Winston

Possibly and probably. However most of the general public is wondering about the same problems addressed in MP Joël Lightbound speech. He criticized some of the stances of his own party and mandate justification/effectiveness. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-politicization-pandemic-1.6343730 It would be good to see the discussions heading towards this direction of accountability and expecting measurable outcomes.

Absolutely, better masks that actually work would help the situation. However, it could be optional, most would voluntarily wear comfortable effective masks. It is quite odd that the thousands protesting without masks and some without vaccines who are in close contact with each other appear to be safe. Theoretically, shouldn't most of these protesters be sick or dying due to COVID?

The title states " Will eliminating vaccine mandates .." We can just talk about PPE, could you please list what exact PPE should be mandated?

We can agree that the virus is transmissible. I have no idea how one could prove transmission between people? Cold, flu ect could follow suit of such claims. I would also add, an uninfected person has zero ability to transmit the virus. Indeed, but keep in mind each of those safeties mentioned can be removed or "taken off", the vaccine is permanent. A permanent comparison would be more usable in this discussion. Masks? I would also add, what is the safety factor of say seatbelts vs masks or vaccines? Is it comparable?

Individual safety is generally based on individual choice. You can choose to be more safe than others. But in general we do not force others to provide safety for the individual. The easiest method is the method already implemented, allow the individual to behave in a safe manner up to which the individual deems necessary. Could you please extrapolate, car insurance and seatbelts share the burden of what exactly?

Use personal protection. You can decrease individual risk based on individual behavior and PPE.

There is a growing group of people in Ottawa. This group is in the thousands. Interacting daily, touching, without masks, some without vaccines/partially vaccinated. Shouldn't the problem solve itself? Theoretically all these protesters should be sick and/or dying due to COVID? After all this is why there is a mandate for masks and vaccines.

There are 4 options, end the mandate, use force, the convoy becomes aggressive, the convoy goes home. Only two of these will end well. Given the growing mass of the convoy and global publicity/support, home is several weeks away.

Go for it. My point is anyone can find polls indicating their desired outcome. Cherry picking polls is also easy. Unless you counter for bias and use large sample sizes, polls have little value. Instead counter with solid arguments. For example, The convoy is probably not going to end well, thus a different route should be taken to push a position.

That is precisely my point. Polls do not indicate anything useful unless you counter for biased samples and use massive sample sizes.

Don't spread false info. 86.31 % of 56,495 support the convoy of truckers protesting the vaccine restrictions to Canada. https://www.saanichnews.com/web-poll/poll-do-you-support-the-convoy-of-truckers-protesting-vaccine-restrictions-in-canada/ The polls you link are extremely small, find larger sample sizes. Also reread your polls, they do not say what you claim they are saying.

It is not as simple as the article would like to have you think. They are basing it on this data https://covid19monitor.org with a time frame of 01/04/2022- 01/10/2022, this does not account for February or late January. Also this is based off of number of responders of n = 2339, roughly 0.00615 % of the entire population. If we are going to use polls, use a number in the n 'million' plus category, that might be representative of the population.

I think it was by negligence rather than intent. Most people operate based on the individual rather than the collective. There is no system that can indefinitely manage itself, as we see today people tend to not care about the collective country or it's future direction. However, distributing wealth, ie power, may help prevent total loss of control.

Right, its not limited to housing, but since housing is a huge problem financially ( claims usually more than 30% of income, rent or purchase) it would change society drastically. One could instead focus on distribution of wealth, which would solves some of the financial issues. A bit of a contrarian view, if there was an annual wealth cap say of 50 million per year, this would limit the amount of power an individual can obtain throughout their lifetime. One would change the system of corporations also with a multi ownership basis and limitations of corporate wealth. Distribution of wealth from overflow could be decided upon by the individual. The goal being more wealth distribution over a greater number of individuals.( please keep in mind this is not a thesis, rather a too simplistic thought) But again this does not benefit the people who are already benefiting from the system now. These same people also tend to be the people hold positions that could change the system.

Every statement you made there requires evidence or reasoning. You keep making these statements, but every time I show you how your "evidence" or logic is flawed or actually just assumptions/guessing you run away for a few days and come back with the same claim to "evidence". I was even willing to go down the road of spiritual evidence, but you can't even provide how this is verified, meaning it can be "made up". I asked this question before, how does an individual verify that a God exists outside of pure assumptions or guessing?