Yes, you see this as people point out that Gibraltar, a place that is supposedly 100% vaccinated, is experiencing an outbreak of 3000 cases since June.
What they leave out is that 4 people have died in Gibraltar of Covid since that outbreak started. In January before vaccines were available, they had an earlier outbreak of 3000 cases. Close to 100 people died during that outbreak.
This seems like a very obvious case study on the effectiveness of the vaccine, yet the vaccine skeptic analysis seems to stop at the cases and concludes that the vaccine is ineffective. When in reality, it's working fantastically well at preventing the most serious cases that lead to death.
> vaccine skeptic analysis seems to stop at the cases and concludes that the vaccine is ineffective
This is not accurate. It's the mandates which most people have problems with, not the vaccine. Mandating something which doesn't prevent transmission under coercion from the government is illogical. The current shots are basically potential severe symptom mitigator - which if you think you would benefit, you should take it. It should not be mandated.
Here in Canada:
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly recognized "the right of a patient to decide what, if anything, should be done with his body" and that no treatment can be given to a competent patient without their "voluntary informed consent." A treating doctor avoids liability for battery only with a valid and informed consent. The doctor must explain the risks and is legally and ethically obliged to treat within the confines of that consent. An aspect of the respect for human dignity is the right to make fundamental personal decisions without interference from the state.
However, the same liability considerations do not apply to a patient's right to refuse treatment which is an inherent component of the supremacy of the patient's right over his own body. That right to refuse treatment is not premised on an understanding of the risks of refusal. A patient has the right to refuse treatment regardless of whether it is necessary to preserve their life or health. People must have the right to make choices that accord with their own values "regardless of how unwise or foolish those choices may appear to others". The right "to decide one’s own fate" includes the unqualified right to refuse life-saving medical treatment."
Source for Canada SCC rulings on voluntary informed consent:
I am a bit on the fence with Vaccine mandates, I wish they weren't necessary.
But I get the key reason for them, which you have missed, is it isn't really about the health choices of the person getting vaccinated.
If your vaccination status affected no-one but yourself then I would be strongly against any vaccine mandate.
If you are unvaccinated you are more likely to get infected, that is your risk. But, if you do get infected then you are MUCH more likely to pass the virus onto other people, including cancer patients etc who cannot be vaccinated. You are also likely to clog up the hospital system for an extended time, causing everyone else to receive a poor standard of care as the healthcare system strains.
This is the issue. Someone's decision to not get vaccinated has severe impacts on other people. Its NOT just about them, and if they say it is just about them then they are being incredibly selfish.
"if you do get infected then you are MUCH more likely to pass the virus onto other people"
No, that isn't the case. Studies have shown there's no difference in infectiousness or viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and the original clinical trials didn't even measure infectiousness at all let alone reduce it.
But this hardly matters. Even if there was some small improvement in infectiousness, so what? Vaccines aren't free. They cause collateral damage: some people end up injured, other people end up dead. Given that the virus/viruses are endemic at this point there is no real benefit to reducing infectiousness by some percentage, as vulnerable people will (supposedly) end up getting it anyway no matter what.
Also re: morality. This idea that refusing a vaccine is selfishness is itself enormous selfishness. You are asking healthy young people who are not at risk of COVID to take a risk of getting sick from the vaccine. It seems often that people who push this "vaccines are moral purity" angle cannot really handle this fact and go into denial about it, but there are many such stories out there, and databases filled with reports of such injuries. When you are demanding healthy young people risk sacrificing their own health, just to make you a bit less scared or to give an 80 year old another 8 months of life, it doesn't look like any recognizable morality to me.
What you are describing falls under "discrimination based on perceived disability" which both Canadian Supreme Court and US Supreme Court have repeatedly frowned upon.
The Ontario Human Rights Code includes "any degree of infirmity" in the definition of disability. They also recognize that the definition of disability extends to the actual or perceived possibility that a person may develop a disability in the future. "Anticipated" disabilities are covered where a person is not currently disabled, but are treated adversely because of a perception that they will eventually become disabled, become a burden, pose a risk, and/or require accommodation. OHRC requires that focus should always be on the current abilities of a person and the situation’s current risks rather than on limitations or risks that may or may not arise in the future.
Our courts have repeatedly recognized that all aspects of contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV etc, constitute a disability. This includes the period of asymptomatic infection. In cases such as Biggs v. Hudson and others, Canadian courts have often relied on the United States Supreme Court ruling in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline which stated that a person with the contagious disease of tuberculosis was considered a "handicapped individual" and soundly rejected the argument that the exclusion could be justified on the basis of "pernicious mythologies" or "irrational fear." The court held that it would be wrong to permit discrimination “between the effects of a disease on others and the effects of a disease on a patient and use that distinction to justify discriminatory treatment.”
