Omicron variant in Canada.

[taxme]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:00 PM, Shady said:

This is a complete overreaction.  From the limited data available, those that have been infected have experienced only mild symptoms.  Stop losing your shit over what’s tantamount to a bad cold.  You’ve become completely unhinged.  Although I don’t necessarily blame you, I blame the irresponsible mainstream media that breathlessly reports and plays up an new covid news.

This paranoid always in fear and panic mode citizen guy listens way too much to the CBC, a not so great news source for promoting fear, brainwashing and propaganda. This guy needs to be deprogrammed from the CBC brainwashing program that he has been allowing into his brain for way too long. Just saying. ?

[myata]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I would hope.

Should we hope then that the hope would extend beyond "look, we have over (XYZ) cases now (in almost totally vaccinated population) ICU, horror let's mandate kids and boosters urgently"?

[Infidel Dog]

14 minutes ago, Boges said:

"Possibly". 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/covid-19-vaccines-for-kids/art-20513332#how-fda-determine

MSM propganda!!!

And here's the argument against that Pfizer trial they mention:

Quote

Pointing to Pfizer’s trial of 12- to15-year-olds which supported the recent EUA, Doshi said the harms outweighed the benefits and those who had the placebo were “better off” than those who received the vaccine.

 

In terms of the benefits, Doshi said “the reported 100% efficacy in Pfizer’s trial was based on 16 COVID cases in the placebo group versus none in the fully vaccinated group. But there were about 1,000 placebo recipients so just 2% got COVID. Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID, whereas 98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway. “

On the other side of the ledger, Doshi said, side effects were common:

“Three in 4 kids had fatigue and headaches, around half had chills and muscle pain, around 1 in 4 to 5 had fever and joint pain. The list goes on. In sum, all the fully vaccinated 12- to 15-year-olds avoided symptomatic COVID but most wouldn’t have gotten COVID even without the vaccine. So, the benefit is small but it came at the price of side effects that were mild to moderate in severity and lasted a few days.”

Doshi said few children in Pfizer’s trial benefited because they didn’t get COVID, already had COVID or were asymptomatic. Doshi pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing 23% of 0- to 4-year-olds and 42% of 5- to17-year-olds have already had COVID and have robust natural immunity.

As for long-term side-effects, Doshi said many severe side effects occur beyond six weeks after dosing, specifically referencing a quote by top FDA advisor Dr. Paul Offit who stated otherwise.

Vaccinating children for the benefit of adults is an “unproven hypothetical benefit,” Doshi said. He reminded the FDA they cannot authorize or approve a medical product in a population unless the benefits outweigh the risks in that same population.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/kids-benefits-covid-vaccine-dont-outweigh-risks/

[taxme]

On 11/28/2021 at 4:12 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

News just in that 2 cases of the Omicron variant has entered Canada (Ottawa area) thanks to African travelers from Nigeria which is not listed even among the banned African countries. They entered Canada November 23 which predates the date that the variant was declared variant of concerned. and it is unknown how many they may have infected already. 

Would not have happened if Canada had banned all entries to Canada, in particular from continent of Africa where vaccination rate is only 7%. Now to those  anti vaver crowd who may scream freedom and liberty might have been violated or those leftists who may scream racism, I would say now be ready to pay the price for your extreme ideology but the truth is we all will pay a price for your extremisms.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omicron-variant-canada-travellers-1.6265927

The South African Medical Association has already said that this scariant variant virus is a very mild virus and the symptoms that people will get from this virus is a sore muscles and can become very tired for a few days. And then it poof goes away. 

I know that you seem to enjoy coming on here and try to scare the crap out of everybody here but it is not working anymore. The scamdemic is over. The only reason that this nonsense keeps going is because of people like you who keeps trying to spread and support this covid farce.

You have pretty much lost most of your freedoms because you still want to still believe that this covid virus nonsense is all for real. Wake up, fella. Only you can prevent this covid fire from continuing to spread. 

