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

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#151

Post by dukeofdoom »

mthoms wrote: post #148
dukeofdoom wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Vaccinated people transmit COVID as well. In fact, they're more likely not to show symptoms, so probably more likely to travel and unknowingly infect others. 2. People have covid over a period of two weeks to a month, and in some portion of that they transmit the disease. Of those that haven't had covid yet, most that will get it, will self isolate. The probability that you are transmitting disease at any moment i…

>This kind of thinking will just lead to more misery than COVID its self. Lockdowns are causing poverty, drug addiction and suicides of young people. Its taking decades off their lives, unlike COVID which mostly is deadly to those in their last year of life. First of all, none of the above misery is exclusive to young people. None. You seem to think young people are suffering more than most and it's not clear why. I…

Sure, I will try to respond.

> Covid restrictions and vaccines are halted in Canada... > What happens next?

I am not for halting vaccines. Anyone that wants one should get one. Nothing happens. Those that are at high risk and want a vaccine should get one.

> Do we still treat the sick?

yes, obviously. This is a medical problem for sure, but its nowhere near overwhelming. We had months to prepare to expend capacity.

Keep in mind that in Ontario, at the height of the pandemic, the overall death rate was 7-80 deaths / day.

Total Deaths in Ontario:

2019-2020* 115,126

2018-2019 109,019

And the overall death rate is roughly inline with the population growth, which is about 1.7 percent. If official number of COVID deaths is accurate. 9,400 people died of COVID.

Assuming those 9,400 deaths were all in the ICU and none at home or palliative care. There are 400 hospitals in the Province. So average of COVID deaths per hospital/per year is 9400/400 = 23.5

> What do you think will happen to our taxes, the national debt, the economy?

23.5 extra deaths/hospital/year. You think will do that?

>Will being thrown out with the trash by the younger >generation be an inevitable part of growing old?

The average age of a person that dies from COVID is around 85 years old. At that age, you are way past average life expectancy of 82 in Canada. So you did pretty well. You lead a full life before COVID got you. Again not the panic situation you think it is. Also, chances are if COVID did not get you at 85, something else would shortly.

>What about old people who have devoted their lives to this >country (ie. veterans)? And how will ignoring the elderly >affect families? How will the millions of Covid deaths >affect families?

No one is ignoring the elderly. There are not millions of Covid deaths in Canada. Canada is very well prepared to treat the sick. We have new treatments that work. They can take vaccines to reduce their risk.

>Will there be more misery and depression or less? Will

>suicides go up or down? Will doctors and scientists just

> stop caring because we ignored them? Will they stop

> giving us advice? Will anyone even want to be a doctor

> ?(or nurse)?

Since this seems like a hyperbolic exaggeration. I want you to consider that currently life or death decisions are made at hospitals all the time. We could extend the life of very ill old people right now, if we spent a few extra million per patient. Since hospitals don't have that kind of money. We are letting people die whose life we could prolong with extraordinary measures. Hope you realize that. These decisions are made at hospitals all the time. Give you an example.

Dick Cheney is walking around with an artificial heart. Its an operation that would costs millions, but would extend the life of all those very old people that had heart attacks. Why do you think this is not being done? Why do you think hospitals will only offer such procedures to young patients if at all.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#152

Post by gdilla »

barbazoo wrote: post #94
mabbo wrote: post #9

It's likely because of the election. Trudeau is calling for an election in the next few weeks. By announcing this now, he dares the opposition to say it's the wrong move, so that he can say he's protecting Canadians and the conservatives won't. Keep me in charge to stay safe. Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice. And if the opposition says it's the right move, he can say "…

You're probably right. There's also a push to make the vaccine mandatory for federal and healthcare workers. Somehow it rubs me the wrong way for a not fully approved vaccine to be made mandatory though. Don't get me wrong, I'm doubly vaccinated and I believe everyone should be. But should we force people? In a country where 82%/72% (1) of eligible people are already vaccinated once/twice? (1) https://covid19tracker.…

Except they're not going to be forced? You don't have a right to be employed. You may be able to wfh or find a job that will allow that. But being required to be vaxxed to go to the office seems reasonable to provide a safe work place.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#153

