Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
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.
[1] https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-resul...
Vaccine passport are enormously popular in Canada.
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.
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.
So there isn’t much wiggle room. Unless a good swath of the unvaccinated support vaccine passports….
What does “opposed to vaccines” even mean? Vaccines for anybody? Vaccines for themselves? Mandatory vaccines?
I sincerely doubt 10% of even Canada is in favor of mandating everyone be vaccinated to live what was once a normal life.
EDIT: I meant that last sentence in reverse, ie doubt that only 10% is against mandatory vaccinations. I’d wager it’s much higher.
- Better protect vaccinated people given vaccines aren't 100%
- Get things opened back up faster
But it's more common to view mandatory as something more along the lines of if you don't get vaccinated (barring medical exemptions) fine but a lot of places--perhaps including where you work--will be closed to you.
And this kind of extreme binary categorization seems to be everywhere lately...
- Against some policies of some country's authoritarian regime? You're a racist!
- Vote for team blue (red)? You must despise everyone who votes for team red (blue)!
- For bike lanes? You're anti-car!
- Pro-carbon tax? You hate the economy!
- Concerned about men's issues? You must hate women!
It's almost as if holding any nuanced view and ability to debate about the many complex situations we face in life means you're more than likely to find yourself despised by those in either of the extreme camps on any given issue, which unfortunately seem to be growing to include more and more people as time goes on. As this unfolds, we're less likely to be able and willing to find compromises, have empathy for, and better understand one another. How are we going to come together to work on solving some very hard problems of the future when we're all just shouting past each other, thinking that anyone who doesn't hold the exact same set of viewpoints as one does on so many varied issues is an idiot?
82.404% of Canadians 12+ have received at least one dose
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-cover...
For the whole population, it's a bit over 60% so the "misinformation" you're referring to is approximately correct.
OP did not say fully vaccinated but instead having been vaccinated. Are you not vaccinated once you have one dose? If not, what verb would you use after receiving your first dose?
The context is important, that 40% was a response to someone that said that a great proportion of people are for the vaccine (now whether his 10% figure is right or wrong, that's a whole other things that I won't debate here), thus his point for giving that figure is to give doubt over whether enough people are for the vaccine or not.
So yeah I would argue that saying 40% of people are against, by including people that can't get vaccinated in Canada (younger than 12) and people that didn't get both dose, to show that not that many people are against the virus, is disinformation. He didn't used theses words, but he was responding to something and not simply stating facts about how many people got vaccinated.
82.521% of the population that could get vaccinated, got the vaccine in their body. That does show that a good proportion of Canada population are not against the vaccine.
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.
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.
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.
First of all, none of the above misery is exclusive to young people. None. You seem to think young people are suffering more than most and it's not clear why.
I don't want to go through line by line here because I truly feel like you're not thinking this whole thing through. So I have a proposal for how we continue this debate.
Let's imagine a scenario: Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... What happens next?
Do we still treat the sick? If so, what happens when the healthcare system reaches its breaking point? Do we cut back on treating other illnesses? What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy? What will happen to international trade and personal travel? Will Canada be blacklisted?
Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger generation be an inevitable part of growing old? What about old people who have devoted their lives to this country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths affect families? Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor (or nurse)?
This is a genuine question. I really want to understand what people such as yourself think will happen if we abolished these things.
Side note: for the record, yes it is (very) illegal for someone with an STD to have unprotected sex with an unknowing partner in Canada.
> Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... > What happens next?
I am not for halting vaccines. Anyone that wants one should get one. Nothing happens. Those that are at high risk and want a vaccine should get one.
> Do we still treat the sick?
yes, obviously. This is a medical problem for sure, but its nowhere near overwhelming. We had months to prepare to expend capacity.
Keep in mind that in Ontario, at the height of the pandemic, the overall death rate was 7-80 deaths / day.
Total Deaths in Ontario:
2019-2020* 115,126
2018-2019 109,019
And the overall death rate is roughly inline with the population growth, which is about 1.7 percent. If official number of COVID deaths is accurate. 9,400 people died of COVID.
Assuming those 9,400 deaths were all in the ICU and none at home or palliative care. There are 400 hospitals in the Province. So average of COVID deaths per hospital/per year is 9400/400 = 23.5
> What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy?
23.5 extra deaths/hospital/year. You think will do that?
>Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger >generation be an inevitable part of growing old?
