Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#51

Post by sleavey »

fabbari wrote: post #43
sleavey wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert in this field but I am a scientist and have been looking at the various data released on this point, because it's foundational to the reasoning behind the push for universal vaccination using unapproved drugs. I think that which you say is being twisted, the "truth", doesn't yet exist on this topic. We simply don't have scientific consensus yet on whether the current vaccines are fully neutralising.…

Did you actually look at the data? Deaths in Israel went from over a 1400 in the month of January to 20 in July, with a vaccination rate of [0] 67%. I would say that that's a pretty darn good result, wouldn't you? Again, from the data in your link: 91.4% efficacy against severe Covid - IE: ventilators or death, 88% efficacy against hospitalization. I'll take those chances. The kicker for the article is quoting an "ep…

I think if you re-read my comment you'll see that I was specifically making a point about reduction in transmission in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals, not efficacy. Re-reading it myself, I see that might not have been 100% clear, so apologies if that's the case. For the record I don't doubt the vaccines reduce risk of death.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#52

Post by ghaff »

totony wrote: post #45
maxerickson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are being forced to forgo transportation, they are not being forcibly vaccinated.

/s ?

Seems perfectly reasonable. I would be against vaccinating people by force. I'm not against telling them they can't fly, eat at a restaurant, or attend a concert if they choose to not be vaccinated.

ADDED: Governmental mandates vs. rules established by private organizations is a reasonable debate. I probably prefer the latter in most cases. For example, I'm attending an event in about a month and they're requiring vaccinations and masks. If you're not OK with that, just don't go.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#53

Post by [deleted] »

sho wrote: post #17
ghiculescu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was a reasonable question, which I read as: If I am vaccinated, and you are not, what do I gain from forcing you to get vaccinated? I am equally highly protected either way, right?

No, you are not. If I am not vaccinated I am far more likely to carry the virus to you, and your vaccine, while good, is not 100% protection. So you have a significant decrease in your risk by forcing me to be vaccinated.

[deleted]

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#54

Post by daenz »

bart_spoon wrote: post #39
ghiculescu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was a reasonable question, which I read as: If I am vaccinated, and you are not, what do I gain from forcing you to get vaccinated? I am equally highly protected either way, right?

No you aren’t. A vaccine isn’t 100% effective. So say it prevents 9/10 COVID infections. If you are in an area where your normal probability of encountering an infectious level of virus is say 1/100, then your chances are 1/1000 of catching COVID. But if your local level of transmission is higher, so that your chance of contracting COVID over some time horizon is say 1/10, then your chances of getting ill is now 1/10…

It's disturbing to me that depending on what argument is being made, the vaccines are both highly effective and simultaneously not effective enough. It doesn't get to be both when it's convenient.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#55

Post by bart_spoon »

sleavey wrote: post #40
bart_spoon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do apply the same logic. You can choose to be a smoker, but you can’t choose to be one in certain public spaces, including airplanes and trains. This type of mandate is no different. You can still choose to be a non-vaccinated individual, but not in particular areas.

I did mention in my comment above that children of smokers don't have a choice being around second hand smoke. Yet most governments consider the harm to the health of the child to be less critical than the smoker's individual freedom to smoke. I'm not some freedom loving libertarian, I'm normally quite left leaning, but the dual standards I see applied by governments here really bother me. I can't help but think thei…

No one is taking away the children of anti-vaxxers, they are saying you can’t use public transportation. The same principle is at play: you can live you life in a way that negatively impacts the health of your children, because you have authority over your children. But when it becomes a threat to others that aren’t in your stewardship, you no longer have that freedom.

What is the double standard here? You aren’t even comparing the same situations.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#56

Post by amarshall »

azth wrote: post #44

Does this include international travelers? Is it legal to prevent someone from going back to their country if they are not vaccinated? What about incoming passengers? Are they going to have ties with all incoming airlines to check vaccination status?

Preventing someone from leaving and preventing someone from leaving by commercial airline or train is not the same thing. The U.S. does a similar thing where they might instruct airlines to prevent boarding at a foreign airport as that’s not a U.S. border and a citizen only has the irrevocable right to re-enter at an actual border.

Ultimately, legal is whatever the laws of the country you’re in say plus whatever aid your embassy is able to coax out of them.

That said, I don’t have answers to your specific questions about these rules.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#58

Post by totony »

ghaff wrote: post #52
totony wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/s ?

Seems perfectly reasonable. I would be against vaccinating people by force. I'm not against telling them they can't fly, eat at a restaurant, or attend a concert if they choose to not be vaccinated. ADDED: Governmental mandates vs. rules established by private organizations is a reasonable debate. I probably prefer the latter in most cases. For example, I'm attending an event in about a month and they're requiring va…

Replace vaccinated by any race. Does that sound good? I say that in a non-facetious way to expose bias.

We don't say "you have the right to X, BUT if you use that right you don't have the right to do what everyone else does." That's not a right. "You have a right to free expression, but if you express dissent you are barred from using the Internet (it's too dangerous!)".

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#59

Post by underseacables »

nradov wrote: post #7
underseacables wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is actually paying for all of this? America is giving away doses, but for some reason I can’t fathom the drug companies doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. If there’s all this money laying around for COVID doses, ad everybody gets a shot no questions asked, maybe they could put that same energy behind insulin!

The US federal government is purchasing doses from drug companies at pre-negotiated prices and then giving them away to foreign countries. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...

Interesting! Both that and the pre-negotiated part. IIRC, the was not allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices for medicare, but that may have changed.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#60

Post by carthusian »

bart_spoon wrote: post #41
carthusian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing. Not if ADE happens with future strains, and the evidence is mounting that it will.

If ADE happens with future strains, then it won’t matter if you are vaccinated or not, because unvaccinated individuals are absolutely guaranteed to get Covid eventually. Covid is never going away at this point, and it’s transmission levels are as high as just about any disease we’ve encountered. Short of completely retreating from society and building a survival bunker in the woods, you won’t escape ADE if it become…

Natural immunity (which I already have) provides a much more generic defense because it targets all parts of the spike protein, and presumably other parts of the virus itself, many of which hardly mutate.

Vaccinal immunity targets only the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. The RBD is, in fact, the most rapidly mutating part of the virus.

Therefore it is highly feasible that ADE will only affect the vaccinated and not those with natural immunity. So, yes, it is a valid argument against vaccination.

>If anything it is an argument for vaccination, since a highly vaccinated population will reduce the rate of mutation.

If the vaccine were known to be highly neutralizing, this would be a good point. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case, though I admit it is still somewhat uncertain. If the vaccine is non-neutralizing, then, on the contrary, I expect a highly vaccinated population to increase the rate of immune-escaping mutation.

Post reply on HN