So, just how many more new variants are you going to put up with and believe in before you finally wake the hell up and realize that this is all and only about money, vaccines, power and control over we the peasants by your dear comrade political leaders whom apparently like to pretend that they give a crap about your health and well being and safety?

Trust me when I say that they could careless about your health and well being. They are only concerned about their own health and well being which will always come first before yours. As the old saying goes: as soon as a politician opens his mouth, expect to hear lies. 

Just saying. ?

 

[taxme]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:30 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The fact that all travelers to Canada must be fully vaccinated before entry shows that these two individuals got infected in spite of being fully vaccinated. Which may mean current vaccines may not be as effective.

So, just what are you going to do about it all anyway? There has been many Canadians that have been fully vaccinated, and have even taken a booster shot, and have been wearing those silly looking face diaper masks for over a year now, but yet, this covid virus is still alive and well. Well, according to those so called "health experts" the covid scamdemic is still alive and well. 

Personally, I do not give a chit, and never did, about any of these covid viruses at all and never will. As far as I am concerned, it was one big globalist big pharma hoax and lie from the very beginning. "Event 201" showed and told me this. Maybe you should look up "Event 201" on the internet yourself and try and put two and two together. Just a suggestion. ?

 

[Shady]

Important information!

 

[Moonlight Graham]

Last I checked they don't even know much about the variant, how transmissible or deadly it is, so who cares??

[myata]

No wait they already know though that masks and boosters will be necessary. Like what could go wrong, did it ever?

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Yes, I mis-spoke.  "Protect" the vulnerable is what I meant to say.  Which is what all the reputable doctors and scientists have said from the beginning. And what I have said in other comments.

Maybe the brainwashing is getting to me too - "Vaccinate is the only way out, there's absolutely no other way, nothing will save us but vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate"

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I've never understood the "protect the vulnerable" idea.  The "vulnerable" seem to be people over 50, overwight/obese people, people with COPD, current or past cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, a myriad of autoimmune diseases, kidney disease, liver disease, heart disease - the list goes on.  How do you protect all those people while letting the rest "get on with their lives"?

[dialamah]

55 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Last I checked they don't even know much about the variant, how transmissible or deadly it is, so who cares??

I agree.  Sure, let us know it's out there, but quit focusing on it on every news show - when we know nothing about it so far.  Once they've determined how dangerous it is, or isn't, respond accordingly.  IMO, etc.

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've never understood the "protect the vulnerable" idea.  The "vulnerable" seem to be people over 50, overwight/obese people, people with COPD, current or past cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, a myriad of autoimmune diseases, kidney disease, liver disease, heart disease - the list goes on.  How do you protect all those people while letting the rest "get on with their lives"?

The vulnerable are generally much older than that.  That’s why the average covid death in Canada is 80+ years of age.  Protecting them would be vaccinations plus boosters if necessary.  Them wearing masks and probably avoiding indoor crowds for a while.  It’s not treating everyone like the vulnerable, which is what we’re still doing. 

[cougar]

20 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Your statement is false not fact. Vaccines STOP the virus in infecting 90% of people (efficacy of 90%). 

I thought it prevented 90% of hospitalizations not infections.  But you can interpret it whichever way you like.  I am sure both statements will be equally false.

Have you ever wondered why it is exactly 90% and not 88.73%  or 92.78% ?  If it was based on studies, you would expect a more scientific figure.

But then they also told us that with 80% or 90% of the population vaccinated we will develop a herd immunity.  This also appears false.

Why do you continue to listen, believe and then spread this nonsense on the web?

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I've never understood the "protect the vulnerable" idea.  The "vulnerable" seem to be people over 50, overwight/obese people, people with COPD, current or past cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, a myriad of autoimmune diseases, kidney disease, liver disease, heart disease - the list goes on.  How do you protect all those people while letting the rest "get on with their lives"?

I would disagree with the over 50 assessment - the average age of death from covid is 80.

