Live data from Hacker News

Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

cbc.ca

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#111
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

> You aren’t even comparing the same situations. We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society. Governments can't mandate for every eventua…

> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death.

You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with.

This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#112
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You choose whether to be vaccinated. You don't choose race and other protected classes. You have a constitutional right to free speech with some limitations explored by the Supreme Court over the years. The same Supreme Court (different individuals obviously) who established that Massachusetts could fine individuals who refused to take the smallpox vaccine.

What about people with allergic reactions or certain types of cancers that prevent them from getting any of the vaccines. What if they need to board a flight to take care of a sick family member or deal with an emergency? I guess they are now second class citizens?

Clearly there should be medical exemptions and Jacobson, the oft-quoted relevant Supreme Court case, even basically said so. But otherwise I don't have a lot of sympathy. They had a choice and their choice now has consequences. Before the vaccines came out, lots of people were kept from visiting sick relatives.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#113
post #3

Germany is now giving the dozes away as there's low demand. I wonder if the same rules will be in place in Europe.

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!

Both the US and particularly the EU over-bought. In particular, the EU increased Pfizer/Biontech orders after the AZ delays became apparent, but the committed AZ is still arriving (just late) and is now largely useless.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#114
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both those things are true, though. In fact, both are true of most vaccines that are actually in use; perfect vaccines are rare.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#115
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice. What does “opposed to vaccines” even mean? Vaccines for anybody? Vaccines for themselves? Mandatory vaccines? I sincerely doubt 10% of even Canada is in favor of mandating everyone be vaccinated to live what was once a normal life. EDIT: I meant that last sentence in reverse, ie doubt that only 10% is against mandatory vaccinations.…

Exactly this. I keep seeing so much discussion lately where support for vaccination in general (or for oneself) is being conflated with support for mandatory vaccination (for everyone). These are not the same thing! This all-or-nothing "with us or against us" discourse is really not helpful, and it often serves to shut down any healthy debate about the merits (or drawbacks) of two related but still separate items. An…

The conflation is probably not that far off in this case. There are some numbers downthread but I think it likely a significant percentage of vaccinated people are perfectly fine with, for example, United requiring flight personnel to be vaccinated, the many universities requiring vaccination to attend in the fall, events requiring vaccination, and the increasing drumbeat of companies requiring vaccination to enter an office.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#116
post #20
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do we apply this thinking to any other public health threats? Smoking for example, particularly for those forced to be around smokers like their children? I'm curious to hear the arguments for why this virus needs to be treated differently to all others that have come before, and to other public health issues. Not trying to start a fight here. I just haven't been convinced yet why our old behaviour towards threats li…

> Do we apply this thinking to any other public health threats? Smoking for example, particularly for those forced to be around smokers like their children?

Yes, of course. Most developed countries ban indoor smoking in most or all places outside the home.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#117
post #40

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…

> 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 don't think most people are suggesting mandatory vaccination of parents; the rules actually being imposed in developed countries are much more similar to indoor smoking bans (ie. you are allowed put yourself and your children in danger, but you're not allowed put the general public in danger.)

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#118
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You aren’t even comparing the same situations. We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society. Governments can't mandate for every eventua…

> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to mak…

To the children point specifically, the state rightly gives wide latitude for parental decisions and actions before it is considered child abuse. Mistakes certainly happen (in both directions) but for the most part society draws a reasonable line based on current norms.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#119
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both those things are true, though. In fact, both are true of most vaccines that are actually in use; perfect vaccines are rare.

Please explain how something "is X" and "is not X" at the same time, without changing the definition of X between assertions, and without referring to quantum superposition.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#120
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You aren’t even comparing the same situations. We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society. Governments can't mandate for every eventua…

> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to mak…

> And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.

Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way:

Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html

Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale:

Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati...

"Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."

Post reply on HN