It can't be about our rights and freedoms those disappeared when this pandemic started. Is it an election issue? Why does Roussin and Pallister talk about the Fundamentals but fail to force us to use the one instrument that really works? Is it fear of a revolt? What if all citizens had refused to get vaccinated?  Do they have this problem in China?

55 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Ditto.

 

I'm actually amazed how much "material" you've packed into one title and one and a half lines lines. I'm no fan of the current government by any means, but it's a charter issue. I'm not even going to attempt at touching anything you've brought up, including the inference that we should treat our population like the Chinese do. I honestly don't think you care to know the answers to your own questions.

Even as someone fairly dependent on others being vaccinated, I support the right of people to choose vaccination or not. It would be great if we could get 90%+ and likely get back to a pretty normal life, but people should have the right to choose. If you choose not to get the vaccine, then not being able to enjoy some of the freedoms as those vaccinated also makes sense. I think our current government may be the worst in Canada in my memory, with the possible exception of the incredibly low bar Kenney gov't, but they are doing fairly well balancing on this issue. I'm hoping they can keep more things restricted to those that are vaccinated only, but that may be tough when the two governments to the west of us are not doing the same.

46 minutes ago, WildPath said:

Even as someone fairly dependent on others being vaccinated, I support the right of people to choose vaccination or not. It would be great if we could get 90%+ and likely get back to a pretty normal life, but people should have the right to choose. If ychoose ou not to get the vaccine, then not being able to enjoy some of the freedoms as those vaccinated also makes sense. I think our current government may be the worst in Canada in my memory, with the possible exception of the incredibly low bar Kenney gov't, but they are doing fairly well balancing on this issue. I'm hoping they can keep more things restricted to those that are vaccinated only, but that may be tough when the two governments to the west of us are not doing the same.

I disagree. People shouldn't have the right to choose to put others in danger. Kids can't get vaccinated and there are people with legitimate health conditions that prevent vaccination. Nobody has the right to choose to put them at risk. Vaccines should absolutely be mandatory. 

4 minutes ago, Noeller said:

People shouldn't have the right to choose

But this is where it becomes a slippery slope. You take away choice here, then next time it's something else, and then something else until we've got an over controlling government. 

 

No the answer is education and cracking down on misinformation.  

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

But this is where it becomes a slippery slope. You take away choice here, then next time it's something else, and then something else until we've got an over controlling government. 

 

No the answer is education and cracking down on misinformation.  

What choice does that leave immuno-compromised people who can't get vaccinated or transplant recipients who show no active COVID antibodies after 2 vaccinations?  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-vaccine-antibodies-transplant-recipients/

It is a public health issue, full stop.

The longer we allow variants to develop, the worse this will get.  Screw anyone that is physically able to get vaccinated and "chooses" not to.

 

Edited July 20, 20214 yr by Wideleft

9 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I disagree. People shouldn't have the right to choose to put others in danger. Kids can't get vaccinated and there are people with legitimate health conditions that prevent vaccination. Nobody has the right to choose to put them at risk. Vaccines should absolutely be mandatory. 

I understand that argument. A mass of ignorant people not getting the vaccine will lead to people dying and not necessarily those who refused the vaccine. Not to mention a prolonged pandemic for everyone and businesses being hurt. But taking away a right for people to choose a vaccine or not is kind of a big deal and would be pretty unenforceable. Would they physically force people to be vaccinated? Choose vaccination or prison? I think restricting a lot of activities that put others at risk is a good middle ground.

3 minutes ago, WildPath said:

I understand that argument. A mass of ignorant people not getting the vaccine will lead to people dying and not necessarily those who refused the vaccine. Not to mention a prolonged pandemic for everyone and businesses being hurt. But taking away a right for people to choose a vaccine or not is kind of a big deal and would be pretty unenforceable. Would they physically force people to be vaccinated? Choose vaccination or prison? I think restricting a lot of activities that put others at risk is a good middle ground.

I think you need a federally mandated situation whereby you're not allowed in public if you haven't had the shot. No stores, no restaurants....nothing indoors besides your own home. That is what sends the message. 

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Ill bet theyre mandatory in St Olaf.

That's somewhere close to where I draw the line. Preventing them from going into stores is pretty iffy though. Basically saying you can not shop for personal needs is probably to restrictive from my perspective. Preventing restaurants altogether I'd be okay with and other luxuries, but they need to have access to the necessities of life. There's curbside pickup available, but there's also people that have a difficult time ordering online or doing curbside pickup. Requiring masks for all in essential businesses is a fair compromise for me.

8 minutes ago, WildPath said:

That's somewhere close to where I draw the line. Preventing them from going into stores is pretty iffy though. Basically saying you can not shop for personal needs is probably to restrictive from my perspective. Preventing restaurants altogether I'd be okay with and other luxuries, but they need to have access to the necessities of life. There's curbside pickup available, but there's also people that have a difficult time ordering online or doing curbside pickup. Requiring masks for all in essential businesses is a fair compromise for me.

The vaccines are free and no one in government is telling them not to get vaccinated.  Actions (or lack of, in this case) have consequences.  If they want to shop for essentials, there's an easy way to facilitate that.  If they want their kids in public schools past the age of 11, there's a way to facilitate that too.

Every state in the U.S. has increasing case counts.  There are 7 different climate zones in that country alone.  Who know what kind (or how many) variants this hesitancy is going to allow.

