21–30 of 460 posts
However, provincial and federal politicians in Canada have also very cynically lied about this in the recent past, where they said they were against them and they wouldn't happen, to making snap announcements that they were implementing them with hard deadlines, so let's see how this plays out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vaccinated are actually at a lot lower risk to catch the disease and even less likely to actually develop symptoms and severe cases. Keeping unvaccinated out protects them from those who can spread it unknowingly.
Or you can not accept the nanny state and let people decide for themselves over things that affect themselves. Who knows, if you afford people that kind of respect they might even believe that states ideas on whether getting vaccinated is good for them.
I am in no position to make an informed decision on these vaccines and measures by myself, so I trust those who actually know what they are talking about.
Well, if the large majority of your population is already vaccinated, I guess these passports could potentially be dismissed, if masks are still mandatory, but for some countries - like Portugal where we have +80% of the pop. vaccinated - the main concern are tourists that completely disregard any etiquette or measures in place. So I think keeping passports is a good measure, not perfect due to breakthrough infection…
Last time I checked, the top 3 countries in terms of vaccination rates are also the top 3 countries in terms of number of active covid cases. Israel is #1 in vaccination rates and #1 in daily cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly only true solution to stop spread is permanent lockdown. And ban bars, restaurants, events and any sort of gatherings forever. I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. After all, why wouldn't they support keeping the vulnerable safe? Cost is only small sacrifice in bodily autonomy and clearly most effective thing to do.
This is a ridiculous straw-man take and you know it. Please aim for helpful discussion instead of empty sarcasm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vaccinated are actually at a lot lower risk to catch the disease and even less likely to actually develop symptoms and severe cases. Keeping unvaccinated out protects them from those who can spread it unknowingly.
Or you can not accept the nanny state and let people decide for themselves over things that affect themselves. Who knows, if you afford people that kind of respect they might even believe that states ideas on whether getting vaccinated is good for them.
Here, however, we're talking about a highly contagious virus that's transmitted through air, which can be spread even if you don't have symptoms and even if you don't actively interact with someone (as opposed to, say, HIV). Vaccines seemed to lower the spread risk, although with the new variant that effect looks weaker. So deciding for yourself to not vaccinate has a high likelihood of effecting others.
To go back to the road analogy, this doesn't look so much like a nanny state as setting some ground rules. Like driving on the same side of the road, mandating lights, blinkers, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is, the number of vaccinations in France jumped remarkably after vaccine passports were made mandatory for cinemas, theatres, restaurants, etc. Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success. And yes, the main point is to limit hospitalisations, because they're the main limiting factor ( at least in France, but probably in most other developed countries as well).
The same brand of ‘successes’ can be achieved by banning alcohol, tobacco, fast food or whatever vice you want.
Good. There is no evidence to support them. You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly only true solution to stop spread is permanent lockdown. And ban bars, restaurants, events and any sort of gatherings forever. I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. After all, why wouldn't they support keeping the vulnerable safe? Cost is only small sacrifice in bodily autonomy and clearly most effective thing to do.
This is a ridiculous straw-man take and you know it. Please aim for helpful discussion instead of empty sarcasm.
When passports do finally fail, it's going to shame a lot of people in managerialist roles who disinhibited their cruelty when they thought they were going to be able to shut the objects of their contempt out of society.
As they should be, considering that the vaccines do not stop people from getting infected and infecting others. Making sure there are only vaccinated people in a bar does not mean the people inside can’t get infected so this measure does not help achieve that goal.
Clearly only true solution to stop spread is permanent lockdown. And ban bars, restaurants, events and any sort of gatherings forever. I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. After all, why wouldn't they support keeping the vulnerable safe? Cost is only small sacrifice in bodily autonomy and clearly most effective thing to do.
Why would someone that is healthy risk ending up like that dead BBC presenter and leave their family behind for complete strangers?
Who gives you(or anyone) the right to decide what risks they should take and that their lives are worth less than anyone elses?
My mother is healthy even though she's almost 70 and she didn't have it. It's her choice. My wife didn't have it.It's her choice. Then again, she's in perfect health and 30 so for her the risks are next to none.
Small sacrifice? How about lock down the "vulnerable" like me(or worse) then and not screw up everyone else?