The average age of a person that dies from COVID is around 85 years old. At that age, you are way past average life expectancy of 82 in Canada. So you did pretty well. You lead a full life before COVID got you. Again not the panic situation you think it is. Also, chances are if COVID did not get you at 85, something else would shortly.
>What about old people who have devoted their lives to this >country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly >affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths >affect families?
No one is ignoring the elderly. There are not millions of Covid deaths in Canada. Canada is very well prepared to treat the sick. We have new treatments that work. They can take vaccines to reduce their risk.
>Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will
>suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just
> stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop
> giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor
> ?(or nurse)?
Since this seems like a hyperbolic exaggeration. I want you to consider that currently life or death decisions are made at hospitals all the time. We could extend the life of very ill old people right now, if we spent a few extra million per patient. Since hospitals don't have that kind of money. We are letting people die whose life we could prolong with extraordinary measures. Hope you realize that. These decisions are made at hospitals all the time. Give you an example.
Dick Cheney is walking around with an artificial heart. Its an operation that would costs millions, but would extend the life of all those very old people that had heart attacks. Why do you think this is not being done? Why do you think hospitals will only offer such procedures to young patients if at all.
Can we have some more respect for each other? It's a basic premise in the UK parliament, and I would wager the Canadian parliament too, that the opponent is making their argument in good faith. It's assumed they want the best for the country and people too. Without this assumption, debates quickly descend into useless ad hominum attacks which just waste everyone's time. We could do with adopting this principle here too.
Related to this, I'd like to point out that those hesitating to get vaccinated are not just the stereotypical "idiots", but also those with the highest levels of qualification [1].
[1] https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educati...
Sadly if that was enough we wouldn't be here talking about it.
> 3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already
They can get vaccinated too.
> who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine
Source?
> At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk.
Sure, but they don't put as much risk as COVID. If it does, the same steps as covid will be implemented. Quarantine isn't new, it's just rare that so much more is needed.
> Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability
On a minuscule probability? If it was minuscule, again, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. The propagation rate are crazy, even considering everything we do to lower it. There's nothing minuscule about it.
> Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people.
But that put an high strain on our health system for no other reason than the imaginary fear about the vaccine.
I always said it. If only 1% were dying, even if I disagree with it that idea, we wouldn't have done any of this, we would just have taken the decision to let them die, even though it so many people. The big issue is the hospitalization rate. There's so many surgeries that have to be postpone, so that we can keep alive anti-vax long enough.
> Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well.
Yup, at a far lower rate and much less risker of hospitalization than COVID, but yeah. I personally seriously hope that we will treat flu season differently, but people like you make me less hopeful for that to happen. All that said is while still considering that it put much less strain on our health system than COVID.
> 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.
If that is true, it's just as much true for the immunity given by getting the virus. I mean you do know that clearly as you said "reinfecting" for someone that got vaccinated...
> By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex.
If you lie about your STD to a sex partner, there could definitely be legal repercussion to that.
> And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs.
Going to a bar doesn't facilitate the spread of STD, there must be much more involved for STD to be propagated. Is it the scale of covid too? Here in Quebec 6% of case require hospitalization. I don't believe that in average someone with an STD give it to up to 8 others.... oh and dying from an STD is much less likely too.
> Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.
Funny that you say that, I know plenty that can't give blood ;). Even considering they only slightly increase the risk of propagation and it can be tested easily.
> Its taking decades off their lives
Decades? Come on, sure you were completly ignoring any statistics before that statement, but that's just a whole other level of absurdity. Both world war were horrible, the spanish flu happened during that time, some pretty importants economics crash, plenty of events that clearly increased suicide because of how awful they were (unlike covid, which didn't seems to have an impact) and still the life expectancy just kept increasing. You still think though that this single event will takes off decade of our life? God damn it.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
I think that all depends on the country. I'd imagine it would be some variation of requiring a test and a quarantine.
Governments are generally restricted by a constitution.
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.
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!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...
Also, the deal was worked out before they were done, and they would have been paid even if the drugs did not work.
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.
Do you think inflation will fall back to normal levels because consumers will not have enough money to pay for the inflated prices producers will be demanding? If that causes US growth to implode as you hypothesize, I think that will lead to quite a depression. Interest rates at 0 can't help at that point.
If they keep sending people stimulus checks forever, it seems that portends extreme continued inflation, since the govt. is giving out free dollars with no way to reclaim them in the future. So I really feel the most realistic outcome for the US is the Japan scenario unfortunately.
