Jump to content

Mandatory Covid vaccination in Canada now a possibility.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

We have 100+ years of "vaccination usage"

I have to agree, on this level there's little point in continuing conversation. You clearly have very little idea of how mRNA treatments work and that they have essential differences from what traditional vaccines do and it's not my place to educate you before you could continue a meaningful discussion. On the same level of understanding a human and a platypus are both "mammals" so whatever works for platypuses should work for humans too. We'll just have to agree to go our separate ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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.

Every new vaccine is potentially dangerous, deadly even. That's why they are carefully monitored when put out. The older vaccines that have been around since the '50's or whatever, we have a pretty good picture of those.

At the time of SARS in around 2003, it was surmised that there could not be an effective vaccine for coronavirus. You won't find this if you google it, I just know that. Point is it's still true.

Astrazenica was a "true" vaccine, or traditional. You might say heroic attempt at what was known to be difficult. Result- AZ had lower rated efficacy, and worse side effects to the point it had to be "pulled". How's that for "100+ years of vaccination usage to know how they affect people"?

Johnson and Johnson is similar in that it's traditional. Also doesn't work well. I say that because the Canadian government requires that AZ and Johnson shots need to be followed up with mRNA boosters. Or else you're not fully vaccinated.

So the mRNA is a game changer. Whole new concept in immunology. Nat even a vaccine, more like a precursor. It is DNA technology, although not a DNA vaccine (which also exists but never tried on humans).

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

your fears are based on little more than superstition and ignorance. 

More than that. The government response to Covid is at times stupid and breeds mistrust.

It also doesn't help to hear things like Pfizer or the FDA needing 55 years to release the data of their safety study.  FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data


I trust that Reuters is a good enough link, for those who do not habla.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On TVO right now in Agenda, a program I used to respect a panel discussion "what should we do about unvaccinated".

Note, not "why universal vaccination is an essential public good" (is it?) or "what difference trumping individual rights to go from 90% to 98.7% vaccination would make?". Numbers? Cases and transmission among vaccinated, two clicks? Not in the picture. Let's do something to them because we already know the answer.

The topic already suggests that something is wrong with them and something could / should be done, to them. The discussion begins with already preset answer.

That used to be one of the thinking program where difference of opinions could be presented. Not anymore. Is it the end of independent and critical thinking in the country? Astounding is how little it took.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 5:26 PM, Moonbox said:

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.

And another one rides the bus.

  

On 9/26/2020 at 9:34 AM, OftenWrong said:

I can just sit back and wait for the truth to come out, and watch you people come around.

Ahhh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, myata said:

On TVO right now in Agenda, a program I used to respect a panel discussion "what should we do about unvaccinated".

Note, not "why universal vaccination is an essential public good" (is it?) or "what difference trumping individual rights to go from 90% to 98.7% vaccination would make?". Numbers? Cases and transmission among vaccinated, two clicks? Not in the picture. Let's do something to them because we already know the answer.

The topic already suggests that something is wrong with them and something could / should be done, to them. The discussion begins with already preset answer.

That used to be one of the thinking program where difference of opinions could be presented. Not anymore. Is it the end of independent and critical thinking in the country? Astounding is how little it took.

We’re following the international consensus on vaccination and restrictions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

On TVO right now in Agenda, a program I used to respect a panel discussion "what should we do about unvaccinated".

Note, not "why universal vaccination is an essential public good" (is it?) or "what difference trumping individual rights to go from 90% to 98.7% vaccination would make?". Numbers? Cases and transmission among vaccinated, two clicks? Not in the picture. Let's do something to them because we already know the answer.

The topic already suggests that something is wrong with them and something could / should be done, to them. The discussion begins with already preset answer.

That used to be one of the thinking program where difference of opinions could be presented. Not anymore. Is it the end of independent and critical thinking in the country? Astounding is how little it took.

I went and watched it and think you would agree with some of the points raised. Both sides of the argument are presented.

https://www.tvo.org/video/what-should-we-do-about-the-unvaxxed

Overall I think the case was made, mandates are not going to solve this problem, not substantially. Percentage wise we have already crossed the Rubicon.

Edited by OftenWrong
added a linky-dink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I went and watched it and think you would agree with some of the points raised. Both sides of the argument are presented.

I applaud the journalist who voiced some of the obvious contradictions publicly to which no sound, satisfactory answers were given to my knowledge (I did not watch the whole program). But the topic itself that flashed over the conversation is indicative of the bias. Why would anyone, in any problem begin with "what to do to them" before understanding and confirming that they have much to do with the cause, and solutions?