Post by sleavey »

mthoms wrote: post #148
dukeofdoom wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Vaccinated people transmit COVID as well. In fact, they're more likely not to show symptoms, so probably more likely to travel and unknowingly infect others. 2. People have covid over a period of two weeks to a month, and in some portion of that they transmit the disease. Of those that haven't had covid yet, most that will get it, will self isolate. The probability that you are transmitting disease at any moment i…

>This kind of thinking will just lead to more misery than COVID its self. Lockdowns are causing poverty, drug addiction and suicides of young people. Its taking decades off their lives, unlike COVID which mostly is deadly to those in their last year of life. First of all, none of the above misery is exclusive to young people. None. You seem to think young people are suffering more than most and it's not clear why. I…

> I don't want to go through line by line here because I truly feel like you're not thinking this whole thing through.

Can we have some more respect for each other? It's a basic premise in the UK parliament, and I would wager the Canadian parliament too, that the opponent is making their argument in good faith. It's assumed they want the best for the country and people too. Without this assumption, debates quickly descend into useless ad hominum attacks which just waste everyone's time. We could do with adopting this principle here too.

Related to this, I'd like to point out that those hesitating to get vaccinated are not just the stereotypical "idiots", but also those with the highest levels of qualification [1].

[1] https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-educati...

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#154

Post by yostrovs »

gdilla wrote: post #152
barbazoo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right. There's also a push to make the vaccine mandatory for federal and healthcare workers. Somehow it rubs me the wrong way for a not fully approved vaccine to be made mandatory though. Don't get me wrong, I'm doubly vaccinated and I believe everyone should be. But should we force people? In a country where 82%/72% (1) of eligible people are already vaccinated once/twice? (1) https://covid19tracker.…

Except they're not going to be forced? You don't have a right to be employed. You may be able to wfh or find a job that will allow that. But being required to be vaxxed to go to the office seems reasonable to provide a safe work place.

You meant: "...being required to be vaxxed to go to the office seems reasonable to provide a safe work place for the unvaccinated."

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#155

Post by acdha »

oceanplexian wrote: post #104
ghaff wrote: 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?

Of course not, that’s why there are medical exemptions in these policies — and why the requirements for everyone else are so important: if you can’t get vaccinated, your safety depends on the people around you being vaccinated.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#156

Post by dwild »

ghaff wrote: post #83
ckdarby wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

71.744% of the Canadian population has received at least one dose 82.404% of Canadians 12+ have received at least one dose Source: https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html

So the >80% is for 12 and older. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-cover... For the whole population, it's a bit over 60% so the "misinformation" you're referring to is approximately correct.

> For the whole population, it's a bit over 60% so the "misinformation" you're referring to is approximately correct.

The context is important, that 40% was a response to someone that said that a great proportion of people are for the vaccine (now whether his 10% figure is right or wrong, that's a whole other things that I won't debate here), thus his point for giving that figure is to give doubt over whether enough people are for the vaccine or not.

So yeah I would argue that saying 40% of people are against, by including people that can't get vaccinated in Canada (younger than 12) and people that didn't get both dose, to show that not that many people are against the virus, is disinformation. He didn't used theses words, but he was responding to something and not simply stating facts about how many people got vaccinated.

82.521% of the population that could get vaccinated, got the vaccine in their body. That does show that a good proportion of Canada population are not against the vaccine.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#157

Post by dwild »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #146
mthoms wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rights end when exercising them puts the health and safety of others at risk. Other people have rights, remember. It's always been that way. It's the reason gun ownership, driving, drinking, smoking and countless other activities all have restrictions. I'm not opposed to the idea of testing (within 24 hours of travel) as an alternative requirement though.

1. Vaccinated people transmit COVID as well. In fact, they're more likely not to show symptoms, so probably more likely to travel and unknowingly infect others. 2. People have covid over a period of two weeks to a month, and in some portion of that they transmit the disease. Of those that haven't had covid yet, most that will get it, will self isolate. The probability that you are transmitting disease at any moment i…

> most that will get it, will self isolate

Sadly if that was enough we wouldn't be here talking about it.

> 3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already

They can get vaccinated too.

> who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine

Source?

> At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk.

Sure, but they don't put as much risk as COVID. If it does, the same steps as covid will be implemented. Quarantine isn't new, it's just rare that so much more is needed.

> Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability

On a minuscule probability? If it was minuscule, again, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. The propagation rate are crazy, even considering everything we do to lower it. There's nothing minuscule about it.

> Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people.

But that put an high strain on our health system for no other reason than the imaginary fear about the vaccine.

I always said it. If only 1% were dying, even if I disagree with it that idea, we wouldn't have done any of this, we would just have taken the decision to let them die, even though it so many people. The big issue is the hospitalization rate. There's so many surgeries that have to be postpone, so that we can keep alive anti-vax long enough.

> Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well.

Yup, at a far lower rate and much less risker of hospitalization than COVID, but yeah. I personally seriously hope that we will treat flu season differently, but people like you make me less hopeful for that to happen. All that said is while still considering that it put much less strain on our health system than COVID.

> 5. Based on the trends in Israel, (early high vaccination rate)the virus just mutated, and evolved, and is happily reinfecting the vaccinated. This happened in a span of months. The further back someone has been vaccinated the more likely they are to get sick.

If that is true, it's just as much true for the immunity given by getting the virus. I mean you do know that clearly as you said "reinfecting" for someone that got vaccinated...

> By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex.

If you lie about your STD to a sex partner, there could definitely be legal repercussion to that.

> And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs.

Going to a bar doesn't facilitate the spread of STD, there must be much more involved for STD to be propagated. Is it the scale of covid too? Here in Quebec 6% of case require hospitalization. I don't believe that in average someone with an STD give it to up to 8 others.... oh and dying from an STD is much less likely too.

> Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.

Funny that you say that, I know plenty that can't give blood ;). Even considering they only slightly increase the risk of propagation and it can be tested easily.

> Its taking decades off their lives

Decades? Come on, sure you were completly ignoring any statistics before that statement, but that's just a whole other level of absurdity. Both world war were horrible, the spanish flu happened during that time, some pretty importants economics crash, plenty of events that clearly increased suicide because of how awful they were (unlike covid, which didn't seems to have an impact) and still the life expectancy just kept increasing. You still think though that this single event will takes off decade of our life? God damn it.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#158

Post by daenz »

ghaff wrote: post #132
daenz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems obvious that many medical treatments/pre-treatments clearly lead to generally good outcomes (or are at least better than the untreated case) while many of them are still less effective or have more side effects than we would like. We can say the same thing in many domains. Modern car safety has improved a lot and makes cars from a few decades ago look like deathtraps in comparison. But way too many people st…

That's a long way of saying that you're changing the definition of X between assertions. "Effective" doesn't mean the same thing in both contexts.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#159

Post by mindslight »

fzzzy wrote: post #147
mindslight wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's straightforward. One of their chief mandates is to keep the CPI at a specific level of price inflation (2%). But their chief tool of lowering interest rates doesn't directly affect the CPI, as all the new money goes to the financial industry rather than to consumers. The CPI only goes up after that new money gets divvied up and spent on new ventures, and after asset valuations finally make it into the monthly co…

But don't they want the cpi to go down right now? They can only do that by shredding dollars right?

But they don't want it to go up much more than 2% either. So when it does, they'll have to stop lowering rates as they've been doing over the past three decades.

They have been able to keep lowering rates because technology and offshoring make real prices ever cheaper, while faux austerity keeps the newly printed money out of the hands of consumers. This has allowed them to point to the CPI and say that inflation is still low, despite higher asset inflation. Direct consumer stimulus stops their ability to keep ignoring inflation, by causing CPI inflation instead of asset inflation.

Re: Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

#160

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

daenz wrote: post #158
ghaff wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems obvious that many medical treatments/pre-treatments clearly lead to generally good outcomes (or are at least better than the untreated case) while many of them are still less effective or have more side effects than we would like. We can say the same thing in many domains. Modern car safety has improved a lot and makes cars from a few decades ago look like deathtraps in comparison. But way too many people st…

That's a long way of saying that you're changing the definition of X between assertions. "Effective" doesn't mean the same thing in both contexts.

Vaccines are highly, but not perfectly, effective. The definition is the same, it's the adjective that's changing.

For true immunity without anyone else needing to be vaccinated they'd need to be perfectly effective. Since they're not, more of the community needs to be vaccinated. The less effective they are (or the more widespread or infectious the virus is) the larger the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated becomes.

Post reply on HN