Winston

So we know 1.5 million definitely tested positive. How many were infected but did not test positive? How many were infected but did not get tested? How many never noticed the symptoms and did not get tested? Would this skew the estimations? How are estimates calculated if this data is incorrect? This seems like a lot of questions, but unless these questions can be answered the data could be skewed and possibly incorrect. Unless I am incorrect, many people may have been infected and not apart of the infected cases number.

5 to 10 % of individuals are infected is an estimate? It seems too low for a highly contagious virus, I was looking for measurable data. Do you mind sharing the cite/study you are referring to?

My error, natural immunity is the improper term. I mean individuals with immunity found after recovery of the previous viral infection. What number of individuals have lasting immunity after previous viral infection?

I am asking what are the numbers of (post infected) naturally immune individuals in the population? Not an estimate, the actual number of naturally immune individuals.

The use of masks is an inconclusive presumptive measure against transmission. Masks are recommended as a mechanical safety measure, in place of a better protection method. Unless medical N95 masks are used, inward protection (for the individual) is limited. But as an outward measuring, the general use of masks ( cloth or N95) does provide outward protection. Sneezing or transmission of spit is prevented through use of masks. The problem with masks is how they are used. How they fit and the filtration method. I would argue masks do prevent large particles (water, large molecules) from entering or exiting the individual. However, masks do not prevent viral transmission based on viral size. If a virus is transmitted through air intake, most masks used are inadequate to provide individual protection. Aerosol transmission is still inconclusive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553716/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/

How many people have natural immunity ( post infection) in the population? How many of those naturally immune people have died due to reinfection? The virus has a high transmission ratio, as a result, the probability that most of the population has natural immunity is quite high.

I question what percentage of death is acceptable? 2% of the known infected? 0%? For this we must assume the individual is infected (by the original variant) and viral shedding occurs. Keep in mind if any of the below individuals is infected and the virus is replicating, variants of the virus will occurs, but with unlikely genetically favorable changes. If you are vaccinated, you pose a low threat due to lower viral shedding numbers. If you are not vaccinated, yet have natural immunity, you pose a low threat due to lower viral shredding numbers. If you are not vaccinated nor post infect(have no natural immunity), your viral shedding is likely to be higher, thus likely to infect more people. In all cases, all individuals shedding the virus pose a threat to the public health and safety. If the standard is 0% infected, no individual who is infected should, by your standard, be allowed to interact with the public? If the individuals are not infected, there is no public threat. Given the individuals are not infected, vaccinated, unvaccinated natural immunity or unvaccinated should not be prevented from interacting with the public. Following your analogy, no one has had any alcoholic drinks, thus everyone can drive. However keep in mind this is for the original variant, other variants may increase viral shedding of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated natural immunity. One could make the argument that if you test positive for the virus you should isolate for 3+ weeks ( depending on viral shedding). I think most would agree with this, especially when this naturally occurs during influenza outbreaks.

If this is the argument, where is the scientific evidence that answers each one of these questions? I asked CITIZEN_2015 but nothing was produced. There is potential to this argument.

I can understand that perspective, but there is already a social "stick" threating those that are hesitant. It does not seem to work well, if anything it is causing more problems. Maybe leading with a "carrot" would bring better results? How much is an individual's full vaccination worth to society? From an economic standpoint, long term jailing/policing vaccinations could cost more than paying out each individual. Fining someone could cost more in legal cost than paying out each individual, especially when fining the unvaccinated is not legal at this time.

Interesting that there is not a motion to pay/compensate people once they are vaccinated. Although ridiculous, such a system could exist down the road. A lump sum or payment plan could be made, but this does boarder on unethical practices.

By those number it indicates that out of 1200 vaccinated infected people, 150 vaccinated people died, that is a 12.5 % death rate. I am assuming this is incorrect or those numbers have no relation?

I am curious what is your supporting argument for this action? There are a few, which one holds the most ground.

