Cornservative Public Health

[herbie]

So I see the new UCP/RFK inspired public health policy is now down to Take 2 aspirins, if pain continues die.

Alberta will now charge $100 for a Covid shot.
The FantaFatAss and Mr. Brainworm want to ban the Covid vax altogether.
Nice international policy alignment.

We've given licence to the retarded to make the regulations.

 

Edited August 25, 2025 by herbie

[LinkSoul60]

You can't fix stupid, as Smith and Trump continue to prove....   AB surpasses the US in measles cases 3 people/2 children because of anti-vaccine idi0ts but hey, 'we don't do 'jabs' in oil country'.  Everyone has a right to be stupid but when they are and can potentially affect those who are compromised, you've lost the right to be stupid in certain situations.  

[Shady]

8 hours ago, herbie said:

So I see the new UCP/RFK inspired public health policy is now down to Take 2 aspirins, if pain continues die.

Alberta will now charge $100 for a Covid shot.
The FantaFatAss and Mr. Brainworm want to ban the Covid vax altogether.
Nice international policy alignment.

We've given licence to the retarded to make the regulations.

 

Do you have a link to provide?  I don’t know why there would be a charge for a covid vaccine and not a flu vaccine.  Keep getting those boosters though! 🤣

[TreeBeard]

12 hours ago, Shady said:

Do you have a link to provide?  I don’t know why there would be a charge for a covid vaccine and not a flu vaccine.  Keep getting those boosters though! 🤣

You don’t think vaccines help prevent or reduce the effects of COVID?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You don’t think vaccines help prevent or reduce the effects of COVID?

You don't think it should be a matter of choice. if your concerned or want protection get a vaccination. There is a major difference between a well known flu vaccination and covid one is tested over many years, the other was not...but rushed into service.

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You can't fix stupid, as Smith and Trump continue to prove....   AB surpasses the US in measles cases 3 people/2 children because of anti-vaccine idi0ts but hey, 'we don't do 'jabs' in oil country'.  Everyone has a right to be stupid but when they are and can potentially affect those who are compromised, you've lost the right to be stupid in certain situations.  

Why is the ability to have a choice stupid...Are you suggesting the vaccines do not work...or are you saying even with the vaccine you still are not fully protected.. 

 

[LinkSoul60]

33 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Why is the ability to have a choice stupid...Are you suggesting the vaccines do not work...or are you saying even with the vaccine you still are not fully protected.. 

 

I never said the ability to have choice is stupid.  I said the people who choose not to get vaccinated are stupid (my opinion, and of course if they're able to be vaccinated).  

Not sure what you're reading but where did I say or infer vaccines don't work?  Vaccines save lives...period.

[TreeBeard]

44 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You don't think it should be a matter of choice. if your concerned or want protection get a vaccination. There is a major difference between a well known flu vaccination and covid one is tested over many years, the other was not...but rushed into service.

Like soldiers, healthcare workers, or kids going to school, sometimes “choice” has to be set aside for public health reasons.  Want your kid to go to a public school?  Vaccinations are necessary.  
 

You have a choice, but choosing not to has societal consequences. 

[LinkSoul60]

45 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You don't think it should be a matter of choice. if your concerned or want protection get a vaccination. There is a major difference between a well known flu vaccination and covid one is tested over many years, the other was not...but rushed into service.

Why are you putting words in my mouth and what I typed?  Choose not to get vaccinated all you'd like.  You've then lost the right to be in a position then where those who are compromised could be vulnerable to that choice....ie; health care, seniors residences.

[herbie]

https://calgaryherald.com/news/smith-defends-provinces-decision-to-charge-100-for-covid-shots

ArmyGuy: it has nothing to do with freedom of choice at all.
It has to do with charging for something that has been covered and still is everywhere else. Bean-counting pro-privatization conservative thinking ahead of public health concerns.
Got a family? Want to shell out $400-$500 ?

