Jump to content

So What about Vaxcination Passports?


Recommended Posts

#1 you can't ban businesses from choosing who they want to do business with (above things like Race, Gender etc). I think in Florida a Cruiseship company is challenging the Governor for banning them from ensuring all staff and guest are vaccinated. 

You know Universities are going to demand all students be vaccinated. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boges said:

#1 you can't ban businesses from choosing who they want to do business with (above things like Race, Gender etc).

Yes you can. My health status is a private matter. Even those questions at the entrance asking your whereabouts and your health / symptoms could be a violation of the health care privacy act.

What next, are you saying people with HIV should also not be served, or allowed admittance?

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes you can. My health status is a private matter. Even those questions at the entrance asking your whereabouts and your health / symptoms could be a violation of the health care privacy act.

What next, are you saying people with HIV should also not be served, or allowed admittance?

People with HIV/AIDs are still banned from giving blood, I believe. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes you can. My health status is a private matter. Even those questions at the entrance asking your whereabouts and your health / symptoms could be a violation of the health care privacy act.

What next, are you saying people with HIV should also not be served, or allowed admittance?

You health status is a public matter if you are infecting people.  You can be charged for not disclosing your HIV status.

It's not your business.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You health status is a public matter if you are infecting people.  You can be charged for not disclosing your HIV status.

It's not your business.

No one can willfully spread a disease with intent, but there hadn't been a precedent where you are restricted from going to watch a movie, because you might be sick. Not even confirmed.

One has to get the concept of herd immunity. It should apply to covid as well as it does other respiratory viruses. If you've had your double-shot you can go outside, and you don't need to worry about anyone else. Obviously with the virus out there, there cold be situations deemed higher risk than others. Up to you to decide if you care about them.

I understand in TO they're partying away for weeks already. Major sports events, beach party in March.

Last summer we went out and remained out for more than two weeks. Gyms, indoor swimming, rinks open. The virus infection rate did not shoot up tight away, not at all. We were out from May until the end of August.

There was little or no infection in smaller communities. There was no vaccine.

About AIDS connection, a lot of this has been already thought out before. There were certain legal enactments that came out after HIV, to protect the patient's rights and privacy if I recall. This is a good model to start when it comes to Covid policy.

Eg.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/hiv/pages/hivindex.aspx

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. No one can willfully spread a disease with intent, but there hadn't been a precedent where you are restricted from going to watch a movie, because you might be sick. Not even confirmed.

2. One has to get the concept of herd immunity. It should apply to covid as well as it does other respiratory viruses. If you've had your double-shot you can go outside, and you don't need to worry about anyone else.

3. Obviously with the virus out there, there cold be situations deemed higher risk than others. Up to you to decide if you care about them.

4. I understand in TO they're partying away for weeks already. Major sports events, beach party in March. Last summer we went out and remained out for more than two weeks. Gyms, indoor swimming, rinks open. The virus infection rate did not shoot up tight away, not at all. We were out from May until the end of August. There was little or no infection in smaller communities. There was no vaccine.

5. About AIDS connection, a lot of this has been already thought out before. There were certain legal enactments that came out after HIV, to protect the patient's rights and privacy if I recall. This is a good model to start when it comes to Covid policy.

Eg.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/hiv/pages/hivindex.aspx

1. If they had movies during prior pandemics, then that would likely have happened right ?  We can do whatever we want, and we can even do a lot without breaking our social frameworks.
2. I will assume you don't have a child under 12.
3. Despite my appearances, I do care about the stupid and foolhardy.  But, yes, especially the vulnerable.
4. That is about the science/reality of how the virus spreads, which is a different topic of discussion.   You may be right, but the moral/legal question hinges on the fact that the virus is a foremost public health concern.
5. Yes - but they didn't trump the health rights of potential receivers of the virus.  


I agree that there is a sphere of personal rights here that must be considered.  For example, I don't like the idea of the government holding you down and injecting you with vaccine.  But all of the "public" responses play out on a base of our attitudes, what we are willing to put up with, as well as the health realities. 

Nobody is going to want to fly in a plane on an airline that doesn't demand vaccines, as far as I can see.  The airline has a freedom to decide what safety means for their passengers above the legal requirement, if it means that they will retain customers.  When Tylenol created tamper-proof packaging to assure the safety of their product, it saved the brand from being destroyed - and the government wasn't requiring it.  

The idea of "rights" have always been subservient to what the "public" (and sometimes the mob) wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If they had movies during prior pandemics, then that would likely have happened right ?  We can do whatever we want, and we can even do a lot without breaking our social frameworks.
2. I will assume you don't have a child under 12.
3. Despite my appearances, I do care about the stupid and foolhardy.  But, yes, especially the vulnerable.
4. That is about the science/reality of how the virus spreads, which is a different topic of discussion.   You may be right, but the moral/legal question hinges on the fact that the virus is a foremost public health concern.
5. Yes - but they didn't trump the health rights of potential receivers of the virus.  


I agree that there is a sphere of personal rights here that must be considered.  For example, I don't like the idea of the government holding you down and injecting you with vaccine.  But all of the "public" responses play out on a base of our attitudes, what we are willing to put up with, as well as the health realities. 

Nobody is going to want to fly in a plane on an airline that doesn't demand vaccines, as far as I can see.  The airline has a freedom to decide what safety means for their passengers above the legal requirement, if it means that they will retain customers.  When Tylenol created tamper-proof packaging to assure the safety of their product, it saved the brand from being destroyed - and the government wasn't requiring it.  

The idea of "rights" have always been subservient to what the "public" (and sometimes the mob) wants.

The mob has been whipped into a panic and will agree to anything the government tells them is the right thing to do. Except the government doesn’t know the right thing, either. 

