Vaccine passports

[CITIZEN_2015]

47 minutes ago, Winston said:

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?

About 5 to 10% of individuals are infected and of those the majority are infected with earlier original virus which means their antibodies are likely ineffective against different variants which are mutated from original one. Far cry from majority.

[Winston]

4 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

About 5 to 10% of individuals are infected and of those the majority are infected with earlier original virus which means their antibodies are likely ineffective against different variants which are mutated from original one. Far cry from majority.

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? 
   

[CITIZEN_2015]

10 minutes ago, Winston said:

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? 
   

Available data suggests 1.5 million Canadians are tested positive for covid since the beginning. This is about 4% of population. Herd immunity is achieved when immunity reaches 70% but in spite of the fact that 70% of our population is vaccinated we are far from herd immunity because once more the number of new infections is increasing exponentially. With all these considering vaccine efficacy is estimated at 80% (or equivalent to 70x80 or 56% infection rate) then infection rate from the disease should be under 14%. Based on all these the most likely real infection rate is between 4 to 14%. Everything is estimate there is no solid number i can provide you with. No one can. We have to go with available data and best estimations.

[Infidel Dog]

The Fauci-ites want to run in circles, pulling out their hair squeeing about new cases. 

Do they matter though if deaths are decreasing? These are US stats but they still apply I'll wager:

[Infidel Dog]

Lots of reasons for it, of course (immune after surviving infection, previous waves wiped out the weak, increasing acceptance of therapeutics etc.) but the fact remains - fatalities are decreasing.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

As to hospitalizations:

Quote

Yes, there are certain areas where hospital resources are being strained at the moment. But overall, hospital capacity is far from reaching its limit. Data from John Hopkins University of Medicine’s tracking center shows that 25% of intensive care unit beds in the country aren’t occupied. Even in hotspots such as Texas, 10% of ICU beds are available, as are 20% of inpatient beds. Ten percent of Florida’s ICU beds and 16% of inpatient beds are currently unoccupied.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/08/11/three-charts-the-delta-variant-scaremongers-dont-want-you-to-see/

And all this good news happened in spite of lockdowns, mask mandates and yes, vaccine passports not because of them.

[Winston]

39 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Available data suggests 1.5 million Canadians are tested positive for covid since the beginning. This is about 4% of population. Herd immunity is achieved when immunity reaches 70% but in spite of the fact that 70% of our population is vaccinated we are far from herd immunity because once more the number of new infections is increasing exponentially. With all these considering vaccine efficacy is estimated at 80% (or equivalent to 70x80 or 56% infection rate) then infection rate from the disease should be under 14%. Based on all these the most likely real infection rate is between 4 to 14%. Everything is estimate there is no solid number i can provide you with. No one can. We have to go with available data and best estimations.

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.   
 

[myata]

5 hours ago, Winston said:

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/

Thanks, that's good material for the analysis. In the first piece, almost all studies either not relevant to Covid-19 case, or did not measure the actual transmission effect, as opposed to droplets, particles etc that does not answer the question directly and based on assumptions that may or may not be true. One study though measured it directly, quoted: "ILI was significantly higher in the cloth mask group compared to medical mask and control groups" (ILI is for "influenza like illness). Now, that's interesting, no?

I recall another Lancet study that contained zero factual evidence of efficiency of masks at distances of 6ft and more.

Then there are records of the second and third waves (Fall 2020 - Spring 2021), achieving all time highs in cases and I believe hospitalizations as well (needs to be confirmed) with universal mask order in place. If judged on the appearances, that seems to be in agreement with the results of study mentioned above, no? I'm not pro or anti anything just trying to make sense of it!

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?

Edited August 12, 2021 by myata

[Winston]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

Thanks, that's good material for the analysis. In the first piece, almost all studies either not relevant to Covid-19 case, or did not measure the actual transmission effect, as opposed to droplets, particles etc that does not answer the question directly and based on assumptions that may or may not be true. One study though measured it directly, quoted: "ILI was significantly higher in the cloth mask group compared to medical mask and control groups" (ILI is for "influenza like illness). Now, that's interesting, no?

I recall another Lancet study that contained zero factual evidence of efficiency of masks at distances of 6ft and more.

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?

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?
 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

You clearly don't understand the purpose of a vaccine. 

You clearly don't understand the purpose of a vaccine. 

Vaccines are supposed to stop people from getting infected, and especially to stop them from getting extremely ill or dying. They're not doing that at all.

The best case scenario right now for the vaxx right is that people who have it have end up with a 1.1% case mortality rate instead of a 1.9% case mortality rate, and a lot of them will either be moderately ill, mildly ill, or be asymptomatic carriers, just like the unvaxxed. Was getting vaxxed worth it?