Therefore, tuberculosis is included in the definition of "disability". Due to the similar contagious nature and social stigma associated with COVID-19, it also fits the definition of a "disability".
Look up Biggs v. Hudson for Canadian or School Board of Nassau County v. Arline for SCOTUS ruling regarding perceived disability discrimination which was about Tuberculosis and included asymptomatic infection.
In Gehman v. Seyffert, BC's human rights tribunal allowed discrimination based on perceived disability to be amended when a landlord kicked out a tenant just because she was coughing and he thought she had COVID.
Anderson v. Exxon Co. is another US case that stated that "prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be unrelated to job performance or to be non-existent."
Also, your assumption is incorrect. The week between Nov 6 and Nov 13, 53.96% of Canada's cases were fully vaxed, whereas 38.52% were unvaccinated and rest were partially vaxxed or under the 14 day period. I understand that Canada has high vaccination rate. But that doesn't explain the much faster growth of the fully vaccinated cases after 3-6 months of the vaccination and the rate of fully vaccinated is much higher than the rate of vaccinations.
As I pointed out in my other comment, mild cases in vaccinated have the same viral load as unvaccinated:
If the goal is to prevent the spread of COVID, why would you only focus on the 39% and not on the 54% (and quickly rising due to waning effectiveness as vast majority of Canada's vaccinations occurred in the last 3-4 months). And why would you not allow testing as a sufficient measure - which would be even better than allowing 54% fully vaccinated cases?
In fact, in Ontario, the government admits testing is good enough because they didn't mandate it for health care workers as well as the politicians themselves:
> "We expect that if people have not received the vaccine, they are being tested regularly before they go into anyone’s homes or before they go to work in hospitals. But there are safeguards in place for people currently. If they’re not vaccinated, they need to be tested regularly to ensure that it is safe for them to go into someone’s home."
The Ontario government has also allowed natural immunity for Member of Parliaments but not for citizens:
> "But on August 18, the government whip issued notice to government MPPs that they’re required to vaccinate unless they can provide a medical exemption or a physician’s note that vaccination is “unnecessary by reason of past infection or laboratory evidence of immunity.”"
I know people who aren't vaccinated. You aren't forced to do anything at all. You just can't be expected to be able to do anything you want (go into crowded restaurants for example). Also mps who aren't vaccinated aren't allowed to take their seats in parliament. These are very sound public safety measures.
The statistics on the vaccines are very clear. Misinterpreting the data doesn't change their worldwide objective effectiveness at preventing our hospitals from filling up. Think of it as the same health measures we've put in place against public smoking. You're free to smoke or be unvacced all you want, just don't do it around me, thanks.
You are right, regular (as in, weekly or more frequently) testing should also prove effective at preventing the spread amongst both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
But, the key there is you would have to trust people to do the right thing, and actually get tested, and isolate if they test positive. I'm not confident that enough people who won't get vaccinated would comply with that.
And you are misusing statistics when you say that a greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated proves the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread. Everyone knows the vaccine doesn't 100% prevent you catching covid, no surprise there. But it does slow it somewhat, and most crucuially it does greatly reduce your chances of dying or being hospitalized. I'm too lazy to link references, but a quick google would show you plenty of reputable sources with statistics showing you are much safer vaccinated than unvaccinated.
Regarding the greater growth of cases amongst the vaccinated, many, many things explain this. For a start, 76% of Canada's population is vaccinated. So, if the vaccine had no effect then you'd expect 76% of all new cases would be amongst the vaccinated. You stated the actual measure is 53%, so clearly the vaccine is preventing a lot of the spread.
But in the end of the day, setting aside the whole issue of should the vaccine should be mandated or not, disagreeing with the mandate is not a valid reason to not get vaccinated. Just get vaccinated. Once you disregard all the crazy, crazy conspiracy theories about the vaccine "magentizing" your body, or changing your DNA or causing infertility then you are left with a real, but infantesimal risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine. A rational comparison of the risks of getting vaccinated vs the risks of not getting vaccinated cleary shows there is no valid reson to not get vaccinated except a tiny fraction of people who cannot get vaccinated due to valid medical advice.
I was going to reply but your last paragraph tells me you are bringing some unnecessary biased baggage and stereotyping me as believing in nonsense. I suggest reaching out to a variety of people who are against mandates and you would understand that vast majority of them don’t believe in the nonsense which you are stereotyping me as.
I am not misusing stats. your paragraph about the fully vaccinated cases vs fully vaccinated % in Canada seems to missed the point I made. I stated that week but week, that % has risen and a lot faster now after 3-6 months. Ontario had a 19% jump in fully vaccinated cases between October 10 and November 10. Our fully vaccinated % barely rose in that time. Canada had under 10% vaccinations till June 10th so vast majority of our full vaccinations happened in the last 3-5 months. So as we are now coming off the honeymoon period, the cases of fully vaccinated are drastically rising again.
