Doesn't he have to be in the fight to care?
No-one outside of the fervent US right wing seems to care.
No-one outside of the fervent US right wing seems to care.
The protesters have been accused of waving confederate and swastika flags in order to frame them as a right-wing group. However, I see mostly Canada flags in this 4K video of the epicenter of the protest. I have yet to find the first confederate or swastika flag in there.
I have difficulties to believe Trudeau.
Then Biden called. Something about factory closures.
Then Trudeau made a statement threatening the protesters and the cops moved in at the big border crossing.
So I conclude that Biden cares.
He also caught Covid from one of his kids.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/service...
1. The absolute risk reduction is something like 1%. And that was before Omnicron.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
2. The average age of someone that dies from Covid is 82+ with multiple co-morbities.
3. You can calculate your risk here. https://qcovid.org/
I'm not that young, and not that healthy.
My risk comes out to 1/30,000.
comparatively, my risk from dying in a car accident is 1 in 107.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1 (3rd graph shows the case rate)
No one I know would take 10 doses of these vaccines. Canadians are pretty passive people. But at third dose the country is near rebellion. Good luck, thinking this will succeed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497/
...
It is customary yet inappropriate to compare vaccine efficacies and make policy decisions solely on relative risk reduction (RRR) from clinical trials with different protocols in populations with different background risks for COVID-19—unless vaccines were tested within a common trial as advocated by WHO.[3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3)
RRR focusses on those who benefit from the vaccine and, although more stable across event rates (levels of risk for COVID-19), its interpretation requires knowing the actual background risk and its variability. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) considers all individuals and translates conveniently into number needed to vaccinate within a population with a given risk,[3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121497//#bib3) but its public health significance varies with the risk. For any given RRR, ARR is higher when event rates are higher—eg, earlier into a vaccination programme, or in high-risk groups—and decreases as risks decline.
Both ARR and RRR are helpful to assess trade-offs between benefits and harm, because evidence is still limited on whether or how they change across the range of individual responses and risks related to age, comorbidities, behaviours, and level of exposure, as well as over time—with risk of COVID-19 decreasing with vaccination scale-up or altering due to virus variants.
...
An absolute risk reduction of 1% on something with let's say a 1.2% mortality rate takes away 83% of your risk.
If your unvaxed risk is 1/30,000, then your vaxed risk is 1/150,000 just because of that 1% absolute change.
What I said was that being vaxed drastically lowers your risk. You said "that's just not true" and you followed up by saying your risk was already low, and the only difference is 1% absolute. But the 1% absolute is enormous when you look at the fact that the absolute risk is only slightly over 1% for the general population to start with.
660 million doses for 83 million people. 400 million left with unclear plans how to use them. That's a safety buffer of about 160% if you assume three full doses for everyone, including babies. Only 16% have been donated to other countries.
https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/report-mainz/impfdose...
This is as much about 'truckers' as 'joe the plumber' was about plumbers...
There's a minority government in Canada.. remaining in office requires the support of an opposition party.
There's continuous work to paint the political situation as incredibly fragile and mandates as highly divisive. Reality shows otherwise - we'd be talking about an election if this was an actual problem politically, and an election simply isn't in the cards.
Vaccination rate doesn't relate much to mandates support.
>Reality shows otherwise - we'd be talking about an election if this was an actual problem politically, and an election simply isn't in the cards.
Canada very rarely triggers elections mid-term. Plus, the fact that the government is a minority already indicates people are not aligned with the elected government.
Vaccinated people can be against or even negatively affected by vaccine mandates too.
Not everyone is lucky enough to be in a position to be able to stand up against the mandates. A lot of people are opposed to the mandates and didn't want the vaccine, but ended up being forced to give in and take it anyway.