5 ms·

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 abou

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/...
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  I just wanted to say bravo for your last two posts in this chain. I learned a lot; thank you.
- zenplant 5y ago
  I know people who aren't vaccinated. You aren't forced to do anything at all. You just can't be expected to be able to do anything you want (go into crowded restaurants for example). Also mps who aren't vaccinated aren't allowed to take their seats in parliament. These are very sound public safety measures. The statistics on the vaccines are very clear. Misinterpreting the data doesn't change their worldwide objective effectiveness at preventing our hospitals from filling up. Think of it as the same health measures we've put in place against public smoking. You're free to smoke or be unvacced all you want, just don't do it around me, thanks.
- KiwiJohnno 5y ago
  Thank you for your informative reply. You are right, regular (as in, weekly or more frequently) testing should also prove effective at preventing the spread amongst both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. But, the key there is you would have to trust people to do the right thing, and actually get tested, and isolate if they test positive. I'm not confident that enough people who won't get vaccinated would comply with that. And you are misusing statistics when you say that a greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated proves the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread. Everyone knows the vaccine doesn't 100% prevent you catching covid, no surprise there. But it does slow it somewhat, and most crucuially it does greatly reduce your chances of dying or being hospitalized. I'm too lazy to link references, but a quick google would show you plenty of reputable sources with statistics showing you are much safer vaccinated than unvaccinated. Regarding the greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated, many, many things explain this. For a start, 76% of Canada's population is vaccinated. So, if the vaccine had no effect then you'd expect 76% of all new cases would be amongst the vaccinated. You stated the actual measure is 53%, so clearly the vaccine is preventing a lot of the spread. But in the end of the day, setting aside the whole issue of should the vaccine should be mandated or not, disagreeing with the mandate is not a valid reason to not get vaccinated. Just get vaccinated. Once you disregard all the crazy, crazy conspiracy theories about the vaccine "magentizing" your body, or changing your DNA or causing infertility then you are left with a real, but infantesimal risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. A rational comparison of the risks of getting vaccinated vs the risks of not getting vaccinated cleary shows there is no valid reson to not get vaccinated except a tiny fraction of people who cannot get vaccinated due to valid medical advice.
native_samples 5y ago
"if you do get infected then you are MUCH more likely to pass the virus onto other people" No, that isn't the case. Studies have shown there's no difference in infectiousness or viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and the original clinical trials didn't even measure infectiousness at all let alone reduce it. But this hardly matters. Even if there was some small improvement in infectiousness, so what? Vaccines aren't free. They cause collateral damage: some people end up injured, other people end up dead. Given that the virus/viruses are endemic at this point there is no real benefit to reducing infectiousness by some percentage, as vulnerable people will (supposedly) end up getting it anyway no matter what. Also re: morality. This idea that refusing a vaccine is selfishness is itself enormous selfishness. You are asking healthy young people who are not at risk of COVID to take a risk of getting sick from the vaccine. It seems often that people who push this "vaccines are moral purity" angle cannot really handle this fact and go into denial about it, but there are many such stories out there, and databases filled with reports of such injuries. When you are demanding healthy young people risk sacrificing their own health, just to make you a bit less scared or to give an 80 year old another 8 months of life, it doesn't look like any recognizable morality to me.

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/...

nathanaldensr 5y ago
I just wanted to say bravo for your last two posts in this chain. I learned a lot; thank you.
zenplant 5y ago
I know people who aren't vaccinated. You aren't forced to do anything at all. You just can't be expected to be able to do anything you want (go into crowded restaurants for example). Also mps who aren't vaccinated aren't allowed to take their seats in parliament. These are very sound public safety measures. The statistics on the vaccines are very clear. Misinterpreting the data doesn't change their worldwide objective effectiveness at preventing our hospitals from filling up. Think of it as the same health measures we've put in place against public smoking. You're free to smoke or be unvacced all you want, just don't do it around me, thanks.
KiwiJohnno 5y ago
Thank you for your informative reply. You are right, regular (as in, weekly or more frequently) testing should also prove effective at preventing the spread amongst both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. But, the key there is you would have to trust people to do the right thing, and actually get tested, and isolate if they test positive. I'm not confident that enough people who won't get vaccinated would comply with that. And you are misusing statistics when you say that a greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated proves the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread. Everyone knows the vaccine doesn't 100% prevent you catching covid, no surprise there. But it does slow it somewhat, and most crucuially it does greatly reduce your chances of dying or being hospitalized. I'm too lazy to link references, but a quick google would show you plenty of reputable sources with statistics showing you are much safer vaccinated than unvaccinated. Regarding the greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated, many, many things explain this. For a start, 76% of Canada's population is vaccinated. So, if the vaccine had no effect then you'd expect 76% of all new cases would be amongst the vaccinated. You stated the actual measure is 53%, so clearly the vaccine is preventing a lot of the spread. But in the end of the day, setting aside the whole issue of should the vaccine should be mandated or not, disagreeing with the mandate is not a valid reason to not get vaccinated. Just get vaccinated. Once you disregard all the crazy, crazy conspiracy theories about the vaccine "magentizing" your body, or changing your DNA or causing infertility then you are left with a real, but infantesimal risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. A rational comparison of the risks of getting vaccinated vs the risks of not getting vaccinated cleary shows there is no valid reson to not get vaccinated except a tiny fraction of people who cannot get vaccinated due to valid medical advice.

native_samples 5y ago

"if you do get infected then you are MUCH more likely to pass the virus onto other people" No, that isn't the case. Studies have shown there's no difference in infectiousness or viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and the original clinical trials didn't even measure infectiousness at all let alone reduce it. But this hardly matters. Even if there was some small improvement in infectiousness, so what? Vaccines aren't free. They cause collateral damage: some people end up injured, other people end up dead. Given that the virus/viruses are endemic at this point there is no real benefit to reducing infectiousness by some percentage, as vulnerable people will (supposedly) end up getting it anyway no matter what. Also re: morality. This idea that refusing a vaccine is selfishness is itself enormous selfishness. You are asking healthy young people who are not at risk of COVID to take a risk of getting sick from the vaccine. It seems often that people who push this "vaccines are moral purity" angle cannot really handle this fact and go into denial about it, but there are many such stories out there, and databases filled with reports of such injuries. When you are demanding healthy young people risk sacrificing their own health, just to make you a bit less scared or to give an 80 year old another 8 months of life, it doesn't look like any recognizable morality to me.