Even though the Fed eventually got those 2008 dollars back, they still affected the market (otherwise what would have been the point). The losers were those who were prudently (imprudently, apparently) holding cash, and would have otherwise received higher interest rates due to the demand. By creating new temporary dollars for bailouts, the Fed destroyed that demand. And the moral hazard allowed companies to keep loading up on debt such that they needed another bailout for Covid, which was reflexively carried out without any objections from congress.
These new dollars never coming back in will be a good thing long term, as creating direct price inflation will prevent the Fed from being able to continue lowering rates and thus prevents them from creating even more asset inflation than they already have.
They have been able to keep lowering rates because technology and offshoring make real prices ever cheaper, while faux austerity keeps the newly printed money out of the hands of consumers. This has allowed them to point to the CPI and say that inflation is still low, despite higher asset inflation. Direct consumer stimulus stops their ability to keep ignoring inflation, by causing CPI inflation instead of asset inflation.
The doses were always "free". Testing used to be as well, now it's 15€ I think.
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 *
* Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
I don't think many people (if any) would publicly state "I know that vaccines are technically the most rational thing we could do given the information we have, but I'm still not going to accept them because the government is patronizing me, so screw them, I'm going to go against my interest just to stand for my rights". Most people will try to sound more reasonable than that and add that perhaps it's a bad idea in the first place, etc etc
> * Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...
From the linked article:
"Crucially, the study authors found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 developed blood clots at a far higher rate than those who had received either of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines."
From what I understood, the main question is: do you believe that you can avoid catching covid indefinitely.
If you really believe that you can indefinitely do extensive testing, contact tracing, social distancing, remote working (and so your partner and family) then perhaps, the probability of a vaccine complication outweighs the probability of getting covid multiplied by the probability of having some serious consequences of covid.
On the other hand, if you believe that sooner or later covid will just burn through the population, then you have to assume that you'll get it, and whatever are the problems caused by vaccines they have to be compared with covid itself.
And the comparison has to be fair!
Sure most young healthy people go through covid without serious issues. Most such people also get through vaccines without clots. The ones who do have clots induced by vaccines are more likely to have had bigger problems had they caught covid. In other words vaccines are working as intended. It's not my words; it's from the article you cited!
A few years ago I was beginning to believe in the reasonableness of the argument that most vaccines we give to our kids may be no longer necessary. The argument seemed compelling: those diseases right now seem gone and the amount of vaccine induced problems surpass the disease itself (at least until it came back).
However, I expected this logic go change once you have an actual epidemic burning through the population. Instead the same people just changed the spiel, finding new and new arguments, sowing doubt for the sake of it.
Many have lost trust in institutions because of their past misdeeds. In the same vein I also lost trust in the anti-vax rhetoric.
I think we can avoid to be trapped in a binary mindset. It's not just "with us or against us.". You can have a healthy distrust of authorities and still also recognize that there are millions of highly educated medical professionals in the world that understand the tradeoffs and are a support base for the scientific consensus that is guiding the government policies.
Yes, government will execute thinks badly again and again in many things; in particular I think it's most likely that governments will handle badly the human aspect: their inability to understand where dissent comes from and how to effectively address is quintessential politics.
But assuming that you have a smoking gun that proves that vaccines are dangerous in a pre-print study that shows how blood clots also happen in vaccinated people is just fueling FUD in this deeply asymmetric information war we're living through.
I'm personally convinced that if there was overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous no amount of government intervention, or big pharma mafia, can effectively silence that. We're not even talking about one single government? If there was a hidden truth some weak link would have snapped already.
If you have better evidence I'm all ears. But please something solid.
Second, wrt the mortality rates, you're missing the time variable; as are the researchers in the study which compares AZ to Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines. Yes, if everyone caught Corona in a six month period, the mortality rate comparison would skew toward vaccines being better - but that's not the case; and there are signs that the mRNA vaccine's effectiveness "seems to "drop off a cliff" after six months.
The first study I cited factored that time variable in; to measure the mortality risk in a large population (France) over a period of time.
And importantly, I didn't claim either link as a holy grail. I said may; to show that there is room for doubt. Because there is. If there wasn't, then the vaccine companies wouldn't need full legal indemnity, would they?