 

 What exactly do you feel like the vaxx is doing?

People in Massachusetts are getting infected at the exact same rate whether they're vaxxed or not. NBC cited a study that showed that among 125,000 fully vaccinated people there was a 1.1% mortality rate. FYI, when there was no vaxx the rate was 1.9%. The difference could be attributable to something as simple as the fact that more people getting tested than before, so more asymptomatic people are being added to the C19-positive case numbers.

 

In all honestly, is there really even a "Delta Variant", or is double-vaxxing not working and they just need to make an excuse for double-jabbing hundreds of millions of people with worthless/possibly harmful junk?

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Lots of reasons for it, of course (immune after surviving infection, previous waves wiped out the weak, increasing acceptance of therapeutics etc.) but the fact remains - fatalities are decreasing.

I'm doubting the existence of a D variant. It seems like the vaxx just isn't working and they need an excuse.

[myata]

58 minutes ago, Winston said:

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 coulyd be considered professional negligence, but would complacency be better?

Not complacency, but professional competence and honesty. What I'm not getting is the mandatory side of it, while stubbornly refusing to explain and defend the decision. One can say we think, in our judgement, we advise or recommend. But the moment it becomes mandated, uniform policy, one either can explain and defend it, or it is authoritarian and by definition needs no explanation. So, in my understanding, this is not professional, however justified.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm doubting the existence of a D variant. It seems like the vaxx just isn't working and they need an excuse.

Ezra Levant has a controversial theory as to why the Covid death count make be going down in some areas:

Quote

 

167 deaths reported after vaccine shots in Canada: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/… The govt says they do not want to count deaths where there are other underlying health problems ("comorbidities"). But literally 95%+ of virus deaths had comorbidities, and they were counted.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Ezra Levant has a controversial theory as to why the Covid death count make be going down in some areas:

Lol. Is there anything about covid that's not controversial? 

 

If you look at whole story of covid, from beginning to end, from the POV of big pharma's will to get the entire population of the world hooked on vaccines, it all makes sense.

Leftists started off 2020 by doing everything that they could to spread covid. They said it wouldn't really get here, they called travel bans racist, called for people to do things which they were instinctively hesitant to do like ride the subway, Pelosi was making a show of hugging strangers in massive groups, leftists were telling people not to wear masks, giving away PPE, etc. 

Then, in unison, they all switched from encouraging covid-spreading activities to fear mongering. "SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN! SNITCH ON YOUR NEIGHBOURS!"

When talk of covid-fighting measures aside from the vaxx were mentioned they were declared verboten by powerful leftists politicians, the Hollywood elite, and social media. "HCQ CAUSES BLINDNESS, AND IT KILLS PEOPLE!" Total lies. 

When the vaxxes finally rolled out the leftist media totally ignored the negative side effects, including death, and instantly started touting the absolute success of the vaxx. Leftists started saying things like "People who disbelieve deserve to die. Look at this guy!" Anecdotes of random people under 60, dying in far-off countries, are important anecdotes but young & healthy people who die from vaxxing are ignored. 

All this, and yet the vaxxes don't actually seem to be working at all. "It's the Delta Variant".

"OOOH OOH OOOOHH, IS THERE A NEW VAXX FOR THAT YET?!?!?!?! PLZ PLZ PLZ PLZ GIMME THE NEW VAXX!!!!!"

 

One last thing - their claim that "ATTENDING RIOTS WILL NOT SPREAD COVID!"

Look at the chart of daily infections in the US (NVM, follow the link)..... The C19 infection rate follows the seasonal flu trend of diminishing in the spring and summer, but right at the point when the riots started up, cases start going back up. Then in August, when the bodycam footage of Floyd's death was released and rioting instantly died off, covid started falling off right along with it.

 

I can't upload photos to the site since the update, you have to scroll to where it says "Daily New Cases in the United States": https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

 

 

[Winston]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Not complacency, but professional competence and honesty. What I'm not getting is the mandatory side of it, while stubbornly refusing to explain and defend the decision. One can say we think, in our judgement, we advise or recommend. But the moment it becomes mandated, uniform policy, one either can explain and defend it, or it is authoritarian and by definition needs no explanation. So, in my understanding, this is not professional, however justified.

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. 

 

[myata]

8 hours ago, Winston said:

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.

And who would be surprised it would come to that, if questions aren't asked and explanations not forthcoming? Then, an apology two decades later, possibly with compensation out of taxpayer's (never own) pocket. We get only what we are complacent about, and why would there be any surprises?

[dpwozney]

The vaccine passports are non-compliant with Canadian law.

The vaccine passports are being done with the understanding that Elizabeth the Second is "Queen".