[Legato]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You don’t think vaccines help prevent or reduce the effects of COVID?

The Covid vaccine does not prevent someone from becoming infected.

[LinkSoul60]

17 minutes ago, Legato said:

The Covid vaccine does not prevent someone from becoming infected.

That's correct.... Covid vaccines are not 100% effective but to TreeBeards question/comment, they reduce infection risk, decrease the risk of severe illness, hospitalization or death, and reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus to others.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

That's correct.... Covid vaccines are not 100% effective but to TreeBeards question/comment, they reduce infection risk, decrease the risk of severe illness, hospitalization or death, and reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus to others.

they don't reduce infection risk against the latest variants we have now. They BARELY did against beta.  They do not reduce the likelihood of spreading it either. 

THey do appear to reduce severity so those who are in an 'at risk' health group should consider taking them. But that should be a choice. 

[Legato]

58 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

That's correct.... Covid vaccines are not 100% effective but to TreeBeards question/comment, they reduce infection risk, decrease the risk of severe illness, hospitalization or death, and reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus to others.

Reduce severity yes. Reduce the likelihood of spreading no, those vaccinated can become infected and spread.

The latter happened in my family.

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, Legato said:

Reduce severity yes. Reduce the likelihood of spreading no, those vaccinated can become infected and spread.

The latter happened in my family.

Yes, commented not 100% effective..... My wife and daughter were vaccinated but both became infected so I agree there.  The medical community though would disagree with your wording of 'does not reduce likelihood of spreading' (I paraphrased).  I understand it spread in your family but that doesn't mean the chances of them being infected was not reduced.

[Legato]

32 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, commented not 100% effective..... My wife and daughter were vaccinated but both became infected so I agree there.  The medical community though would disagree with your wording of 'does not reduce likelihood of spreading' (I paraphrased).  I understand it spread in your family but that doesn't mean the chances of them being infected was not reduced.

t has been assumed that the COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of transmission to others. Results during the delta predominance show that the viral load in the vaccinated population is not consistently lower compared to the unvaccinated, and during the omicron predominance, the viral load was even somewhat higher. Levels of infectious SARS-CoV-2 were partly lower in the vaccinated population. Viral loads were mostly lower in re-infections compared to breakthrough infections. Viral clearance including the detection of infectious virus has mostly been described to be faster in the vaccinated population suggesting a shorter duration as a possible source for transmission. The epidemiological relevance of this finding remains uncertain. Approximately half of the transmission studies found lower secondary attack rates from the fully vaccinated population, but the results are probably best explained by the vaccination status of the contact population. Public health data from the UK show that the number of COVID-19 cases is higher among the fully vaccinated and boosted population who might be possible sources, in contrast to lower case numbers within the first three months among the vaccinated obtained in phase 3 trials on symptomatic cases. Overall, there is no convincing evidence that the COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduces the risk to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/

 

[LinkSoul60]

10 minutes ago, Legato said:

t has been assumed that the COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of transmission to others. Results during the delta predominance show that the viral load in the vaccinated population is not consistently lower compared to the unvaccinated, and during the omicron predominance, the viral load was even somewhat higher. Levels of infectious SARS-CoV-2 were partly lower in the vaccinated population. Viral loads were mostly lower in re-infections compared to breakthrough infections. Viral clearance including the detection of infectious virus has mostly been described to be faster in the vaccinated population suggesting a shorter duration as a possible source for transmission. The epidemiological relevance of this finding remains uncertain. Approximately half of the transmission studies found lower secondary attack rates from the fully vaccinated population, but the results are probably best explained by the vaccination status of the contact population. Public health data from the UK show that the number of COVID-19 cases is higher among the fully vaccinated and boosted population who might be possible sources, in contrast to lower case numbers within the first three months among the vaccinated obtained in phase 3 trials on symptomatic cases. Overall, there is no convincing evidence that the COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduces the risk to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/

 

We can probably find differing opinions on this all day....  