Firstly, the objectives which our Canadian government has claimed for the mandates claim that vaccines somehow prevent transmission - which is simply not true. And obviously they are not 100% effective - the problem is that these effectiveness drops to 3%-66% after 3-6 months. This is not his typical vaccines for polio, measles etc work.
And if you look at stats from Ireland, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, Singapore, UK, Germany etc, you would know the shots aren’t doing what you are claiming they are doing. I have been following this daily and have family in 3 of those countries.
This is exactly right. Vaccine mandates are the problem, as the US government has done for government employees, and Biden is attempting to do for all employers with over 100 employees. Almost every single person agrees the vaccines are a good thing (now that Trump is out of office) but this specific vaccine goes a step further and does not stop the spread of the virus. Some articles and data extrapolation studies claim it reduces the spread by 5 to even 50 percent in some cases, but it is extremely obvious vaccinated are spreading the disease nearly as much as non vaccinated. Since hospitals never were overwhelmed since COVID began, I don’t even know why the US government is still allowed to make the case that we should be in a state of emergency and under emergency rules passed by the president and governors. All of the lockdowns and emergency orders should have been halted until hospitals were actually overwhelmed, not just projected to be overwhelmed. When it is a real emergency the army will need to set up bases or ships to be hospitals, not just a few doctors working overtime, like they always did already.
No one is mandating that you be vaccinated in Canada. They're just saying don't go to restaurants or bars or other places if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease.
You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots. Is that not mandatory then?
Also the courts have stated before that:
> "at the very least, liberty must include those freedoms of lawful conduct always enjoyed by Canadians and by our predecessors in the Anglo-Saxon heritage. If we have enjoyed a right for many centuries then it must surely be included in "liberty" whether specifically stated in the Charter or not."
If one had been able to access centuries old liberties like gyms, restaurants, weddings, funerals etc without disclosing private medical data, then they are covered under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter regarding liberty and privacy is covered under both s.7 and s.8 of the Charter.
> if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease
This is inaccurate. Even in mild symptom cases, vaccinated and unvaccinated infections harbour the same levels of viral load. The Delta variant is able to grow in the noses of vaccinated people to the same degree as if they were not vaccinated at all and both groups can unknowingly and unwittingly transmit the virus for 3 days before experiencing any symptoms in 75% of the Delta variant infections.
> This is inaccurate. Even in mild symptom cases, vaccinated and unvaccinated infections harbour the same levels of viral load. The Delta variant is able to grow in the noses of vaccinated people to the same degree as if they were not vaccinated at all and both groups can unknowingly and unwittingly transmit the virus for 3 days before experiencing any symptoms in 75% of the Delta variant infections.
It's more nuanced than peak viral loads clearance rate is important. there is research suggesting that vaccines do reduce transmission, though that benefit may not last as long as one would hope.
The data is all over the place. There's this peer reviewed study stated:
> "By analyzing viral loads of over 16,000 infections during the current, Delta-variant-dominated pandemic wave in Israel, we found that BTIs in recently fully vaccinated individuals have lower viral loads than infections in unvaccinated individuals. However, this effect starts to decline 2 months after vacci- nation and ultimately vanishes 6 months or longer after vac- cination. Notably, we found that the effect of BNT162b2 on reducing BTI viral loads is restored after a booster dose. These results suggest that BNT162b2 might decrease the infectious- ness of BTIs even with the Delta variant, and that, although this protective effect declines with time, it can be restored, at least temporarily, with a third, booster, vaccine dose."
However, we also know that the viral loads are also very high in elders, in the obese, comorbidity as well as males. The drop in effectiveness happens the fastest in males, elderly and those with comorbidities.
Also expecting everyone to keep getting boosters every 2-6 months (Canada is allowing after 2 months) is entirely unreasonable.
There's other studies which found same viral loads in vaccinated vs unvaccinated even in mild cases (though it's not clear after what period did they perform the study).
Highly vaccinated Dane County in Wisconsin, US found no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated infections, the viral load was consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.
Similarly, data from 36 Wisconsin counties found that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the infection. Infectious virus is found even in vaccinated when specimen Ct values are low, meaning mild cases in vaccinated individuals can spread the virus too.
Overall, there's no logical reasoning to not allow tests as a reasonable accommodation and not testing both vaccinated and unvaccinated if the goal is to prevent the spread of COVID.
Also these minute differences in viral loads for maybe 1 to 2 months after inoculation won't be sufficient to justify discrimination based on perceived disability.
> You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots.