The rest of those people are ones who aren't going to be out and about much, really.  Maybe diabetics and the  morbidly obese - but the rest no.

Those are the ones who quarantine or lockdown, mask and social distance.  Their families would have to exercise caution, but only because early covid treatments were being thwarted.

If you had researched much about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and read the studies and the successes achieved with treating covid with those medications (and others), the rest of society wouldn't have had much to worry about.  Once herd immunity was achieved amongst the general population, the vulnerable group wouldn't have much to fear - a bad flu during flu season.  But Big Pharma couldn't have gotten EUA for the vaccine with a successful treatment available for covid, so they used politics (most politicians don't know how to read a medical study), paid off scientists and the media and threatened doctors with removal of their licenses in order to thwart any early treatments.  It's estimated that a half a million Americans died because of this submarining of early covid treatments and the vilifying of doctors and scientists who were using them successfully all over the world.

Edit:  When you learn about how successful those early covid treatments were and why they were torpedoed, it makes it very clear how we could have protected the vulnerable while everybody else got on with life. We wouldn't have had nearly the loss of life, the loss of economy, loss of freedom, everything - if it weren't for the greed of Big Pharma and Fauci.

This is all coming out more and  more - the MSM  doesn't carry it, but the demonstrations for freedom in November in countries all over the world have been MASSIVE.  I don't believe "anti-vaxxers" are the minority.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Goddess

[dialamah]

57 minutes ago, Shady said:

The vulnerable are generally much older than that.  That’s why the average covid death in Canada is 80+ years of age.  . 

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean the other people with vulnerabilities shouldn't be protected, does it?. 

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Protecting them would be vaccinations plus boosters if necessary.  Them wearing masks and probably avoiding indoor crowds for a while.  It’s not treating everyone like the vulnerable, which is what we’re still doing.

I agree about vaccinations.  So sholdn't everyone get vaccinated to "protect the vulnerable", it that's really a serious goal?  After all, its still old people/vulnerable and unvaccinated who are most likely to die if they contract Covid.

And a couple of other things -

1.  Masks don't protect the mask wearer, they protect the people around them so to protect the vulnerable, everyone else should wear masks.  

2. If it's not ok to have the unvaccinated disallowed avoid indoor crowds, why is it ok to have the vulnerable avoid indoor crowds?   I'd bet that there are more vulnerable than unvaccinated in Canada, so why should the smaller larger group be inconvenienced by the smaller group?

It seems to me that those who are most anti-mask and anti-vaccine/vaccine-hesitant are also the ones who keep saying "Protect the vulnerable", although they don't seem to think they should do anything to 'protect the vulnerable'.

 

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean the other people with vulnerabilities shouldn't be protected, does it?. 

We're all responsible for our own health.  We're all responsible for our own protection.  I shouldn't have to inject an experimental jab with zero long-term studies and risk my health (which I have taken care of my immune system for decades) and death for someone who chose to not be healthy.  Illness and sickness suck.  Taking care of yourself is easy.  It's not my fault, nor should I be punished because others chose not to.

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

so why should the smaller larger group be inconvenienced by the smaller group?

I'm not sure its smaller.  I think the healthier group is vastly larger - as shown by them having a 99.5% chance of surviving covid. But either way - the healthier group are going to represent more of the working class citizen.  Let them work and keep the economy going.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Goddess

[myata]

OK this really is a breaking news: government of Canada requires all arrivals, regardless of vaccination status, to quarantine in a designated facility for the entire period. This translates to, in the interpretation of Canada, that there's officially no essential difference with respect to, attention: infection, between the fully vaccinated and non vaccinated groups. Didn't take much or long, did it?

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The rest of those people are ones who aren't going to be out and about much, really.  Maybe diabetics and the  morbidly obese - but the rest no.

I work with several people who are vulnerable - cancer survivors, auto-immune disorders, heart issues.  They all like to get out and about, not be stuck at home.  Yes, at least two of them haven't been out for over a year and the others allow themselves very limited attendance at the office.