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states:

"Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", according to the British North America Act, 1867.

 

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Winston said:

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.   
 

Covid is the Keyser Soze of viruses, but here's what we know so far:

When there's no covid in your country, it's racist to block covid from areas where they have it really bad. You have to let the people from there come to your country and they get to hop off the crowded airplanes without quarantining and walk through the crowded airports and go into restaurants and swimming pools. THAT WILL NOT GET COVID INTO YOUR COUNTRY. However, if you were to go across the US border for even a split second, you have to quarantine because that's guaranteed to spread covid.

In the event that it becomes necessary to close of all of the airports due to the sudden influx of covid, it's essential that you close your business and stay at home on that very same day, because you might spread covid. That's right from the WHO, so don't question it, stupid. (We still get our marching orders from the WHO because they're the 'experts') 

It's so deadly that it kills healthy people by the thousands here in Canada, but we have to be told stories about healthy 59 yr olds in foreign countries who died of covid because we don't have any examples of that from here.

Even though covid is so deadly, there's a chance that you have covid and don't even know - you have to be tested to know if you have it. 

The one thing that scientists knew well in advance about Covid, is that it definitely could not, under any circumstances, be spread by rioters or looters, but it will spread like wildfire in public parks and beaches regardless of whether or not you practice social distancing. Data, which the public does not have access to, has proven this to be the case.

If your body manages to fight off covid the first time, you still won't have any kind of immunity to it - it will kill you if you get it a second time. Even so, traditionally formed vaccines can build your body's immunity to it and they are guaranteed to  be 100% effective. 

The best thing that your leaders can do is hide in their basements. Showing fear is very important. They also don't have to follow covid protocols.

You can send people who are known to be infected with covid to live in care homes and it won't kill other people there, but if you've been tested and you don't have covid you can't even go to visit your grandma there if she's dying of covid, because you might bring covid into her room. Or you might bring covid into the care home and it doesn't have any in there yet (aside from the covid in your grandma and in the person who gave it to her, and maybe the other care home residents who were sent there with their strain of non-infectious covid) 

Covid is smart. It can only be treated with vaccines. Which worked really briefly, although there's no data showing that. But a new variant has thrown us a curve, so fully vaxxed people are getting infected with covid at the exact same rate as the unvaxxed, and dying at the same rate, but they're not getting quite as sick, because the vaccines are working.

Although our leaders have been wrong and lied to us constantly, we need to do exactly as they say to flatten the curve. 

[Winston]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Although our leaders have been wrong and lied to us constantly, we need to do exactly as they say to flatten the curve. 

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?

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, Winston said:

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. 

Leftists love a bit of government overreach.

It was cool when Trudeau bought off the CBC and 'select media outlets' with $1,400,000,000.00 taxpayer cash.

It's no big deal that Trudeau created a law so that SNC's crime sprees could go unpunished, or that he tried to force the AG to bend our laws for SNC, or that he put a gag order on MPs and won't give the RCMP documents to investigate his serious breach of ethics (IE the PM is controlling the judicial branch of our government unilaterally).  

It's fine that Trudeau tried to give $900M to his propagandists at We. The propaganda they made for him would make KJU blush, and they funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of government money directly to his family, but that issue just boils down to a simple matter of: "I should have let other people make that obvious decision." WTF? Giving a propagandist almost $1B so that they can "provide Hitler Youth Camp-style jobs" was really necessary?

It was perfectly fine for the government to start exercising control over social media. 

But now it's like a death sentence for you career if you're a scientist or a Dr and you offer the wrong opinion, regardless of whether or not you're right. Pelosi and Trudeau dictate science, period, and even when those two are wrong over and over again the propagandapoligists just keep flipping the script. Leftists LOVE it. (As an example, Rand Paul is a licensed Doctor of Medicine and he's the duly elected Senator for the people of Kentucky, and he's getting censored off of YouTube by a woman with no university degree, no medical expertise, who has never been elected to a government position and doesn't even have a gov't security clearance. How can a person like that tell Rand Paul that he can't speak to his own electorate in Kentucky?)

 

 

Now we have a PM who owns the media, social media, the judiciary, who dictates science and medicine to us from the PMO (who's 'right' even when he's wrong), and who has unfettered control over the next 3 generations worth of taxpayers' money. 

Leftists have taken us from democracy to demagoguery in 6 years and they're so stupid that they think they're saving the fuckin world. I can't believe that in 2021 there's a new "Galileo" wing in the federal penitentiaries.

[WestCanMan]

37 minutes ago, Winston said:

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. 

Try to explain "Case Mortality Rate" to a leftist. They only want to hear the fear from the MSM and leftist politicians, and to wrap themselves in a placebovaxx blankie, dreaming of the day when all the unwashed, unvaxxed die hideous deaths.  

