Mandatory Covid vaccination in Canada now a possibility.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Reports are that thousands have already died this way across Canada during the last two years.

Don't forget I also reported to you my diagnosis for cancer in July, every scheduled scan and procedure following that was on time and moved up in one case and I had my surgery in Oct.  My wife's story is longer but much the same, in fact we were even in the hospital at the same time.

Quote

Socialism is like a long freight train which will stop for nothing or anybody.

Not true. Of course we're card carrying members of the Communist Party so that might have had something to do with it.

Quote

Canadians love Socialism.

We certainly do.

Edited January 15, 2022 by eyeball

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Don't forget I also reported to you my diagnosis for cancer in July, every scheduled scan and procedure following that was on time and moved up in one case and I had my surgery in Oct.  My wife's story is longer but much the same, in fact we were even in the hospital at the same time.

Not true. Of course we're card carrying members of the Communist Party so that might have had something to do with it.

We certainly do.

I'm glad you are satisfied with the surgery you and your wife received.  The system seems to work well for some, possibly depending which health care region you are in and the situation at that particular time.  Unfortunately for thousands of Canadians that has not been the case.  It is a public health care system, meaning it is Socialist and run by various bureaucrats in the different regions.  They decide the priorities depending of course on the amount of money budgeted and various other factors.

11,581 died after being put on healthcare waiting lists in 2020-2021 | True North (tnc.news)

At least 2,300 Canadians died waiting for surgeries in 2020: report | True North (tnc.news)

Nearly 1,500 Canadians died while waiting for surgery: report (citynews.ca)

I have personally had serious questionable experiences in the health care system a couple of times.

My brother had the signs of a heart attack with chest pain and arm pain regularly but was given medications and put on a waiting list for a month or more.  When he finally got in for an angiogram and a stent put it, the surgeon said a major artery was 90% blocked and he was just a walking time bomb.  He could easily have had a major heart attack during the month or so he was on the waiting list and since it is hours from the cardiac centre, he would have had a good chance of dying.  Thankfully it didn't happen that way but he was placed in serious danger.

The system does not provide uniform or the same service for everyone.  You can be thankful you came through well.  Thousands don't survive.  I wouldn't give that kind of system a high rating.

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by blackbird

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I have personally had serious negligent experiences in the health care system at crucial times.

 

The system does not provide uniform or the same service for everyone.  You can be thankful you came through well.  Thousands don't survive.  I wouldn't give that kind of system a high rating.

I often wonder if it's something as simple as one's attitude towards the health system that makes the difference.  I do have to say I know more people who have negative things to say about certain doctors, hospitals and the system in general but my own experiences, which were life-threatening, were a lot more positive.  Maybe I'm just lucky - and I'm definitely thankful.

[Shady]

Ah the good ol’ days.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Ah the good ol’ days.

Where's the Public Health Agency's update that authorizes vaccination squads and ripping screaming children from their parent's arms?  

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Shady said:

Ah the good ol’ days.

 

Either we start respecting the constitution or we tear it up and declare Canada a failed state.  

[eyeball]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Either we start respecting the constitution or we tear it up and declare Canada a failed state.  

What's the procedure for doing that anyway, we make a declaration at the UN or something?

Then what?

[myata]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What's the procedure for doing that anyway

Here's a good question, and it relates directly to simple notions like what the constitution is and why it exist. Here's some options:

- It's a pretty paper that some smart gurus wrote and other smart ones read (sometimes) and translate for us and to us

- It's something long and vague that happened long time ago, somewhere Meech

- It is a collection of rights and principles of organization of a responsible democracy used by the citizens in managing their common matters

The question is entirely relevant in the first two cases and probably some others. Really, where can we find that procedure, would you have a clue, does it even exist?

I can't see though how it can be possible or even imaginable in the last case, where citizens built, created and own their democracy and constitution that is an integral part of it. If citizens made it as a description, blueprint of their democracy there isn't a chance in a million they wouldn't know how to use it and apply it. So we only need to figure out what it is (for us) and why (we) have it.

