Winston

I agree with the post. But there are also no solutions yet. What type of solutions would you propose? Systems like the government, public finance, public health, medical industry and the military, strongly resist change, especially if the change results in higher individual risk and lower private gains. There is a reason why the working class left established countries for north America. Some times building a new country is better than trying to change the current one.

We are asking for a plan of action, not reaction. In a business world this is acceptable, in a university world this is acceptable, in the medical industry this is acceptable. Why do we have to accept much less than to hold the governing bodies accountable for their decisions and hold them to a plan of action? No excuses, they have failed, hence why you see extreme distrust.

Maybe just maybe the people who are hired to create methods and make decisions on these matters actually follow a plan of action, vs reaction. It's not like we are paying billions for these decisions The medical community, governing bodies and "professionals" have made decisions that are not in the best interest of the public, something many professional fields would consider professional misconduct.

The numbers suggest that the sever infection rate for vaccinated people is lower, not necessary the infection rate. That is a good question, I am not sure the "reason" either, it could be travel or work related as you mentioned. Good that your child had negative results. The problem comes from making a claim on something that can not be verified. Would we have higher rates of infection without the vaccination? most likely, but we do not have a control group that represents such data. The data we have is for people in all age groups, we do not have data on underline conditions nor do we have data that identifies infections for vaccinated and unvaccinated people (untested). We need specific measurable data that provides information based on individuals age and previous medical health in order to conclude if further lockdowns are required. For there to be further lockdowns there must be data that supports the decision and that the decision is made for the benefit of all citizens. We need to define at what point our society opens up, what risks are acceptable and what data is used to make these decisions.

I agree, it is not completely inaccurate. It depends on how they tests are preformed. Exactly we lack a lot of data. Not by the definition of a pandemic. "an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affects a significant proportion of the population : a pandemic outbreak of a disease" If we want to change the definition we can discuss such a change? What is that fraction? How many can get infected and how many can be hospitalized? Yes I agree, the data does support this conclusion.

Boges, please use proper citations, case studies, scientific journals or governing bodies, new media outlets are opinion pieces, I could find you media sites claiming some crazy scientific evidence with no data to support their claim. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations good cite, thank you. I am not against vaccinations, these numbers make sense given a high efficacy. Keep in mind these numbers do not suggest that people with vaccines do not get infected, rather it suggests people with vaccines do not get severely infected. "If you extrapolate these results we'd be in another lockdown situation without the vaccines. " - Please provide a cite to this statement. Again we do not know the number of people who have already been infected with covid and did not get tested.

Case counts are extremely relevant, how else does one determine a pandemic vs an endemic? Keep in mind we still have no idea how many people have actually been infected with the virus, we only have generalized estimates. If testing methods are inaccurate, deaths due to covid could be inaccurate.

Again I ask how are we to blame? That was the original statement I was against. The governing bodies are responsible for ensuring decisions are made in the best interest of all citizens. Were the governing bodies decisions always in the best interest of all citizens? If not, they are to blame. "morons who refuse to get vaccinated are responsible." Responsible for what?

With the original variant yes, but keep in mind if they show less symptoms they are likely to interact with the public. If evidence shows that a fully vaccinated person has less symptoms, less sever infection, lower shedding, an argument could be made they could be transmitting the virus by more frequent social interactions. If evidence shows that an infected but unvaccinated person has more sever infection and higher shedding, they would be inclined to self isolate and seek testing. This would suggest a fully vaccinated person is likely to transmit the virus than an unvaccinated person purely through social behavior. Again this is only if the individual is infected.

Vaccinated people can shed the virus. Unvaccinated people can shed the virus. An unvaccinated person who does not have the virus is no danger, same goes for a vaccinated person. What logic are you talking about? Both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can endanger lives if and only if they are infected.

Good to know, the goal is to have the disease endemic. How can one country prevent a pandemic when the definition of a pandemic relies on multiple countries or continents? Is Canada in a pandemic or endemic? Depends on how you define locality or region. Cite. So far it has not.

The cites indicate that false positives can and do occur by multiple sources of error, as a result the data can be inaccurate. Since the data is inaccurate the positive rate for covid is questionable, better testing methods are recommended or proper testing must occur before the data can be used. As a result, the CDC has determined that PCR testing shall be replaced by more accurate testing methods.

Please quote where I said that. Why are we to blame Argus?

Why would we have ourselves to blame? If anyone is to blame, it would be the governing bodies. It is up to the governing bodies to make decisions in the best interest of the public, not individual citizens.

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/virus-requests.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7850182/

What is the point of these articles? A news media outlet that does not have citations on a scientific topic has 0 value to anyone, other than an opinion piece. The only way a news media outlet has scientific or medical credibility is if they have an impeccable record of correct information and multiple citations to scientific studies. Depending upon the claim, even an opinion from a professional is questionable without supporting data or citations. The "anti-vaxxer" has the same problem, what what is the point of his opinion? it holds no validity without citations or data to support his claim.