[myata]

In my opinion, this has little to do with ideology or political spectrum. More like it's the final stage of evolution of bureaucracy free of all checks, controls and accountability, bureaucracy that manages itself, plans itself and is a thing in itself. That's how it started back in Confederation times and at first surely it was trying to be rational, effective even and for awhile of course the way it understand rationality (residential schools) and efficiency, in the absence of feedback. But invariably it develops its own view on the world, and in the absence of feedback, shake and synchronization mechanisms it begins to dominate. Things must be done only that make sense to the bureaucracy and only the way bureaucracy does things. And then at some point the detachment is near accomplished. On the banner it works for the citizens, but in fact it does not need any citizens it has everything it needs and wants for as long as it sees (while bottomless pocket lasts too, but it doesn't like thinking that way).

And (weird again, but thanks) to the pandemic we know that this point is somewhere very near - if not behind us. And we haven't even started in earnest on the climate.

[WestCanMan]

37 minutes ago, myata said:

In my opinion, this has little to do with ideology or political spectrum. More like it's the final stage of evolution of bureaucracy free of all checks, controls and accountability, bureaucracy that manages itself, plans itself and is a thing in itself. That's how it started back in Confederation times and at first surely it was trying to be rational, effective even and for awhile of course the way it understand rationality (residential schools) and efficiency, in the absence of feedback. But invariably it develops its own view on the world, and in the absence of feedback, shake and synchronization mechanisms it begins to dominate. Things must be done only that make sense to the bureaucracy and only the way bureaucracy does things. And then at some point the detachment is near accomplished. On the banner it works for the citizens, but in fact it does not need any citizens it has everything it needs and wants for as long as it sees (while bottomless pocket lasts too, but it doesn't like thinking that way).

And (weird again, but thanks) to the pandemic we know that this point is somewhere very near - if not behind us. And we haven't even started in earnest on the climate.

Where ideology/political spectrum comes into play is that the whole concept of a leftist/liberals is - big government.

The government is your caretaker. The majority of the fruits of the working people's labour goes to the gov't and they do more or less what they want with it. They provide your housing, your medicine, your schooling and ultimately, your opinion, because "everything is for the greater good" (the authoritarian pledge). The vaxx is an extension of this line of thinking. The government only does things their way, and you have no choice but to handle covid exactly how they tell you to handle it. 

 

In a more centered or further right government, IE small government, you enjoy the fruits of your labour and the state takes what they need to provide security and build infrastructure, but most of the rest is up to you. They don't have enough control in your every day life that people feel like it would be normal for the gov't to tell you what you have to do with regards to medicine.

In the small gov't approach, individual companies scramble to come up with their own solutions and actual science eventually chooses the winner. Gov't funding is still expected, as it's part of security, but the job of the gov't is never to exclude legitimate players from the game. 

As an example, Trump was looking at every possible solution. He put a lot of weight behind vaxx, but he didn't rule out anything else. HCQ, therapeutics, everything was a possible course of action. "Throw a bunch of shit against the wall and see what sticks".

Leftists are not about that at all. They have been all about the vaxx ever since they stopped forcing covid on us. They lied about how safe the vaccines were going to be, they lied about HCQ and derailed it before it got a chance to be seriously studied, now they're lying about the efficacy of the vaxx. But the vaxx is their baby and they're the gov't and YOU HAVE NO SAY!

What Dr in his right mind is going to test something controversial or make any kind of a statement that goes against what the leftist media and the Ayatollahs [Trudeau and Pelosi] say after what happened to "the HCQ quacks"? They'll get instantly flamed, shut out from social media, and basically become persona non grata the second that they challenge the word from above. 

 

I know that I mentioned "crazy-ass HCQ" there, I'm not saying that it surely worked if they gave it a try, but there was never a good reason not to try it, and the side-effects attributed to it were completely false. Reasons for trying: HCQ is one of a number of medicines which has had success against viruses (specifically viruses that latch on right where C19 does), it's off-patent (ie, cheap), and it could be produced in massive quantities. If it did turn out to be effective it would have been the best possible outcome for everyone in the world aside from big pharma. HCQ damning is a perfect example of what happens to a world-renowned specialist when they step in the way of big government's plan. 

[myata]

47 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Where ideology/political spectrum comes into play is that the whole concept of a leftist/liberals is - big government.

That may be general idea but in this country all ruling parties appear to be perfectly fine with big lazy governments with minimal if any, meaningful checks and controls by the society. Like Harper's $50 in the hand any better than Liberals multibillion spending, while under any banner MPs, ministers and directors keep on raking % on % raises.