Ontario already has $1000 fines for parents who don't vaccinate their kids for specific disease.  Alberta has legislation to prevent kids from enrolling in public school if they don't meet specific immunization requirements.  It's not like this is our first rodeo in some respects.

If someone don't want to get vaccine. I'm okay with that. Clearly people who wanted to wait a bit to see if there are side effects were right in doing so(see AstraZeneca). 

Now if they never want to get one...well good luck with that. With your employer, your health insurance, etc.

44 minutes ago, WildPath said:

That's somewhere close to where I draw the line. Preventing them from going into stores is pretty iffy though. Basically saying you can not shop for personal needs is probably to restrictive from my perspective. Preventing restaurants altogether I'd be okay with and other luxuries, but they need to have access to the necessities of life. There's curbside pickup available, but there's also people that have a difficult time ordering online or doing curbside pickup. Requiring masks for all in essential businesses is a fair compromise for me.

Yes, this has been the case since the pandemic began. However, vaccination is a much better layer of protection than masking up. Another issue is the covidiot doorknobs who cry about vaccination, ignore proven science, and fuel the fires of misinformation also tend to claim masks are draconian, cause damage, and violate rights. Anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers are by and large one in the same and it's because of them (for the most part) that we're still stuck in this pandemic as variants emerge and worsen the situation across the globe.

I'm still genuinely curious to know what "rights and freedoms" have actually disappeared since the pandemic began. Nobody seems capable of providing a rational, objective, informed answer, though.

This is a difficult issue and there may be a compromise which is already in place to an extent. In some countries, if you have not registered as a potential organ donor, should you need a replacement organ, you go to the bottom of the list. If you are not vaccinated, your access to public services and locations is already restricted to a degree, but that can be made more absolute. If an adult presents with COVID symptoms, their priority access to treatment ought to be restricted so that they go to the back of the line and the unaccepted people are refused access  to dentistry, physio, hospitalization etc. Similarly, access to retail establishments, entertainment venues and even religious gatherings would be denied. Pretty soon, the resistant few would be limited to the intractable ones. At-risk children would be identified and exempted where appropriate.

Edited July 20, 20214 yr by Tracker

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

 

I'm still genuinely curious to know what "rights and freedoms" have actually disappeared since the pandemic began. Nobody seems capable of providing a rational, objective, informed answer, though.

Or, the most recent logical brilliance: 'the public health orders are not constitutional, therefore, we don't actually have to pay the fines.'

 

13 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Or, the most recent logical brilliance: 'the public health orders are not constitutional, therefore, we don't actually have to pay the fines.'

 

The people who regularly say 'it's in the constitution' to defend their position that they have the right to chose and no one can tell them what to do are extremely exhausting. 

Just now, HardCoreBlue said:

The people who regularly say 'it's in the constitution' to defend their position that they have the right to chose and no one can tell them what to do are extremely exhausting. 

In  most cases it's not even misunderstanding, it's deliberate ignorance.  You can show them it's incorrect, but they won't back down, because they've spent the past year mouthing off about it. 

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

If someone don't want to get vaccine. I'm okay with that. Clearly people who wanted to wait a bit to see if there are side effects were right in doing so(see AstraZeneca). 

Now if they never want to get one...well good luck with that. With your employer, your health insurance, etc.

This claim is a bit dubious.  More than a bit.  

As of July 5, suspected side effects reported in the EU due to vaccination of Vaxzevria (formerly AstraZenica) occured at a rate of 0.2%. (152,250 of 58,400,000 doses)

• If the 33.5 million infections are calculated against total EU population, (512.6 million), you have an infection rate of 6.5%. 

Suspected Vaxzevria mortality rate was 0.0017%. (938 of 58,400,000 doses)

• COVID mortality rate calculated by deaths vs total EU population is 1.45%

So a person was 853 more times likely to die of COVID than by the vaccine.  Not sure avoiding the vaccine really was the right decision.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update-vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-14-july-2021_en.pdf

 

 

 

 

Just now, Mark H. said:

In  most cases it's not even misunderstanding, it's deliberate ignorance.  You can show them it's incorrect, but they won't back down, because they've spent the past year mouthing off about it. 

This. Pride blinds reason and they'd rather just dig in their heels and maintain a misguided position fuelled by baseless conspiracies or simply falsehoods. It's baffling ****, especially when they hide behind self-proclamations like "free thinkers" and accuse others of being sheep. It's an ugly side of humanity, IMO.

I believe there have been 3 AZ deaths in Canada so that makes it 1 in a million chance of RIP.

Ya I was gonna say earlier that 8f anyone waited because of potential AZ side effects, they weren't right.... They were dumb. Far FAR greater risk of getting covid than from any potential side effect. Anyone who didnt drop everything and do everything in their power to get the first vaccine available to them is just really really dumb. 

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

I believe there have been 3 AZ deaths in Canada so that makes it 1 in a million chance of RIP.

I believe that we are about 34 million population- that would make a vaccine-related mortality of less than one in ten million , or less than .008 %.  

Edited July 20, 20214 yr by Tracker

27 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I believe that we are about 34 million population- that would make a vaccine-related mortality of less than one in ten million , or less than .008 %.  

Except that there were only 3,084,760 doses of AZ distributed across Canada, so the one in a million calculation is not far off.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/covid-19-vaccine-treatment/vaccine-rollout.html