Will eliminating vaccine mandates and vaccine passports reduce the freedom for the majority?

[OftenWrong]

On 2/6/2022 at 9:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Right, because your individual right to refuse a vaccine trumps my right to live at low risk, mostly because you are you and not me.

I didn't know there was a right to live at low risk. Think about what you're saying here. How low is low enough? There is no bottom.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

I didn't know there was a right to live at low risk. Think about what you're saying here. How low is low enough? There is no bottom.

Yes, there is a right to live and the collective reduces the risks to enjoy life - pretty obvious.

"How low is enough ?" - well we decide that every day.  Do you wear a helmet when you walk out the door ?

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, there is a right to live and the collective reduces the risks to enjoy life - pretty obvious.

"How low is enough ?" - well we decide that every day.  Do you wear a helmet when you walk out the door ?

he is asking where you draw the line on covid

how many important freedoms are you willing to take away to slightly reduce an already low risk?

which important freedoms are too important to infringe on to reduce risk?

Edited February 8, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, there is a right to live and the collective reduces the risks to enjoy life - pretty obvious.

"How low is enough ?" - well we decide that every day.  Do you wear a helmet when you walk out the door ?

The notion of insisting on low risk is problematic. It's a slippery slope. There are some personality types that would never feel safe enough.

While your demand for safety may decrease your misery, psychological fretting about what ifs, it can and does increase the misery of others who now fret over not "what ifs", but what the have lost. That's a whole different problem, and far worse than speculative fear over what-ifs. We know that kids need to go to school, and they need to interact socially to become normal human beings. We know, with some certainty that these mandates have resulted in suffering for some groups, deterministically, while the use of mandate and quarantine can only be assessed stochastically.

And the numbers don't look too good these days. So that argument should be out the window, but for the fact there are so many who don't understand these things but given a collective voice. Your fear and lack of knowledge on these issues shouldn't be driving government policy, but it does. Which is exactly why the government shouldn't have the authority.

Edited February 8, 2022 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. The notion of insisting on low risk is problematic. It's a slippery slope. There are some personality types that would never feel safe enough.

2. While your demand for safety may decrease your misery, psychological fretting about what ifs, it can and does increase the misery of others who now fret over not "what ifs", but what the have lost. |

 

1.  Well maybe 'lower risk' is a better way to frame it then.  Back in the day, it was 
2.  Yeah, it's a balanced and there are lots of examples of people all over the political spectrum demanding (rightly) 'service' from their government because they don't feel safe.

[OftenWrong]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well maybe 'lower risk' is a better way to frame it then.  Back in the day, it was 
2.  Yeah, it's a balanced and there are lots of examples of people all over the political spectrum demanding (rightly) 'service' from their government because they don't feel safe.

That's nice but you ignored the more significant claim, that government is inherently driven by polling and this means they are under influence of misinformed, frightened mob.

Mandates are a natural outcome of government control-think. The most efficient one-size-fits-all solution.

Ok fine, let's say I don't have a problem with it but there should be exemptions given fairly, and the punishment for not being vaccinated should be far more limited than what these people are proposing.

I'm talking about the Prime Minister and premiers. Things like criminal charges, heavy fines, restriction from using public services are all out the window to me. Not acceptable forms or punishment.

Really, no punitive measures should even be required, it's unacceptable.The government has no right to interfere in the health needs of Canadians, only enable it by funding. It;s a discussion that should only concern a citizen, and their personal physician.

But, fail. fail fail fail. On we go.

 

[Yzermandius19]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well maybe 'lower risk' is a better way to frame it then.  Back in the day, it was 
2.  Yeah, it's a balanced and there are lots of examples of people all over the political spectrum demanding (rightly) 'service' from their government because they don't feel safe.

where do you draw the line?

we tell you where we draw the line all the time

while you duck the question

[Zeitgeist]

When there’s no clear justification for the temporary suspension of Charter rights, there is no justification for the suspension of Charter rights.  That’s why we have a constitution in the first place.  Our rights must be the default state, not restrictions and mandates.  I realize that we’re coming out of a viral wave, but with falling hospitalizations, a mild variant that represents almost all Covid cases, and one of the world’s highest vaccination rates, there can be no justification for the continued suspension of our Charter rights.  The vulnerable have ample protections available.

Vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and all across the board restrictions must be dropped.  Now, it’s fair to discuss a gradual removal of certain restrictions like masking, but there has to be a firm end date and it has to be soon.  The vaccine-passports are a non-negotiable.   They must be dropped immediately and I’m grateful that the protesters are holding the line because our own federal leader and many provincial leaders are not respecting our constitutional rights, certainly at this point in time.

The violations will become more obvious over time, so it’s in the leaders’ political interests to back off of mandates. If you want to know the particulars of why mandates aren’t reasonable for these vaccines, read my other posts and the posts of those who have provided vetted credible research. Our country’s vaccination and public health profile is similar to Denmark’s.  Denmark is rightly dropping mandates and restrictions.  Removing medical discretion and other Charter rights and making those who don’t comply with a government-mandated health program second class citizens with reduced rights is unethical and unconstitutional.  Current conditions certainly don’t justify it.  

Edited February 8, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Goddess]

On 2/6/2022 at 8:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Right, because your individual right to refuse a vaccine trumps my right to live at low risk

Unless you're over 70 and/or morbidly obese, you were already at very low risk. Less than a half percent.

If you're fully vaccinated, your risk is almost zero.

Leave other people alone.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Now, it’s fair to discuss a gradual removal of certain restrictions like masking, but there has to be a firm end date and it has to be soon.

how about yesterday?

when even CT, NJ, DE, CA and OR think it's finally gone too far

it's time to drop the useless mask mandates

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. That's nice but you ignored the more significant claim, that government is inherently driven by polling and this means they are under influence of misinformed, frightened mob.

2.  ... but there should be exemptions given fairly, and the punishment for not being vaccinated should be far more limited than what these people are proposing.

3. I'm talking about the Prime Minister and premiers. Things like criminal charges, heavy fines, restriction from using public services are all out the window to me. Not acceptable forms or punishment.

4. Really, no punitive measures should even be required, it's unacceptable. 

 

1. Is that what you are claiming ?  Of course I agree and the answer is education around specific issues.
2. Ok
3. I think for me as well
4. Well, except that they can take advantage of employment law and areas of governance to regulate things.  The devil is in the details, and it's also a pretty boring topic.

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No this is not right.  Here's a reputable source telling you that you are wrong - so I expect you as a conscientious poster will stop spreading that non-fact.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/12/vaccinated-who-get-breakthrough-infections-less-contagious/

And here's a quote from that article so we know exactly what you're talking about. 

Quote

People who are vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 but get breakthrough infections may be less likely to spread the virus because they shed it for a shorter period than unvaccinated people who are infected, according a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

What it forgets to tell you is if you are simply talking about odds you'll get the coof from a jabbed or unjabbed person those odds even out when you factor in the fact that in Canada about 4 times as many people have been jabbed. 

Doesn't matter though because there's another fact that wipes out every argument on the last couple of pages and I gave you links to it on studies from reputable sources on the previous page.

About 4 out of 5 people (this is in America but it translates) have natural immunity after Omicron and Natural immunity can remain strong up to 21 months.

There are other studies I can find for you that will tell you vaccine medicinal power to weaken or stop symptoms can start waning after about 3 months.

So a majority of people already have greater immunity than the clot-shot can provide. Tell me then, from your high horse why this gives you the right to segregate them from society or deprive them of their jobs when the only crime you can offer up would be not getting a potential protection with possible adverse affects when they already have greater protection.

 

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hey man - I gave you 30 seconds of research for your post, please forgive the error.  What I should have done instead is asked you for a cite.

Do you have one ?

Before I cite,  why do you think numerous countries across the world and provinces here in Canada are all dropping their mandates? Because they know they don't make sense anymore. Even the director of the CDC in the US said in August admitted they can't prevent transmission and that was with Delta. If you can't prevent transmission then why have a mandate that is designed to do just that?

Now...lets look at your home province of Ontario and the cases per 100k. 