Remember when there was no doubt whatsoever that the virus came from nature, and definitely not the novel coronavirus lab a few miles from the initial outbreak, where they'd been putting corona into humanised mice, and failing safety standards? I remember. I remember the memes mocking it in the name of science, and the censorship of any doctor or journalist who dared try to question that narrative.
You talk a lot about trusting doctors and institutions, and not trusting the dirty anti-vaxers who pulled the wool over your eyes in the past - that's you stuff.
You seem to imply I have a "with us or against us" attitude. I don't; I'm for whatever works.
If the system you're trying to sell belief in worked in a healthy way, there would be accountability for the governments who brought the forever wars, the media who sold them to us, the doctors who prescribed all the opium which just appeared suddenly after we went into Afghanistan. Remember what W said back then, to get us into Afghanistan in the first place? "You're either with us or against us".
But there was none. There is none. The guy who helped cheerlead Dems into that horror under W, then expanded it under Obama, is now President; and making deals with the Taliban begging them not to burn the Embassy in Kabul.
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.
On the other hand it doesn't mutate much and the vaccine has a greater efficiency.
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.
Source https://twitter.com/EdTubb/status/1426182876383612931
and
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.
[1] https://www.hartgroup.org/vaccination-prevents-transmission-...
So declaring that vaccine mandates won't affect populations 'because you can still get it' is effectively twisting the truth. Or at least applying some really bad logic.
The link you provided is unfortunately not helpful. Again, there is overwhelming evidence that actions taken by governments were successful in most ways in preventing spread during the pre-vaccination era. Huge spike is case rates were immediately neutralized by lockdowns etc.. The moral and legal case is ambiguous, but not the overall effect of the policies was clear. In my area, we had two huge spikes, after which there were lock-downs declared, and immediately the case rates dropped dramatically. I'm wary of the civil issues, but the results were clear.
The article provides no evidence that vaccines don't work, other than to indicate that protections against Delta variants is weaker, which we already knew.
This statement: "The principle defence against a respiratory virus actually takes place in the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract, and the high proportion of those with some degree of natural immunity fight off SARS-CoV-2 there, preventing it replicating significantly in the bloodstream. Therefore, it is not actually surprising that a vaccine which works mainly in the circulatory system has little effect on stopping what starts as a respiratory infection. If that is the case, it is illogical to expect any reduction in transmission."
Is hugely speculative, not Scientific.
The author of this piece failed to play their own devil's advocate because there's tons of data to debunk most of what he is trying to say, in a nutshell, the author is cherry picking.
The specific point I was trying to make is that there is conflicting evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission. Since governments around the world pushed vaccines for everyone partly on the hypothesis that it should reduce spread, this is a big problem. The truth about transmission reduction from vaccination is therefore in my mind critical. And so far from what I've read, there is not yet a clear scientific consensus on whether vaccines do indeed significantly reduce transmission.
And for the record, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a tunnel-visioned troll. I welcome being shown studies that do (or don't!) demonstrate reduction in transmission, which I will read and digest before the next HN debate on this topic. It's only by scientific inquiry and debate that we will get to the truth here.
Here is Nature in Feb [1]
Here is Nature now [2]
Again, from the data in your link: 91.4% efficacy against severe Covid - IE: ventilators or death, 88% efficacy against hospitalization. I'll take those chances.
The kicker for the article is quoting an "epidemiologist" - Andrew Bostom - that is not one. His argument: Israel sees a high percentage of deaths due to Covid among the vaccinated, ergo the CDC data is wrong. Omitting that Israel deaths are less than 1/10th of what they were in January, while in the U.S. they are at 1/3. So - as you may guess - not really close.
You won't get scientific consensus if you reject the numbers that don't support your theory.
I have been fully vaccinated and I do still wear a mask in public - following CDC guidelines put into place because we know that the vaccine is not fully neutralizing.
Is the vaccine a silver bullet? No. Does it save lives? Yes - in 98% of the cases.
Yes, being vaccinated keeps out out of hospital and out of a coffin, that's enough reason to get the shot. But it doesn't prevent synptomatic infection as well as we've been told (latest numbers indicate 50 % efficacy against Delta), and there's still the risk of long Covid (~ 20 %). The older you are and the longer ago yhour shot was the greater the risk.
We need to limit large gatherings again and increase ventilation. I work at a university and am frankly sick of being asked to take risks to my health while others can hide out until there's the Delta/Lambda booster, all in the name of propping up the value of commercial real estate.
That wouldn’t give you the information you want.