If the goal is to convince people her statements are incorrect, the opposite should occur. Instead the woman's rumor should be presented to the public, but with supporting evidence and a strong argument opposing her comment. This provides the public with a solid argument against false statement. Censoring peoples comments or opinions leads to public distrust of the authorities. Governing bodies must be transparent with the population if they expect the population to follow their leadership. Prison is not necessary, and potentially unethical for such a trivial problem. There are no laws against this as far as I am aware.

I looked into this claim, however there is no verifiable study to support this claim. According to the article, the individual received a vial from an unknown source and that the results were inconclusive. I am not convinced there is any evidence to support such a claim. A simple microscope test of several vaccine solutions would determine if the claim is verifiable. If the vaccine contained a high percentage of graphene oxide (carbon oxygen structures) the solution may be tinted or dark. The vaccine solution is a clear liquid. I would say avoiding unverifiable claims is imperative. The entire point is to question the vaccines long term safety.

These incidents are anecdotal, but are these incidents reported? If a large number of these incidents occurs, multiple studies should be conducted to verify the safety of the vaccines. I have often wondered how many covid infections actually occur, but without testing? Most of the symptoms are mild and possibly go unnoticed in the younger generation. Are there any outlets that provide both opinions in a constructive scientific manner? Which is why I wish there was an open dialog between ( none extremist ) pro vaccination individuals and pro choice vaccination individuals. I am pro vaccination, however I understand concerns must be addressed and companies need to be held liable for unprofessional or unreliable products.

I have no affiliation with "taxman". Covid has potentially (depends on the definition of a covid death) killed millions. Currently 26 539 deaths covid related have been recorded in Canada. Vaccines can and are effective in most cases. I am not convinced that covid related deaths has come down, is there evidence of such? ( genuinely asking, based on the logarithmic chart there does appear to be a consistent death rate, one would expect a decrease with the introduction of the vaccine). Yes, evidence such as scientific studies on the long term effects of the covid vaccine would be appreciated. Scientific studies on the health effects related to the covid vaccination. If no studies are currently available its best to wait until such studies occur. Once many of these studies provide a testable conclusion, an informed decision can be made. CITIZEN_2015 I am not sure why you say these are illogical unscientific comments? Coming from a back round in several scientific fields, I am confident these questions need to be addressed. Science welcomes many questions, it is how science works, we start with a question. As a scientist I would welcome any questions about my research as silly or incorrect as they may be. These questions would only prove my theory or disprove my theory. Either way lessons are learned, new theories are created.

If your goal is to convince people to receive the vaccination, no one is going to take your opinion/anecdote as evidence of safety, you must provide scientific evidence to support such a claim. Your Statement suggests, public health is not your concern, instead corporate wellbeing and future profitability is your concern. This counters your original point that we must hold paramount public health. Why would anyone take medical advice from someone who cares about corporate wellbeing over the health of individuals? I did not mention death, I mentioned “causing harm” in my analogy. If a heart attack was brought about by the plane crash post trauma or post complications to injuries and there is supporting evidence, they can most certainly sue. There is a statute of limitations to which a party can sue, in some cases up to 15 years. At some point long term side effects of vaccinations will be determined and such lawsuits may become unnecessary or unlikely. Absolutely, and the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming the vaccine harmed/killed them. This is common practice for a variety of professional industries. What makes a professional is in part their ability to be held legally accountable for their actions or inactions. A clear line can be drawn, statute of limitations would be placed at 10 years. Supporting medical evidence would be required for a civil lawsuit. Where is the evidence for such an argument? You can hold an opinion, but it holds no validity without evidence. Using your ideology, we should remove all rights to wealth, food and resources from all individuals in order to preserve life and health around the world. Children dying in Africa are suffering because of you, thus your rights do not matter, everything beyond your basic health should be removed to help those poor kids in Africa from dying. ( not an argument I would make) Both these examples are about action, not inaction. Drunk driving has evidence and statistical data that argues driving while impaired may result in a crash. Smoking in public has evidence supporting second hand smoke. Neither of these examples ban people from smoking or from becoming impaired. Where is the evidence to support restrictions on the unvaccinated? Why? You still have yet to provide an argument as to why one person's health matters over another's?