At this time now, we have a perfect opportunity to observe the process of selection, isolation and dehumanization of a particular group, some of us wondering reading about such events in the past how it was possible in a civilized society. Just like that, with restating "the obvious" needing neither explanation nor proof on all possible sensory channels, as often as possible gently first as a "discussion" until it becomes the intended, the only and unquestionable truth and the conditions are ready.

In a sane, sound society one look around would cause concerns and serious questions: why, with the highest rates of vaccination in the world, above 90% in some cases, we are achieving, yet again, all time highs in everything and having to resort to more restrictions and lockdowns? Does the strategy promised and promoted by experts actually work?

And the easiest way out of inconvenient questions and real, genuine work on finding working solutions is to preempt them with an ideological dogma and an obvious scapegoat. Here, the topic. Let's discuss what to do with "them", not what's going on and are we heading in the right direction.

And that's just too bad for us. Not in the least because it makes less and less likely that we'll be finding effective and working solutions. Because they are rarely found in this direction. Only takes one look back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, myata said:

why, with the highest rates of vaccination in the world, above 90% in some cases, we are achieving, yet again, all time highs in everything and having to resort to more restrictions and lockdowns? Does the strategy promised and promoted by experts actually work?

The strategy doesn't work. It can only work if we go completely 100% totalitarian, and we know this. There is no quarantine by half-measures. That's why we are heading towards this incrementally, it is the road we're on. No U-turns allowed in Trudeau's Canada.

Now, today, there are polls showing that many Canadians support prison terms for the unvaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

polls showing that many Canadians support prison terms for the unvaccinated.

That is actually good. An experiment and a clear result, for the science of human societies and psychology. We, so cultured, civilized inclusive and so on, all-around goodness from the great beavertale book could have proven, by the fact and example, that massive propaganda of fear and scapegoating wouldn't work, with us. That it is possible to remain on the position of reason and intelligence and still find effective solutions. But the empirical test, the experiment in the reality is showing otherwise. And that of course, is an objective result, according to science.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, myata said:

I have to agree, on this level there's little point in continuing conversation. You clearly have very little idea of how mRNA treatments work and that they have essential differences from what traditional vaccines do and it's not my place to educate you before you could continue a meaningful discussion. 

Except I do know the difference, I know how long they've been working on mRNA, that they started testing vaccines for them in mice back in the 90's, what some of the major hurdles were in prepping them for human vaccines, that they don't alter your DNA or any other nonsense like that. 

Most importantly, I have the good sense to understand that ~9 million doctors around the world (the actual people with the expertise and education to form intelligent opinions on the matter), are fully supportive of the vaccines and unconcerned with their risks.  

You, on the other hand, have the delusion that you're asking better and smarter questions than all of them.  "We don't know what happens decades from now..." is a misguided notion not actually based on any specific concern but rather a vague superstition that something you don't understand might do something to you. 

With this line of reasoning you may as well throw your cellphone and other devices away, because you don't know what the long-term effects of prolonged exposure to gorilla glass will be, whether lithium off-gassing will poison your blood or if 5G might scramble your brain.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It can only work if we go completely 100% totalitarian,

Thanks, that was an insight I was looking for. For some time now I was puzzled, what is the point of vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate at any and all cost and no matter what drive, if rationally, mostly on voluntary compliance we have 90% and what critical, absolutely necessary and no matter what difference few more percent would make (no it cannot be the perfect 100% obviously)?

But the answer lies not in the epidemiological domain but in the sociological. A perfect, 100% agreement and compliance is needed for the success of the authoritarian, and totalitarian models of management not of the disease, but the population. A success of a working solution is confirmed by the result that can be seen and reproduced, any time every time. A success of a totalitarian dogma is when there's no (visible) objections, a perfect (visible) agreement. Even if and when the objective reality clearly contradicts the dogma, as long as no one notices perfect success can still be (and has been) claimed.

Sure there are well-known tales on this topic. Interestingly, astounding and scary is that the conversation in the society has descended to this level already as any number of examples, like that show or right here can demonstrate. Scary too that few want to pay attention or even notice, no matter how far and deep we descend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I know how long they've been working on mRNA, that they started testing vaccines for them in mice back in the 90's,

Not peer-reviewed yet, but a very interesting read.

The mRNA-LNP platform’s lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory (nih.gov)

Short version - it appears that is it the LNP's are what is causing the severe issues with inflammation post-inoculation.

Quote

"However, further studies will be needed to determine the exact nature of the inflammatory responses triggered by the mRNA LNP vaccines in humans, and how much overlap there might be with the inflammatory signatures documented here for mice."

In a commentary on the Thomas Jefferson University article, Dr. Ramya Dwivedi wrote, "While the vital role of LNPs in these vaccines' action is established, the potentially inflammatory nature of these LNPs is not assessed."