Early investigation revealed a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among social contacts of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals, referred to as indirect protection. However, indirect protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection-acquired immunity and its comparative strength and durability to vaccine-derived indirect protection in the current epidemiologic context of high levels of vaccination, prior infection, and novel variants are not well characterized. Here, we show that both vaccine-derived and infection-acquired immunity independently yield indirect protection to close social contacts with key differences in their strength and waning. Analyzing anonymized SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data from 9,625 residents in California state prisons from December 2021 to December 2022, we find that vaccine-derived indirect protection against Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection is strongest within three months of COVID-19 vaccination [30% (95% confidence interval: 20–38%)] with subsequent modest protection. Infection-acquired immunity provides 38% (24–50%) indirect protection for 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, with moderate indirect protection persisting for over one year. Variant-targeted vaccines (bivalent formulation including Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5) confer strong indirect protection for at least three months [40% (3–63%)]. These results demonstrate that both vaccine-derived and infection-acquired immunity can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission which is important for understanding long-term transmission dynamics and can guide public health intervention, especially in high-risk environments such as prisons.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55029-9

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, commented not 100% effective..... My wife and daughter were vaccinated but both became infected so I agree there.  The medical community though would disagree with your wording of 'does not reduce likelihood of spreading' (I paraphrased).  I understand it spread in your family but that doesn't mean the chances of them being infected was not reduced.

As both I and legato pointed out, almost zero effective at preventing infection or transmission. The first variant it was somewhat effective, by delta it was barely effective at all and by gamma it was useless. 

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I never said the ability to have choice is stupid.  I said the people who choose not to get vaccinated are stupid (my opinion, and of course if they're able to be vaccinated).  

Not sure what you're reading but where did I say or infer vaccines don't work?  Vaccines save lives...period.

these vaccines were not fully tested, and no one told anyone of the side effects, i ask because some people wanted to know exactly what they are putting into their bodies...Military already did this with anti malaria pills, tested them on military people in a war zone with everyone carrying at least one loaded weapon...every Friday was called freaking Friday, because of the vivid dreams it produced...So trusting our government when it comes to giving out drugs or vaccination was not just blind trust...but it had a lot of questions. 

..I mean i did not have much of a choice get vaccinated or find a new job...but i know of half dozen people military members that hard reaction to the vaccine, some serious enough to be put in the hospital for mouths...then released from the military....im sure there are others that would at least like to have a choice...In the case of the covid vaccines, not everyone is happy with the results...

 

Edited August 27, 2025 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/smith-defends-provinces-decision-to-charge-100-for-covid-shots

ArmyGuy: it has nothing to do with freedom of choice at all.
It has to do with charging for something that has been covered and still is everywhere else. Bean-counting pro-privatization conservative thinking ahead of public health concerns.
Got a family? Want to shell out $400-$500 ?

Its all about choices...

They are charging money for it because there is so much spoilage , people just not getting it and it being wasted becasue it has a life span...if Covid is a your concern then yes get them vaccinated for what ever it costs....you make it sound like this is all about money, and the province being cheap 500 mil  a lot of taxpayers money out...or travel to BC and get it for free...

I don't want to shell out anything , but Yes if it is my families health that is in peril id shell out the money...

[Legato]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

We can probably find differing opinions on this all day....  

Early investigation revealed a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among social contacts of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals, referred to as indirect protection. However, indirect protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection-acquired immunity and its comparative strength and durability to vaccine-derived indirect protection in the current epidemiologic context of high levels of vaccination, prior infection, and novel variants are not well characterized. Here, we show that both vaccine-derived and infection-acquired immunity independently yield indirect protection to close social contacts with key differences in their strength and waning. Analyzing anonymized SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data from 9,625 residents in California state prisons from December 2021 to December 2022, we find that vaccine-derived indirect protection against Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection is strongest within three months of COVID-19 vaccination [30% (95% confidence interval: 20–38%)] with subsequent modest protection. Infection-acquired immunity provides 38% (24–50%) indirect protection for 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, with moderate indirect protection persisting for over one year. Variant-targeted vaccines (bivalent formulation including Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5) confer strong indirect protection for at least three months [40% (3–63%)]. These results demonstrate that both vaccine-derived and infection-acquired immunity can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission which is important for understanding long-term transmission dynamics and can guide public health intervention, especially in high-risk environments such as prisons.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55029-9

Hayzeus man that article just says if you don't have Covid you can't pass it on.