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

Really, where can we find that procedure, would you have a clue, does it even exist?

I have no idea, you're the one who suggested it.     

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, myata said:

If citizens made it as a description, blueprint of their democracy there isn't a chance in a million they wouldn't know how to use it and apply it. So we only need to figure out what it is (for us) and why (we) have it.

People figured out what it was for and why back when it was written, and it's something that can evolve and be reinterpreted by the Courts over time.  Thankfully, it's also something that's largely determined by legal experts and statesmen (with input from citizens) rather than ranting 4dchan conspiracy clowns that quote it whenever they think it's helpful and then conveniently forget about it when it doesn't.  

[myata]

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

largely determined by legal experts and statesmen

Sure, you just described p.1 can coast happily now all the way to the expert authoritarian new dawn.

[Accountability Now]

On 1/15/2022 at 1:30 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

And yet this video out yesterday says that not a single person who had booster and caught covid in Ontario ended up in hospital!!!!

Table 3. COVID-19 case outcomes in Alberta by vaccine status. Counts are provided for new, active cases, and those currently identified as being hospitalized.

Outcome	Vaccine status	Count (n)	Percent (%)
New cases	Three doses	830	13.12
New cases	Two doses	4,015	63.47
New cases	One dose	301	4.76
New cases	Unvaccinated	1,180	18.65
Active cases	Three doses	7,370	11.49
Active cases	Two doses	43,135	67.26
Active cases	One dose	2,466	3.85
Active cases	Unvaccinated	11,158	17.40
Currently hospitalized	Three doses	150	18.25
Currently hospitalized	Two doses	334	40.63
Currently hospitalized	One dose	33	4.01
Currently hospitalized	Unvaccinated	305	37.10

Yet in Alberta, 150 people (or 18.25%) of the hospitalized have had three doses. I'd like to see other provinces start reporting like this. 

In my opinion (and I stress this is opinion only), I think there is more Delta cases in Ontario and Quebec as they never really had a Delta wave. This is why you are seeing higher hospitalizations and ICU rates verses Alberta who had a strong Delta wave in November. I could be wrong though. 

[Moonbox]

These sorts of statistics are trash without further information to support them.  For example, of those 150 people in the hospital with COVID, how many of them were hospitalized BECAUSE of COVID rather than other things.  Some of them catch COVID while they're dealing with other stuff. 

Regardless, the numbers speak volumes.  Stuff like 50% of hospitalizations in Quebec are from unvaccinated people, but they're only 10% of the population.  At the very least, that means you're 5x more likely to be hospitalized if you're unvaccinated, but it's probably much worse because the statistics don't really account for how many of those people are elderly and would have been in the hospital anyways, which skews because +90% of the elderly/infirm will be vaccinated but if they catch COVID while in the hospital they'd still be counted in the list of hospitalizations.  

They probably have that information but trying to explain that sort of breakdown on the news would likely be a wasted effort.  

Edited January 17, 2022 by Moonbox

[myata]

Notice how, when presented with undeniable facts, the loving and caring "let's shoot this into everyone moving" crowd have to say ... pretty much nothing (at all or of any meaning or new). You're more likely to end up in the hospital by so many percent so let's shoot this into you! (then think.. maybe)

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

These sorts of statistics are trash without further information to support them.  For example, of those 150 people in the hospital with COVID, how many of them were hospitalized BECAUSE of COVID rather than other things.  Some of them catch COVID while they're dealing with other stuff. 

I agree and have advocated for this detail of numbers since I started watching the UK numbers six months ago. They have excluded those people for months now and we are still including them...why?

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Regardless, the numbers speak volumes.  Stuff like 50% of hospitalizations in Quebec are from unvaccinated people, but they're only 10% of the population. 

So on one end you say the statistics are trash but then go on to use those stats to make a claim? If the numbers are trash then they are trash until they get rectified. 