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread

At the start of the reporting period, the unvaccinated cases were 7X that of the unvaccinated. Even though the vaccinated were still catching it, it was clear at this point their was a benefit to being vaccinated in regards to transmission. This started dropping as we hit fall due to the vaccines waning. If Omicron never hit then we would have seen similar results as what the UK saw with Delta where the vaccinated started to become the larger percentage of cases (not per 100k but percentage wise). This was why the UK dropped its mandates in September, only to pick them up again in December when Omicron hit. Once Omicron hit in Ontario, the cases per 100k were actually higher in the vaccinated than in unvaccinated as shown on the green line above (around the beginning of January). This reverse gap (IMO) was created by the mandates because the vaccinated were allowed to be out spreading it and they had a false sense of security in thinking they couldn't. That reverse gap only lasted a month or so where now it shows the lines in the closest spot they have been since the pandemic started basically to a point where its even among groups.  I also observed similar numbers in Alberta and other provinces that track this way.  Funny enough, Quebec posts their data on a Dashboard that includes boxes that include main points that supported the vaccines:

The funny part is they used to post a similar box showing your risk of catching Covid is you were unvaccinated until that risk became 0.7X. I wish I had screenshot that one. Regardless, they no longer post anything on that because transmission is no longer the issue. 

We could probably go on and debate if a vaccinated person is objectively the same or less risk for transmission but the reality is they are so close it shouldn't be a factor in pushing mandates. The only factors showing a favor to being vaccinated is hospitalizations and ICU and even those margins are narrowing to the point that doesn't favor vaccines. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

1. Before I cite,  why do you think numerous countries across the world and provinces here in Canada are all dropping their mandates?

2. Now...lets look at your home province of Ontario and the cases per 100k. 

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread

2. At the start of the reporting period, the unvaccinated cases were 7X that of the unvaccinated.   

3. We could probably go on and debate if a vaccinated person is objectively the same or less risk for transmission but the reality is they are so close it shouldn't be a factor in pushing mandates.  

 

1. I think that a balance of political and public health perspectives is saying we can go back to where we were last year again.  It has nothing to do with your claim though.

2. 3. What you are missing is that only 7% of eligible Ontarians are unvaccinated.  So if the numbers of infected are the same - leaving aside degree of sickness - then your chance of catching the disease as an unvaccinated person is over 14X that of a vaccinated person.

I will pause to ask you that, because I noticed you did a long post and I don't want to read the whole thing without hearing your response to that first.  

You see - I wanted a cite because as individuals it's very easy to make mistakes looking at the data, even if you have some qualifications.  That's why I'm looking for something more, like a study that is peer reviewed.  Even the meagre peer review I could do on here based on my background in stats is likely not good enough but let me see what you say on that.

[Accountability Now]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. 3. What you are missing is that only 7% of eligible Ontarians are unvaccinated.  So if the numbers of infected are the same - leaving aside degree of sickness - then your chance of catching the disease as an unvaccinated person is over 14X that of a vaccinated person.

Facepalm. I quoted cases per 100k.  If you don't know what this means then I can explain however this number takes into account exactly what you are saying. Also, your claim about 7% is not correct according to this site (https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON) as its actually around 11.4%. Of course the case numbers aren't reflecting those who are vaccine eligible and have contracted COVID. The case numbers are of all the population so our vaccine comparable needs to be on the same metric. If that is the case, 15.7% of all Ontarians are unvaccinated.  Minor point as all these numbers are already factored into the cases per 100k

 

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think that a balance of political and public health perspectives is saying we can go back to where we were last year again.  It has nothing to do with your claim though.

It has everything to do with the claim. If they thought the mandates were helping to stop spread then they would keep them.  The fact is they realize the current vaccines we have don't stop spread so why push a mandate that promotes an idea that is false?

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

The funny part is they used to post a similar box showing your risk of catching Covid is you were unvaccinated until that risk became 0.7X. I wish I had screenshot that one. Regardless, they no longer post anything on that because transmission is no longer the issue. 

@Michael Hardner

I found the screenshot on the Sante Quebec twitter feed. 