Because the vaccine was presumed to be non-inflammatory, these side-effects were taken to be generated from the potent immune response to the vaccine. Therefore, there is a need for a systemic approach to analyze the inflammatory properties of LNPs and understand their role in the vaccination process."

"Further studies".  That's a bit ironic, considering the inoculations are already in widespread use.  Horse has left the barn on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death (freewestmedia.com)

Court case from France.  Ruling is that the life insurance company does not have to pay out for vaccine injury/death.

Quote

 

Although vaccination is recognized as the cause of death by doctors and the insurance company, it has refused to pay out. The reason is because the side effects of the Corona jabs are known and published. They argue that the deceased took part in an experiment at his own risk. Covid-19 in itself is not classed as a “critical illness”.

The court allegedly justified its ruling as follows: “The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine. There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.” Since suicide is not covered by the policy from the outset, the insurance refuses to budge.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not peer-reviewed yet, but a very interesting read.

The mRNA-LNP platform’s lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory (nih.gov)

Short version - it appears that is it the LNP's are what is causing the severe issues with inflammation post-inoculation.

"Further studies".  That's a bit ironic, considering the inoculations are already in widespread use.  Horse has left the barn on that one.

Okay?  So what does this tell/suggest about long-term side-effects?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You tell me when you're 90 whether or not LED TV radiation melts your retina.  You're the long-term trial.  

Quote

Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death (freewestmedia.com)

Court case from France.  Ruling is that the life insurance company does not have to pay out for vaccine injury/death.

This link of yours is also pretty hilarious.  Included within:

Unfortunately, no sources or court records are given, which is why the authenticity of the report cannot currently be verified

So the story is essentially utter bullshit and provides links to all sorts of other clownshow fringe groups like "Principia Scientific" which couldn't larp harder at being real science if it tried. 

When the article you link is literally saying there are no sources and it can't be verified, that's your first clue on it not being a good idea to link here, genius.  

image.gif

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to read a headline, believe what it says and then go ahead and to use it to try and convince other people, but not even really read it yourself, I should think that's a cautionary tale for you.  It's a warning sign that you're not critically considering the "information" you're being presented with and that the websites you're frequenting are peddling in balogna.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Haha, ya, okay. Not one of my better links.

I disagree with you Goddess. The bit Moonbox cut out of his quote was this:

Quote

This case has not yet been reported in France ‘s mainstream media. The case was published by the family’s lawyer, Carlo Alberto Brusa, on social media.

So they're being perfectly clear and up front with you as to what the information is they're offering. It's simply presented for your consideration as is and they're not attempting to pass it off as anything else.

Moonbox doesn't seem to think a reader would be intelligent enough to understand that and take it into consideration. Apparently in at least one case he appears to be correct.

The title may be a little click baity but the description immediately below it says:

Quote

An explosive case is currently being hotly debated on social media

Any discerning reader should be able to at least get that far and understand social media is the source until they're told different. And they were. It's a story from the lawyer involved he made viral on social media. He's the source. I've seen the CBC offer less than that.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a better title for that and a better story would have been:

"Allegations of refusal to cover covid deaths denied by Insurers."

That was a claim in the article. If they could make that stick that's the article they should have wrote.

Then you could simply offer the lawyer and the family's allegations up as first source. They did allege it and they'll tell you they alleged it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I disagree with you Goddess. The bit Moonbox cut out of his quote was this:

So they're being perfectly clear and up front with you as to what the information is they're offering. It's simply presented for your consideration as is and they're not attempting to pass it off as anything else.

Moonbox doesn't seem to think a reader would be intelligent enough to understand that and take it into consideration. Apparently in at least one case he appears to be correct.

The title may be a little click baity but the description immediately below it says:

Any discerning reader should be able to at least get that far and understand social media is source until they're told different. And they were. It's a story from the lawyer involved he made viral on social media. He's the source. I've seen the CBC offer less than that.

Still, I generally research and think through better than that.

The reason I clicked on it was because I have a friend in the life insurance business I was just talking to and he told me they also see the narrative falling apart and have been talking about whether they will pay out for vaccine injuries/deaths, looking at all angles (to cover their butts and still make profits, haha).

He said if the inoculations turn out to lead to increases in deaths, disabilities and chronic care illnesses as some studies show, they'll be in trouble.  So they are looking for ways/reasons to mitigate a flood of claims.  In case this happens, Pharma is off the hook, obviously, and governments can claim it wasn't a "law" and that they never actually "forced" anyone to do it and everyone knew it was a big experiment anyways, right? Right? Government would claim no responsibility for damages.  So this is one way they could avoid paying out a flood of claims - everyone knew they were experimental.  If you chose to do it, tough luck.  The article was almost exactly what they've talked about in the insurance business.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...