By the way, your claim of 50% above is simply not true. Here the actual numbers of unvaccinated people in the hospitals is 26.6%. If you add up the partially vaxxed and the kids under 5 (who can't get vaccinated) then its 31.4%. Right now, out of 6389 people hospitalized, there are 4378 that are fully vaxxed (68.5%). Considering 78% of all people in Quebec have been fully vaccinated, there isn't a huge difference. Keep in mind, the percent of vaxxed in hospitals keep growing.

Now...if you want to specifically discuss ICU and not just hospitalization, then you are closer to your 50% number however still a bit off. According to the data, 55.3% of ICU are people that are fully vaxxed. 

 

[Moonbox]

My numbers were based on some french news broadcast from a week or two ago.  Not only are they probably different now, it's also possible that I misinterpret what I hear because french is my second language. I was probably hearing the ICU numbers and didn't realize it.  

Regardless, I think it pretty clearly proves the case for vaccinations.  The math is posted on your image for everyone to see:

Unvaccinated = 5.8x (or +580%) more likely to be hospitalized and 12.5x (or +1250%) more likely to end up in ICU.  

Those aren't perfect because there's all sorts of other factors that go into it, but most of those would make the case even stronger for vaccines than against.  

 

 

[Accountability Now]

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Unvaccinated = 5.8x (or +580%) more likely to be hospitalized and 12.5x (or +1250%) more likely to end up in ICU.  

They have had those numbers on this graphic for a while now even though the percentages have been changing for a while. A few weeks back the % vaxxed in hospital were around 45% and slowly it has crept up to 68%. Probably won't be long until its 75-80% which matches the vaccination rates and means the vaccine is doing nothing to prevent hospitalizations.  It may still prevent ICU stays but that's to be determined too. 

44 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Those aren't perfect because there's all sorts of other factors that go into it, but most of those would make the case even stronger for vaccines than against.  

I find the numbers show a weak argument for it...at best. And that argument is eroding daily. Look in BC for example, it used to be that you were 50x more likely to go to the hospital if you were unvaxxed versus fully vaxxed only a month ago. Now its down to 5x and that number keeps changing daily.

You can argue these smaller numbers as being some sort of victory but you are missing the point then. That point being, why are 4378 fully vaccinated people still ending up in the hospital. Why are 412 fully vaccinated people ending up in ICU?  The only clear thing to show is that the vaccines are FAR from perfect. More over, our governments and media have drummed up this dichotomy of vaccinated versus unvaccinated and used numbers to make that binary comparison when that is not the comparison that should be made. We should in stead create a dichotomy of healthy versus unhealthy and run stats on that. I know from Alberta numbers, 96% of deaths, 80% of ICU and 75% of hospitalizations involved people with pre-existing conditions.  If those numbers are accurate then the government should be pushing these people to get vaccinated and not healthy 20 year olds who have next to no risk.  

[myata]

In a society based on reason and accountability; on the third year of an event; the authorities must explain; justify and prove the necessity of any significant restrictions they intend to impose on the citizens. As well, mechanisms of accountability, measuring objective effectiveness of the measures and progress to the solution; and impartial checks must exist.

Is it too much to expect, if, presumably, the society is based on reason? Can such a society agree with unaccountable; arbitrary and chaotic hand management, with no clear limits or indefinitely, without any oversight and accountability, and no explanations of any kind except this is what we happen to think (today)?

[Moonbox]

On that point I think we can agree Myata.  I look at Doug Ford and his erratic approach over the last year and I long ago lost confidence in their management of the situation.  As COVID stands now, with basically everyone guaranteed to get it at some point, I think lockdowns now are doing more harm than good.  With the vaccination rates as high as they are now, I think it's stupid to keep people who are largely protected from leading productive lives. 

On the other hand, the anti-vax brainlets who'd overrun our hospitals if they were allowed to do as they please, the same geniuses crying the loudest about the lockdowns, they're the ones making this last longer than it needs to.  