This was the post from January 10th which is the LAST time they included this info in their Dashboard as you can see they are saying the chances of you catching Covid as an unvaccinated person was 0.7X that of a fully vaccinated person. If you scroll back on that twitter feed to Sept/Oct, this number used to be 9X and slowly started going down as the vaccines waned. When Omicron hit....it was a 0.7X and they decided to remove that portion. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

58 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

1. I quoted cases per 100k.  If you don't know what this means then I can explain however this number takes into account exactly what you are saying.

2. about 7% is not correct according to this site

3. Minor point as all these numbers are already factored into the cases per 100k

4. If they thought the mandates were helping to stop spread then they would keep them. 

5. The fact is they realize the current vaccines we have don't stop spread so why push a mandate that promotes an idea that is false?

1. 3. Ok - please explain.  Per 100K population in general ?  If so then the math still needs to account for the smaller number of unvaccinated.
2. You are correct  I was quoting the number of 12 year olds +
4. Based on some other factors, yes.
5. They don't 'stop' it but they reduce it


 

[betsy]

On 2/6/2022 at 7:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Right, but they're greater risk means that I have to moderate my behaviour for a longer period.

It's not their fault..................... if you've got a bloated sense of entitlement!   Hahahaha I thought I'd seen it all!  Hahahaha   Better burst your balloon.   That's not healthy. ?

Lol - why should they be forced to get jabbed just to make it more convenient for you?   What makes you think they have to sacrifice themselves for you?  Hahahahaha

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

@Michael Hardner

I found the screenshot on the Sante Quebec twitter feed. 

This was the post from January 10th which is the LAST time they included this info in their Dashboard as you can see they are saying the chances of you catching Covid as an unvaccinated person was 0.7X that of a fully vaccinated person. If you scroll back on that twitter feed to Sept/Oct, this number used to be 9X and slowly started going down as the vaccines waned. When Omicron hit....it was a 0.7X and they decided to remove that portion. 

 

OK but your stat says risk of hospitalization is 7.5X.  Dr. Peter Juni, head of Ontario's Science Advisory Table, was on the radio and he put risk of unvaccinated people being severely impacted as 40-50X those of vaccinated people. 

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

OK but your stat says risk of hospitalization is 7.5X.  Dr. Peter Juni, head of Ontario's Science Advisory Table, was on the radio and he put risk of unvaccinated people being severely impacted as 40-50X those of vaccinated people. 

considering how low the rates of hospitalization are

even for the unvaccinated

a vaccine mandate is not warranted

the benefit is far less than the cost

by several orders of magnitude

[Accountability Now]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 3. Ok - please explain.  Per 100K population in general ?  If so then the math still needs to account for the smaller number of unvaccinated.
 

No. Its calculated based on the vaccination status population, not general population. Here is the exact wording from the Ontario site:

 

Quote

 

About this data

For COVID-19 cases by vaccination status, vaccination status is limited to Health Canada approved vaccines.

Rate per 100,000 (7-day average) is the average rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 for each vaccination status for the previous 7 days as noted.

Rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 is calculated by dividing the number of cases for a vaccination status, by the total number of people with the same vaccination status, and then multiplying by 100,000.

This method allows them to compare the numbers taking into account the varying percentages of people vaccinated and not. The case you are trying to make actually works when you look at hospitalizations and ICU in that 26% of the hospitalizations are unvaxxed. This percentage comes from a group that is only 15% of the population. I don't see a hospitalizations per 100k for this data but for it to be even, the percentages need to match (ie 15% of the hospitalizations versus 15% of the population being unvaxxed. 

 

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. They don't 'stop' it but they reduce it

If a mandate even reduced spread, they would keep it. But its not hence the reason they are gone. 

 

[Accountability Now]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

OK but your stat says risk of hospitalization is 7.5X.  Dr. Peter Juni, head of Ontario's Science Advisory Table, was on the radio and he put risk of unvaccinated people being severely impacted as 40-50X those of vaccinated people. 

My graphic is for Quebec, not Ontario. . Hence the difference as different provinces have different numbers going at different times. Plus if you look back to September, the Quebec data was at 25X. Again, these professionals aren't doing a peer reviewed study to come up with their risk assessment. They look at the data and derive their numbers based on that time. Unfortunately, the numbers change however we don't seem to see these same professionals step up and say "hey, that risk factor has now changed!"