It is both a legal and moral issue but underpinned by a justifiable scientific method. 

If I were king I’d throw a little more social science in the mix. We are humans not a herd of rabbits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. The mob has been whipped into a panic and will agree to anything the government tells them is the right thing to do.

2. Except the government doesn’t know the right thing, either. 

3. It is both a legal and moral issue but underpinned by a justifiable scientific method. 

4. If I were king I’d throw a little more social science in the mix. We are humans not a herd of rabbits.

 

1. I agree that they're in a panic, but "been whipped" implies that somebody is doing it, versus doing it to ourselves.  I don't accept that "media" is doing this either.  People are just not used to being deprived nor are they used to health threats.

2. And to me this has been kind of a strength.  Through all their screw-ups and showing the inadequacies of our leaders and even our medical establishment, the machine never really threatened to break apart. 

At no time did I think Doug Ford was capable of handling this, but it was a difficult problem that even the Churchills of history would have had trouble with.  Ford was adequate, though, and although he was criticized people still followed the rules to a large degree.  Also the system had many points of failure, so that one problem was dealt with.  This is the genius of an open system such as ours.  Maybe I'm an optimist though.  After all, China claims ( claims ) they had much lower numbers and they got through it.  

3. I don't know if your wording makes sense here, or maybe I don't get it: underpinned by a scientific 'method' ?  You mean, like, Newton ?  Thesis, experiment, conclusion ?  The vaccines used hard science to be developed, right ?

4. A herd of rabbits are easier to do social experiments on than thinking feeling people.  Maybe you need to clarify what you mean by social science here, sorry.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note the Winnipeg Blue Bombers have been allowed by the province and the city to have 100% stadium occupancy for home games provided such fans are fully vaccinated. Someone told me this is league backed and sponsored if other provinces follow suit concerning other teams.

So there is essentially a vaccine "passport" requirement. I wonder why Tony's Pizza can't do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 7:51 AM, OftenWrong said:

Yes you can. My health status is a private matter. Even those questions at the entrance asking your whereabouts and your health / symptoms could be a violation of the health care privacy act.

What next, are you saying people with HIV should also not be served, or allowed admittance?

Proof of vaccination has nothing to do with your health status, it doesn’t say anything about your state of health. It is a crime for someone who is HIV positive to not inform someone of their status before having sexual relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

It is a crime for someone who is HIV positive to not inform someone of their status before having sexual relations.

But they are not allowed to be otherwise discriminated against and may go about freely.

You need not worry about getting HIV from them, unless you want to get REAL close.

No one needs to present any ID indicating they don't have HIV, nor do they need to take a test for HIV every time they want to have sex to prove they do not have it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OftenWrong said:

1. But they are not allowed to be otherwise discriminated against and may go about freely.

2. No one needs to present any ID indicating they don't have HIV, nor do they need to take a test for HIV every time they want to have sex to prove they do not have it.

 

1. That's because you can't spread HIV airborne.  So it's kind of irrelevant here.  The point you were making was that you can't discriminate based on being a carrier but the HIV case shows you can.

2.  The onus is on them to communicate, but nobody who has unprotected sex is excused from the consequences either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Since I don't have to prove I do not have HIV, I should not have to prove I do not have covid-19.

People who aren't double vaxed are being required to provde a negative test for many things. So yes they do. 

So provide proof of vaccination or proof you don't have it with a negative test. Your choice.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Since I don't have to prove I do not have HIV, I should not have to prove I do not have covid-19.

You're not good at analogies.  I could also say I don't have to prove I don't have a cold, or herpes or cancer... all of these analogies (and yours) fail to address a potentially deadly airborne sickness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some countries require proof of vaccination against Yellow Fever, Malaria, Meningococcal Meningitis, and Polio if arriving from places where those diseases are endemic.  Sometimes, they require the proof even if you've just transited through an airport for more than 12 hours.

As much as some people think they don't have to prove they're  not going to infect anyone with a disease they may be carrying, turns out they're wrong.

And as we learn every day with our politicians, having "clout" doesn't translate to having sense, common or otherwise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're not good at analogies.  I could also say I don't have to prove I don't have a cold, or herpes or cancer... all of these analogies (and yours) fail to address a potentially deadly airborne sickness.

I busted the attempt at making HIV an analogy.

There is no analogy to what we are doing to ourselves now. Don’t even try.

I’m faced with the notion I may have to drop out of society. Not because I left it; it has left me.

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I’m no antivaxer. I believe in the science of real and proven vaccines, where safety rules are in place and are actually followed.

Forcing people to take the controversial potions by law, along with introducing legislation to bypass the vaccine safety laws is unconscionable.

In my opinion

That doesnt mean they cant force me to take the shot, as chivatos rule the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dialamah said:

And as we learn every day with our politicians, having "clout" doesn't translate to having sense, common or otherwise. 

I’ll go with the top doctor in Ontario when it comes to his advice on vaccine passports: not required and not even recommended.

I’ll go with the top doctor at WHO who stated it’s not recommended to mix vaccine types, because in her words there has been no formal research on it. Just anecdotal research.

That of course means dont follow an Astrazenica with a Moderna. But then, dont repeat Astrazenica with a second dose, either.

Ok. Sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Some of us do know about history and other “wonder drugs” created to save us, that ended in disaster. Google thalidomide, in case you dint habla

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to follow the lemming over cluff, fill ones boots I say.

all typos are intentional, you just dint get it.

here read about drug safety. Learn something please. 

Explains how and why drug safety laws came to be in the united states, and why multi-generational studies are needed.

https://theconversation.com/could-thalidomide-happen-again-46813

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...