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Those are the ones who quarantine or lockdown, mask and social distance.  Their families would have to exercise caution, 

If you had researched masks, you'd know they don't protect the wearers, they protect others around them.   Their families, and they themselves already exercise caution.  For these people, and their families, vaccination is a godsend as they and their families have gone to extraordinary length to protect themselves.  Perhaps it's time we let them out of their, eh?

I'm not engaging in the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin debate.  You have your experts, and I have mine - and never the twain shall meet.

I'm also not going to entertain conspiracy theories about Big Pharma and governments conspiring against the citizens of the Western world.  I know you are a believer, and if you turn out to be right I guess I'll have egg on my face.  And vice versa, of course.

27 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't believe "anti-vaxxers" are the minority.

With upwards of 80% of Canadians vaxed, they certainly are in Canada.  More than half the world's population has already been vaccinated; in Western countries, that figure is higher - 70% and above.   I'd say that anti-vaccers are the minority, especially in Canada.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I shouldn't have to inject an experimental jab with zero long-term studies and risk my health (which I have taken care of my immune system for decades) and death for someone who chose to not be healthy. 

Then, in my opinion, you shouldn't talk about "protecting the vulnerable" by having them stay home so you can be out and about.  You make the choice, don't expect others to accommodate that choice.

[QuebecOverCanada]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Then, in my opinion, you shouldn't talk about "protecting the vulnerable" by having them stay home so you can be out and about.  You make the choice, don't expect others to accommodate that choice.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. We aren't meant to make you or your nanny safe, am I clear?

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Then, in my opinion, you shouldn't talk about "protecting the vulnerable" by having them stay home so you can be out and about.  You make the choice, don't expect others to accommodate that choice.

Yup.  there are some people like you who believe society should crash and burn to "protect the vulnerable" and that children should risk death and health for the rest of their lives to "protect the vulnerable."

It sucks being vulnerable.

Now there's at  least 100 Toronto children with heart issues for the rest of their lives because of your type of thinking.

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

I'm not sure its smaller.  I think the healthier group is vastly larger - as shown by them having a 99.5% chance of surviving covid. But either way -

If you conflate 'unvaxed' with 'healthier' then I can see how you'd think that.  But most healthy people are happy to get vaccinated ,  If you take thouse out of your equation, then it's just the the unvaxed/anti-vax who make up the group you think is so large.   And they are no where near the majority.

Quote

the healthier group are going to represent more of the working class citizen.  Let them work and keep the economy going.

The healther group can work; they only need to get vaccinated in some cases, if their employer requires it - and many don't.  Most people do if required or because they want to; the only people who's employment opportunities *might* be affected are the unvaxed.  Can you prove that group is larger than the group we're calling "vulnerable"?

Edited November 30, 2021 by dialamah

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Now there's at  least 100 Toronto children with heart issues for the rest of their lives because of your type of thinking.

They'll never take responsibility. First they wouldn't know what it is. And secondly, we didn't know, we were told, we thought it's for the better, oops, not to worry.

[myata]

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

We aren't meant to make you or your nanny safe, am I clear?

If we let them, this is exactly what they'll come to think, behave and do. Sorry, not the future tense, past already.

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yup.  there are some people like you who believe society should crash and burn to "protect the vulnerable" and that children should risk death and health for the rest of their lives to "protect the vulnerable."

It sucks being vulnerable.

Now there's at  least 100 Toronto children with heart issues for the rest of their lives because of your type of thinking.

Yes, it sucks being vulnerable.

Let's put it this way:  by not getting vaccinated, you are more vulnerable than I to getting sick, getting hospitalized and dying.  Consequently, I should work because I'm at less risk and you should stay home to protect yourself.

 

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, myata said:

If we let them, this is exactly what they'll come to think, behave and do. Sorry, not the future tense, past already.

They don't want anybody to live because nanny 96 years of age with pancreatic stage IV cancer is ... vulnerable!