There tends to be few loud extremists, however most of the vaccinated are respectful of personal choice. I do agree that If these loud extremists are constantly presented as the social norm, we may begin to see the unvaccinated labelled as the untouchables or worse. Fascist ideologies have no place in our system. I think social pressures towards vaccinations are reasonable, people can have their opinion. Legal or governmental pressures are not. Although I think the objective of total vaccination is one of sustainability, not enough information or concern is presented to the hesitant unvaccinated. How could the unvaccinated be motivated to receive the vaccine? What evidence or compensation would be required to ensure safety?

Effectiveness of the vaccines is not a concern, I am confident the technology works well. I have used vaccine technology many times, selling the idea of vaccine effectiveness is not required. Can you explain why no medical/financial compensation can be provided? Who is more important peoples health or corporate welfare? Who becomes liable for any rare exceptions? The odds of dying in a plane crash are around 5 million to 1. If airlines were protected from any lawsuits or liability for the plane crash causing harm, I doubt the public would buy flight tickets unless the benefits were worth the substantial risk. The same argument applies to the vaccine, yes the chance that severe problems occur is low, but since there is no ability to seek compensation, the risk to vaccinate becomes incredibly high. For some this risk is too high compared to potentially getting the virus, which statistically has low known health risk. "So much for their right to choose." - This is assuming those that choose not to take the vaccine are choosing to kill others. However you need to prove that they have intent and that specifically their action absolutely without a doubt leads to the killing others. This requires detailed evidence, that again I ask to be produced. Your attitude towards casually denying people rights is concerning. History warns us about denying the rights of minorities for the greater good. In fact this ideology occurred in Germany not too long ago. It is something that we should never repeat. To recap, I am suggesting to find a medium, where both the pro-vaccinators and the pro-choice can agree and move forward. This would lead to a resolution and an end to the rules you despise.

There is a lot to unpack in this reply. I would rather compartmentalize it into the primary issues. I actually applaud you for getting the vaccination, you took a bold step. Like many others, we value the significance of taking a personal risk to potentially save the lives or pain of others. This action may be more ethical than the action of not vaccinating due to personal risk. “Instead, maybe a guarantee that any negative results from the vaccine will be compensated by the corporation/government. Any future health issues will be mitigated by the corporation/government.” What were your thoughts on this idea as a way to mitigate the concerns of the unvaccinated? This implementation would encourage those who are hesitant to obtain the vaccination, by alleviating the long term side effect worries. A potentially strong argument you could use would be through criminology, those that break the law have some of their rights removed. This argument provides a strong backing to your claim. However, I think substantial scientific evidence is required to prove that the unvaccinated pose an extreme danger to the lives of the vaccinated. Do you think there is strong evidence, enough to convict the unvaccinated?

The argument presented is one of an ethical claim. People have the right to their bodies. Yet your methodology is unethical, forced mandatory vaccinations, to which people do not have a right to their bodies. Both arguments counter-act the ethics of each action, nullifying the argument. It appears many unvaccinated individuals are concerned about the long term side effects of the vaccine. How can these concerns be mitigated? Force is unnecessary. Instead, maybe a guarantee that any negative results from the vaccine will be compensated by the corporation/government. Any future health issues will be mitigated by the corporation/government. The vaccinated are not unreasonable, nor are the unvaccinated, both have concerns for their own future. A middle ground understanding must occur before any positive action will occur.

I agree that vaccinations can provide a sustainable approach to viral outbreaks. The polarity towards the vaccinations is fascinating. Regarding the paranoia, a few questions need to be addressed. Do we know why people choose to delay or refuse vaccination? Do we know why people choose to take the vaccination? Can we integrate these polar perspectives? With the vaccinated addressing the concerns of those that are delaying or refusing vaccination.