From your link:
As of October 30, 2021, all travellers 12 years and four (4) months of age and older departing from Canadian airports must, upon request, present a valid record of their COVID-19 vaccination status **or molecular COVID-19 test result**.
Emphasis added. So no, there's no vaccine mandate for air travel if a negative test is accepted.
> After November 30, 2021, all passengers must be fully vaccinated and present valid proof of being fully vaccinated, with very limited exceptions. COVID-19 test results will no longer be accepted after this date.
> As of November 15, 2021, screening officers will be conducting random proof of vaccination checks of non-passengers at CATSA security screening checkpoints. The checks will take place at 15 airports located in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Toronto (Pearson International and Billy Bishop), Ottawa, Montreal (Trudeau), Quebec City, and St. John’s. Upon request, non-passengers will be required to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 in order to enter an airport’s restricted area.
I know about this because I have an ongoing lawsuit with the Canadian government.
So again not a mandate. Good luck on your lawsuit, you'll need it.
edit: Since you called me dishonest, I'll explain exactly why I think you'll need luck on your lawsuit:
I understand you are highly charged about this issue due to your being involved in a lawsuit, so you seem to be in litigation attack mode. That's understandable. But calling the other side dishonest and not worthy of engagement won't serve you or your lawyer well in a court of law, so you might as well get used to being challenged without taking it personally.
Based on what you've posted here it seems like you feel the vaccine requirements are discriminatory and unfair because they restrict people from gaining access to essential services like air travel.
Yet the links you provide have shown that the Canadian government
1. Had an extended period of time when unvaccinated people could travel with a test to give them time to get vaccinated.
2. Have now moved to a phase where they don't accept tests but still have exceptions to vaccination
3. Those exceptions are specifically designed to accommodate people who rely on air travel for an essential service.
4. There are exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated
5. There are exceptions for people in the process of getting vaccinated
6. There are options for you to travel if you cannot get vaccinated, making air travel not essential in that case, so your argument falls apart there.
I have no idea how this would hold up in court, obviously I'm not a lawyer. But the government is going to argue that they have the right to set public health policy (true), they have made accommodations (true), there are exceptions (true), and for anyone whom air travel is essential there are further accommodations (true). For the sake of your case, I hope your lawyer presents your arguments in court better than you have presented them here, because I'm not convinced.
I admire your detailed and thorough analysis. Don't let those with an agenda tamp your energy. Your posts present the most concentrated unbiased information I've seen in any thread about COVID.
Using unbiased information for biased purposes (a lawsuit) does not make the information biased.
I think the prevention of the collapse of medical care is a worthwhile government goal. Prior to the vaccines our medical care system was on the verge of collapse. The areas remaining under vaccinated are still in danger of having impacted medical care. People are dying from non-covid illnesses because they can't get the medical care they need due to the medical responders being overwhelmed by covid. The vaccines have made it so that the breakthrough cases are mild and generally don't require hospitalization. This allows us to get our medical infrastructure back on track.
Having said that, medical infrastructure collapse is on a county basis. Maybe vaccine mandates should be handled at the county level?
No it doesn't. That is not a scientific observation at all and your perfectly round numbers are completely made up.
A novel disease is most potent when it hits populations with no built in immunity. The disease hit elderly people particularly hard. Among those that survived the first wave of covid, people built up natural immunity.
I said it would be a good case study, which would be an element of research trying to establish the effectiveness of the vaccine. Obviously what I presented here is not science, and I didn't claim it was. Science is one tool of many that we can use to observe reality and try to draw conclusions about it. It's not the only tool, and you shouldn't discount one tool for not being another tool.
> your perfectly round numbers are completely made up
5 deaths in Dec 2020 up to 94 deaths ~100 deaths. Cases were ~1000 in December 2020 and went up to ~4000 in February, an increase of ~3000 cases. Infections leveled off and started increasing in June from ~4000 to exactly 7248 today, an increase of ~3000 cases. During this outbreak, exactly 4 people have died.
> The disease hit elderly people particularly hard. Among those that survived the first wave of covid, people built up natural immunity.
Maybe. Or maybe the vaccine is doing in the wild exactly what scientists found it did in their vaccine trials? Occam's razor would say to go with the vaccine as the explanation due to it requiring fewer assumptions (we know everyone is vaccinated, we don't know what proportion of that population has built up immunity by contracting Covid naturally).
What they leave out is that 4 people have died in Gibraltar of Covid since that outbreak started. In January before vaccines were available, they had an earlier outbreak of 3000 cases. Close to 100 people died during that outbreak.
This seems like a very obvious case study on the effectiveness of the vaccine, yet the vaccine skeptic analysis seems to stop at the cases and concludes that the vaccine is ineffective. When in reality, it's working fantastically well at preventing the most serious cases that lead to death.