treated adversely because of a perception that they will eventually become disabled, become a burden, pose a risk, and/or require accommodation. OHRC requires that focus should always be on the current abilities of a person and the situation’s current risks rather than on limitations or risks that may or may not arise in the future. Our courts have repeatedly recognized that all aspects of contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV etc, constitute a disability. This includes the period of asymptomatic infection. In cases such as Biggs v. Hudson and others, Canadian courts have often relied on the United States Supreme Court ruling in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline which stated that a person with the contagious disease of tuberculosis was considered a "handicapped individual" and soundly rejected the argument that the exclusion could be justified on the basis of "pernicious mythologies" or "irrational fear." The court held that it would be wrong to permit discrimination “between the effects of a disease on others and the effects of a disease on a patient and use that distinction to justify discriminatory treatment.” Therefore, tuberculosis is included in the definition of "disability". Due to the similar contagious nature and social stigma associated with COVID-19, it also fits the definition of a "disability". Look up Biggs v. Hudson for Canadian or School Board of Nassau County v. Arline for SCOTUS ruling regarding perceived disability discrimination which was about Tuberculosis and included asymptomatic infection. In Gehman v. Seyffert, BC's human rights tribunal allowed discrimination based on perceived disability to be amended when a landlord kicked out a tenant just because she was coughing and he thought she had COVID. Anderson v. Exxon Co. is another US case that stated that "prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be unrelated to job performance or to be non-existent." Also, your assumption is incorrect. The week between Nov 6 and Nov 13, 53.96% of Canada's cases were fully vaxed, whereas 38.52% were unvaccinated and rest were partially vaxxed or under the 14 day period. I understand that Canada has high vaccination rate. But that doesn't explain the much faster growth of the fully vaccinated cases after 3-6 months of the vaccination and the rate of fully vaccinated is much higher than the rate of vaccinations. As I pointed out in my other comment, mild cases in vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29400950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29400950 If the goal is to prevent the spread of COVID, why would you only focus on the 39% and not on the 54% (and quickly rising due to waning effectiveness as vast majority of Canada's vaccinations occurred in the last 3-4 months). And why would you not allow testing as a sufficient measure - which would be even better than allowing 54% fully vaccinated cases? In fact, in Ontario, the government admits testing is good enough because they didn't mandate it for health care workers as well as the politicians themselves: > "We expect that if people have not received the vaccine, they are being tested regularly before they go into anyone’s homes or before they go to work in hospitals. But there are safeguards in place for people currently. If they’re not vaccinated, they need to be tested regularly to ensure that it is safe for them to go into someone’s home." https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-42/session-2/2021-10-25/hansard#P213_16144 https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/... The Ontario government has also allowed natural immunity for Member of Parliaments but not for citizens: > "But on August 18, the government whip issued notice to government MPPs that they’re required to vaccinate unless they can provide a medical exemption or a physician’s note that vaccination is “unnecessary by reason of past infection or laboratory evidence of immunity.”" https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-42/session-2/2021-10-05/hansard https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/...

smaryjerry 5y ago

This is exactly right. Vaccine mandates are the problem, as the US government has done for government employees, and Biden is attempting to do for all employers with over 100 employees. Almost every single person agrees the vaccines are a good thing (now that Trump is out of office) but this specific vaccine goes a step further and does not stop the spread of the virus. Some articles and data extrapolation studies claim it reduces the spread by 5 to even 50 percent in some cases, but it is extremely obvious vaccinated are spreading the disease nearly as much as non vaccinated. Since hospitals never were overwhelmed since COVID began, I don’t even know why the US government is still allowed to make the case that we should be in a state of emergency and under emergency rules passed by the president and governors. All of the lockdowns and emergency orders should have been halted until hospitals were actually overwhelmed, not just projected to be overwhelmed. When it is a real emergency the army will need to set up bases or ships to be hospitals, not just a few doctors working overtime, like they always did already.

taylodl 5y ago

I think the prevention of the collapse of medical care is a worthwhile government goal. Prior to the vaccines our medical care system was on the verge of collapse. The areas remaining under vaccinated are still in danger of having impacted medical care. People are dying from non-covid illnesses because they can't get the medical care they need due to the medical responders being overwhelmed by covid. The vaccines have made it so that the breakthrough cases are mild and generally don't require hospitalization. This allows us to get our medical infrastructure back on track. Having said that, medical infrastructure collapse is on a county basis. Maybe vaccine mandates should be handled at the county level?