At this point you can still say that vaccines are giving a marginal benefit to reduce hospitalizations and a decent benefit to reduce ICU. However, there are also other factors involved in who goes to the hospital/ICU other than vaccination status. 

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

No. Its calculated based on the vaccination status population, not general population. Here is the exact wording from the Ontario site.

Well I am shocked, but reading the wording it appears you are correct.  As such I am going to stop posting on stats until I am clearer on this topic.

Thanks for educating me.

[taxme]

On 2/5/2022 at 9:24 AM, blackbird said:

According to this article eliminating mandates and vaccine passports will reduce freedom for the majority.   The problem is in the case of health measures, imposing certain restrictions does reduce the freedom for some people who refuse to get vaccinated and removing those restrictions likewise reduces freedoms for other people.  For example, mandates are imposed to protect workers and people they deal with from the risk of catching Covid from unvaccinated people.  If you remove the mandates, then you increase the chances of people catching Covid in the workplace or spreading Covid to the public by unvaccinated workers.  A similar situation exists with the vaccine passports.  If you remove the passports some people who are unvaccinated will then start going to restaurants, gyms, movie theatres, etc. and increase the risk to the vaccinated people.  

Opinion: Ditching vaccine passport reduces freedom for the majority (msn.com)

Look mommy look, the covid sky is starting to fall down. Pieces of sky are on the ground everywhere. Run for cover.

That to me sums up what I think about your post. Apparently, you have not heard yet that the vaccinated people are still getting covid and they could be passing the covid bug onto other vaccinated and the non vaccinated people out there. I guess that the only way to stop the spread of covid is for the government to try and lock every Canadian citizen down for weeks. That would be right up Castro Trudeau's alley. But of course, real men and women know better that this is not about a virus anymore. It's all about pushing vaccines to make the big pharma globalists rich as hell. 

Why do you want to continue with this covid farce and charade forever? Covid is over. I dare to say that you may be a part of this covid nonsense of trying to keep many dormant and docile non thinking snowflakes out there into a constant state of fear and panic because you must really like to see as to what is going on to our rights and freedoms every day. 

Your constant paranoia over this covid sillyness is making you appear as though common sense and logic is now making you look ridiculous. Your covid Marxist program and agenda is no more. Hopefully soon, chicken little Trudeau will be no more. Finally, and hopefully soon, the coward will be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. 

Two quick things just for your information.

(1) Why does the Mayor of Ottawa have police snipers on rooftops around the truckers convoy? Are they planning on shooting some of the many woman or children in the peaceful crowd?

(2) The driver of a car that hit four Winnipeg trucker supporters and whom kept going was later caught and it was found out that the driver of that car was an Antifa supporter. It is Antifa that will be committing all of the criminal acts and not the truckers nor their supporters.

So, quit spreading  your covid lies and fears. Millions of Canadians are waking up to this covid hoax of a farce and will not take it anymore. This truckers demonstration is all about trying to get our rights and freedoms back that were stolen from us and nothing more.  

Sources: Laura Lynn Thompson website and ActionforCanada website. The Rebel website. ?

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by taxme

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

OK but your stat says risk of hospitalization is 7.5X.  Dr. Peter Juni, head of Ontario's Science Advisory Table, was on the radio and he put risk of unvaccinated people being severely impacted as 40-50X those of vaccinated people. 

Unvaccinated may be at greater risk of serious illness and death, but they represent a small proportion of the population and respecting medical discretion matters. Our hospitals can handle it.  If they can’t, it’s better to fix the healthcare system than to suspend Charter freedoms for the entire population and take a harsh stance against the unvaccinated.

Mandates are divisive, unconstitutional, and rather arbitrary considering that it’s very hard to have one-size fits all healthcare that’s effective.  There’s great value in vaccines and new treatments, but educating people and incentivizing their use (when the research is clear) is a better long term strategy than mandating a program subject to loss of freedoms and even one’s livelihood.  

Edited February 8, 2022 by Zeitgeist