If you have been vaccinated you can still catch Covid and pass it on.

[LinkSoul60]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

well if you were vaccinated and they work , why would you care if someone else was vaccinated or not , i mean if your protected and everyone else that wants to be protected is, why even worry about those that choose not to...I mean i did not have much of a choice get vaccinated or find a new job...but i know of half dozen people military members that hard reaction to the vaccine, some serious enough to be put in the hospital for mouths...then released from the military....im sure there are others that would at least like to have a choice...In the case of the covid vaccines, not everyone is happy with the results...

 

Because some people are compromised and can't be vaccinated.  That could be elderly, young with underlying health issues, cancer patients, etc.  I had no problem whatsoever in mandating the vaccine for health care workers and those in contact with the compromised.  We've been through this.... it's people choice to get vaccinated or not but if you choose not to then you don't have an automatic right to work in an environment that could make you a risk to others.  The government did what they thought best at time of knowing not nearly what they know now.  I also understand that a very small percentage of people have not reacted well to a vaccination which obviously sucks.  Everyone has choice though....

[LinkSoul60]

17 minutes ago, Legato said:

Hayzeus man that article just says if you don't have Covid you can't pass it on.

If you have been vaccinated you can still catch Covid and pass it on.

Then go to this link....

https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/fully-vaccinated-less-likely-to-pass-covid-19-to-others

Vaccinated individuals have a lower viral load if they get infected. But they still can pass it on to someone else, Brian said.

Viral load means the amount of virus an infected person produces. If the viral load is significantly less due to vaccination, there’s less risk of transmitting the virus to others.

 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Then go to this link....

https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/fully-vaccinated-less-likely-to-pass-covid-19-to-others

Vaccinated individuals have a lower viral load if they get infected. But they still can pass it on to someone else, Brian said.

Viral load means the amount of virus an infected person produces. If the viral load is significantly less due to vaccination, there’s less risk of transmitting the virus to others.

 

If?

 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Then go to this link....

https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/fully-vaccinated-less-likely-to-pass-covid-19-to-others

Vaccinated individuals have a lower viral load if they get infected. But they still can pass it on to someone else, Brian said.

Viral load means the amount of virus an infected person produces. If the viral load is significantly less due to vaccination, there’s less risk of transmitting the virus to others.

 

From your link

There are two big questions many people about COVID-19. Can you get COVID after being fully vaccinated? And can you spread COVID if you are vaccinated?

The short answers are yes and yes.

LOL

And from the study it cites:

we estimate that unvaccinated Omicron cases had a 36% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31–42%) risk of transmitting infection to close contacts, as compared to a 28% (25–31%) risk among vaccinated cases. 

So given the confidence interval the 'no vaccine' and 'vaccine' actually overlap.

Which means the difference is statistically insignificant.

In other words it's basically meaningless and your chances of catching and transmitting are basically the same either way. If there's a difference it's tiny. 

More importantly this study was done in prisons. That's because there's lots of testing and data is kept so that's a plus but they note that anyone who tested positive was immediately moved to isolaiton. 

That' creates a problem because the study can't address whether or not the vaccine really did reduce transmission or only perhaps caused it to take an extra 12 or 24 hours for the person to become 'fully' contagious. The study only addresses the very early stage of infection. 

SO makes almost no difference may make absolutely no difference. They're trying to spin it as a positive but its pretty clear it doesn't help much. The transmission rate is extremely similar 

Thanks for playing.