It's not "pointless" at all, it's a government taking totally reasonable measures to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. Nothing is ever going to be 100% safe, but to not take obvious measures to increase safety is negligent.
I just have no sympathy for the anti-vaccine crowd and their wilful ignorance and bad faith arguments. Fine, it's your right to not get vaccinated. It's everyone else's right to prevent your recalcitrant ass from affecting others with your ridiculous theories and bad decision-making.
If I am vaccinated, and you are not, what do I gain from forcing you to get vaccinated? I am equally highly protected either way, right?
Not trying to start a fight here. I just haven't been convinced yet why our old behaviour towards threats like CoV-2 doesn't apply to it itself.
I'm not some freedom loving libertarian, I'm normally quite left leaning, but the dual standards I see applied by governments here really bother me. I can't help but think their response was driven more by fear than sense.
What is the double standard here? You aren’t even comparing the same situations.
We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society.
Governments can't mandate for every eventuality, they have to make policies covering broad areas. We're discussing public health policy here, i.e. the ways in which governments can reduce harmful effects on the health of the populace through rules and regulations. My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. The justification would be one of public health. And if anything, such a policy would be even less controversial than mandating vaccines because a smoker can simply stop smoking temporarily to be around other people whereas people cannot stop breathing and therefore potentially spreading viruses. Yet it seems governments have skipped over all of these easier public health issues, and gone straight to mandating that people get vaccinated to enter publicly funded places from a public health justification. To me, regardless of how effective or not these mandates have been and are, I smell bullshit when I hear governments justifying such rules with public health arguments because they have not from their previous actions demonstrated that they are merely following through with their public health manifesto. I rather fear they're mandating vaccines to enter public spaces because the public demanded something be done. Governments in representative democracies aren't doing their job if they do merely that which the public want; they are supposed to lead even if the majority of the public disagree.
You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with.
This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.
Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way:
Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html
Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale:
Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati...
"Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."
I don't think most people are suggesting mandatory vaccination of parents; the rules actually being imposed in developed countries are much more similar to indoor smoking bans (ie. you are allowed put yourself and your children in danger, but you're not allowed put the general public in danger.)
Yes, of course. Most developed countries ban indoor smoking in most or all places outside the home.
That's why vaxxes are not like seatbelts, i.e. just affecting the user, they affect everyone.
We take vaccines to protect others as much as we do ourselves, because if we act responsibly then things will work out, but nearly everyone needs to participate.
In this case it's a little bit like 'positive responsibilities'. Normally, we could say 'don't steal' and that would be enough, but in this case it leans towards 'get your vax' i.e. an active action.
It's not as black and white, it's reasonable to have conscientious and other objectors. And of course I don't think 'requirements' are necessary unless specific health concerns. But on the whole, by and large, we need to get vaxxed here i.e. we need enough civic participants to move the situation forward so that the various kinds of objectors can survive so as to maintain their right to object, ironically.
And this all assumes that the vaccination works equally well for everyone. The effectiveness rates are and average. There will be people for whom it is highly effective, and others who get the vaccine who don’t get much protection at all.
It also ignores the reality of mutation rates. Mutations will happen no matter what, but the rate at which they occur is dependent on how many people are getting sick. So even if a vaccine offers protection now, if half the population is not vaccinated, and the virus is raging amongst them, then the chances of the virus developing a mutation that increases severity, or evades existing vaccine immunity, is much higher.
So the reality is that no, being protected is not a simple matter of an individual choosing to or not to get vaccinated. It’s community based. This isn’t unique for COVID either. It’s been true for every disease we’ve ever vaccinated against.
We can say the same thing in many domains. Modern car safety has improved a lot and makes cars from a few decades ago look like deathtraps in comparison. But way too many people still die on roads so we're constantly trying to make improvements.
For true immunity without anyone else needing to be vaccinated they'd need to be perfectly effective. Since they're not, more of the community needs to be vaccinated. The less effective they are (or the more widespread or infectious the virus is) the larger the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated becomes.
Think of the vaccine as a collective attempt to stop the virus, not as a personal attempt. The more people are vaccinated, the higher chance this pandemic will end and we can get back to normal. Anti vaxxers are extremely annoying here. Also, hopefully the vaccine is approved for children soon.
This is only true for both if there are no side effects to doing either of them. If there are side effects, and there are, then it is not that simple.
I don't know why, but with COVID, people seem to have conveniently forgotten that in science, all factors matter. [1]
[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...