[myata]

I'm not gainst or for vaccines, this is a meaningless position, in my view. They are good for some and in some situations. And it's far from proven, from any rational point of view that they are unconditionally good for everyone and always. Vaccines as anything, is an instrument, a tool. And the result of application of any tool is determined by who is wielding it and how. Even cosmetic scissors can cause serious injury if mishandled. And we are talking about interfering with the immunity on the population level and indefinitely, according to some exsperts, without as much as giving a thought to possible consequences. What makes me uncomfortable to the point of scared is that no one, nowhere here at least is thinking objectively and rationally, having all factors and considerations in mind and evaluating them thoroughly. From "travel from Wuhan, sure" to let's shoot every body every six no three months and see what happens, decisions are made in a flash and on a dime. If this is not scary what would be?

[Moonbox]

58 minutes ago, myata said:

What makes me uncomfortable to the point of scared is that no one, nowhere here at least is thinking objectively and rationally, having all factors and considerations in mind and evaluating them thoroughly. From "travel from Wuhan, sure" to let's shoot every body every six no three months and see what happens, decisions are made in a flash and on a dime. If this is not scary what would be?

What you consider objective and rational thinking on this subject is questionable, at best.  The fallacy you're clinging to here is that we don't know what happens when we vaccinate people.  It's the same sort of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo as "I don't eat GMO's because it's unnatural and we don't know how it will affect us".  

Except we do know what happens - nothing.  Aside from a freakishly small part of the population, nobody has side effects and it doesn't make you go sterile or control your brain or poison you.  The central error in your reasoning is that smarter and better educated people than you, with backgrounds in medicine and exhaustive research and testing to go along with it, have not already asked the questions you're asking and been satisfied by the answers.  

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Except we do know what happens - nothing.  Aside from a freakishly small part of the population, nobody has side effects and it doesn't make you go sterile or control your brain or poison you.

My eyeballs go around and around in their sockets when Bill Gates' updates are installing.

[myata]

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Except we do know what happens - nothing. 

No that is wrong obviously. These treatments were barely used experimentally for sufficient long term statistics and you have little to none clue what could be long term effects, in ten, twenty years a generation. Certainly there can be situations and cases where the downside of not knowing is compensated by the positive benefit. And that requires a responsible, competent and transparent analysis. Anybody with a grain of intelligence can see instantly that flu is not a smallpox and covid is not a smallpox either. The very fact that the same rationale and methods are used can tell us that it, the responsible and so on, analysis is not in the picture.

What is more likely, bureaucratic zeal and march to achieve percentages, put a checkmark, write a report and get a bonus. And if there's an unexpected longer term effect, we know what to expect too: not to worry, oops, we just thought and a belated apology. If that works for you, so good for you, but it'll be a long and hard look before I let "travel from Wuhan" exsperts shoot something into me on the clock just because they think it something they could try and see what it would do.

[DogOnPorch]

I'd be rather suspicious about anything at the moment that is connected to the WHO...Red China...or any Western government. While I'm certain that they are all acting in their very best interests, you are not one of their interests...really...other than shut-up and obey.

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, myata said:

No that is wrong obviously. These treatments were barely used experimentally for sufficient long term statistics and you have little to none clue what could be long term effects, in ten, twenty years a generation.

No, it's not wrong.  What you're saying is a pretty clear indication that you don't even have a layman's understanding of how vaccines work and your fears are based on little more than superstition and ignorance.  We have 100+ years of vaccination usage to know how they affect people long term, and we also know that the risk of side-effects go down to virtually zero past the first few months. 

If the burden of safety for things like this was years or decades of clinical trials, we may as well not even bother with vaccines because they'd never be available in time to be useful.  This silly line of reasoning fails on any number of topics, like 5G fear-mongering, GMO hysteria or the imbecility about aspartame causing cancer.