Given PCR testing validity is questionable, one could question if the deaths are lower than flu levels already. We still do not know how many people were infected. From what I have heard the new goal is to attain 0 infections, that is the new line that must be crossed before lifting the restrictions. Why have a realistic goal when one can have a goal that is unattainable and provide indefinite control over a population? On a side note, opening the boarders also makes sense if the desired outcome is to introduce other strains into the country, further infecting the country. Realistically one should close the boarders (other than trade), wait until a new global strain has been identified. The global strain vaccine can be mandated and the boarders reopened once 80% + of the population has been vaccinated.

A great milestone in helping people make an informed decision. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine "Based on results from the clinical trial, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease. " Side effects- "The most commonly reported side effects by those clinical trial participants who received Comirnaty were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, chills, and fever. The vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 and potentially serious outcomes including hospitalization and death." Risks- "Additionally, the FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and has determined that the data demonstrate increased risks, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support." Long term effects- "Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes. The Comirnaty Prescribing Information includes a warning about these risks." Overall an achievement for the Pfizer and those that were waiting for FDA approval.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine Even more fishy timing?

If evidences shows that a fully vaccinated person has less symptoms, less sever infection, lower shedding, an argument could be made they could be transmitting the virus by more frequent social interactions. If evidences shows that an infected but unvaccinated person has more sever infection and higher shedding, they would be inclined to self isolate and seek testing. If an infected vaccinated person does not show most symptoms and as a result is unaware of the infection, they may continue to interact with the public, causing further contamination and transmission. if an unvaccinated person shows most symptoms, they are more likely to get tested, self isolate and prevent public interaction. This would suggest a fully vaccinated person is likely to transmit the virus than an unvaccinated person purely through social behavior. Has this been addressed by the health organization?

"You seem to undermine the effectiveness of vaccines to some extend" - Please provide the evidence that suggests the vaccines significantly lower the risk of infection, sever infection and lower viral shredding. I am more than happy to change my statement to a strong conclusion if there is strong evidence. A scientific study or long term study would be great.

Vaccinations work quite well. They have an extensive history of success. How well does the current vaccination prevent infection? This is currently inconclusive, but it seems more likely that none immune unvaccinated have a higher infection ratio. Keep in mind the unvaccinated are tested more commonly than the vaccinated(cite below), this may skew data. "Fully vaccinated people can: Resume domestic travel and refrain from testing before or after travel and from self-quarantine after travel. Refrain from testing before leaving the United States for international travel (unless required by the destination) and refrain from self-quarantine after arriving back in the United States. Refrain from routine screening testing if feasible. " https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html Overall the numbers suggest that the vaccinated have a lower risk of infection, sever infection and lower viral shedding. Unrelated to vaccinations, I am curious what is the risk of delta variant infection of those that are immune from the original strain? I have not found a study addressing this question. We still do not know how many people have been infected with the original strain, an important number.

Thanks for the synopsis of how "logical" our past 2 years have been. It has been a messy situation from the beginning, most likely due to pressure and inconclusive data leading to uniformed decisions. A completely hypothetical situation: What if the highly contagious virus actually has already infected a majority of the Canadian population, say 60%. This would result in 22,800,000 individuals with post infection. If that is the case, the generalized death rate would be near 0.1% (mostly for elderly). If vaccination passports hinge on the 2% death rate and the infected numbers are incorrect, this could lead to a different conclusion about the severity of the situation. This is why I asked how many people have been infected? ( not just tested) Testing in areas during the first 6 months of the virus was difficult or unavailable. Many people did not get tested, but instead self isolated as instructed. Is the infected number higher than presented?

I understand. I can not speak of those that have the power to mandate or force actions. Even in the scientific community asking questions about the data or methods used in making decisions is not recommended. The idea of mandating something based on inconclusive data is concerning.

Thanks for reading the studies myata. Indeed the study only included aerosols and small particles, not viral transmission. From my understanding, the virus is mostly transmitted through droplets. Realistically if people desired maximum protection, filtered output, positive pressure masks would be favored, although unrealistic. Cloth masks would definitely filter less than medical masks. "And the question stands of course, how could "assumed and inconclusive", for months if not years results be used as a "scientific basis" for uniform, population-wide, mandatory and long term policy? Are we in the middle ages yet?" Its not a scientific basis, but for the general public who do not read or understand studies, it appears to be on a scientific basis. " the science is settled" a term used all too often by those that do not understand science. On the other side you have individuals in positions of authority, that lack data to make an informed decision. Yet these individuals are forced to make a decision by the public and by their governing body. Individuals generally make a decision that is safest for them and their future. As a result, over cautious and extreme decisions are made without strong data to support them. In professional industries, making uniformed decisions can lead to thousands of deaths. This type of action could be considered professional negligence, but would complacency be better?