Two Triple Vaccinated Israeli Doctors Infected with Omicron

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:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29400950

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."

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/...

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.”"

https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/...

> with very limited exceptions.

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.

Are you asking for self-censorship of facts?

I just wanted to say bravo for your last two posts in this chain. I learned a lot; thank you.

> 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.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y