Canadian COVID-19 News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

For what it is worth, this is a great perspective on the risk analysis of the vaccines for Covid19. We should however be using a similar framework for other elements of Covid19 risks instead of the binary model many of us seem to use.

I hear you, truly, but there have been few yardsticks with which to measure the "other elements", or crystal balls with which to accurately foresee all consequences of the possible approaches. Except for hindsight of course... and now that we're 19 months into this thing, there's much to look at. Some countries made big initial errors. All in all, it seems to me that Canada has done pretty well. Some regional and national missteps, but the current level of vaccinations, and the state of our economic recovery, suggest that we came pretty close to the right balance.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I hear you, truly, but there have been few yardsticks with which to measure the "other elements", or crystal balls with which to accurately foresee all consequences of the possible approaches. Except for hindsight of course... and now that we're 19 months into this thing, there's much to look at. Some countries made big initial errors. All in all, it seems to me that Canada has done pretty well. Some regional and national missteps, but the current level of vaccinations, and the state of our economic recovery, suggest that we came pretty close to the right balance.

Thanks for hearing me Lake, I agree wholeheartedly that this is almost impossible to reconcile until we have the benefit of hindsight.

If you read through this thread and others like it on this board you will see many times when someone has been shouted down as unsympathetic/uncaring if they mention anything possibly counter to the shutdown and completely isolate model of dealing with this. To be open and honest I understand the motivation behind these responses as they are intended to herd society into the safest possible place no matter the other consequences. As I have said before, if I was in charge I would likely adopt the same prescriptive response as it is the safest way to protect everyone.

In the same spirit, I can understand someone believing that the risks inherent in relatively untested vaccines are so great that the safest way forward for them is to not only not get vaccinated but to also encourage those around them to follow the same path. I don't agree with them and I certainly don't agree with violent or derisive protest actions, but I can look at their risk assessment thinking and understand why they have made the choices they have.

Sadly, some of our more broadly educated members apparently cannot do this in spite of their comprehensive education which should have embedded some less prejudicial and myopic thought processes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

In the same spirit, I can understand someone believing that the risks inherent in relatively untested vaccines are so great that the safest way forward for them is to not only not get vaccinated but to also encourage those around them to follow the same path. I don't agree with them and I certainly don't agree with violent or derisive protest actions, but I can look at their risk assessment thinking and understand why they have made the choices they have.

In the US, and by spillover into Canada, there has been a lot of misinformation being spread about the vaccines, for political/tribal reasons. These often are peppered with swipes at the "msm", "big pharma", CDC, FDA, Dr Fauci, Gates, etc as a way of discounting any information coming via those channels. Even Trump engaged in bashing Fauci.

So, that poisoned environment makes it even harder to try to have the scientific discussion about vaccines.

I don't have a problem with someone making a choice for themselves, or giving their reason for their decision. I happen to believe that the scientific case for COVID vaccination is solid, and gets better as we see vaccination has been acceptably safe and effective. I have a problem with people who haven't sufficiently looked into the science, but feel "qualified" enough to repeat the above fringe anti-vaccine arguments as truth. But most of my anger is reserved for those political operatives who put out those lies and distortions in the first place. Effectively, they're killing people for questionable political gain.

[desodave]

Apparently the USA Canada land border is to be reopened next month for Canadians going south. Surely this also would include the marine border

CTV News: Canada-U.S. will reopen land border to fully vaccinated visitors in November.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cana...mber-1.5620929

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

For what it is worth, this is a great perspective on the risk analysis of the vaccines for Covid19. We should however be using a similar framework for other elements of Covid19 risks instead of the binary model many of us seem to use.

Yes indeed, there are very real risks associated with these vaccines, as there are with all vaccines, and indeed all pharmaceuticals. Tylenol is not risk free. Heck, neither is Vitamin C. So the risks are real.

(Here I'm preaching to the choir...)
But by any credible measure, these risks are vanishingly small compared to the much larger risks associated with contracting Covid-19. And when married with the communal risk associated with infectious people spreading the disease and providing an ecosystem for further mutation, there really isn't much rational basis for refusing the shot.

But this gets to the crux of the current anti-Covid-vax movement*; it's not based in public health science. It's driven by tribal allegiance, and by actors who thrive on sowing dissent in democratic countries.

Just like you can't change a religious person's mind with facts, one can't alter a sacred belief if it has become critical to remaining part of the tribe.

*Not all those who remain unvaxxed are anti-vaxers. There are significant communities which are hesitant for good historic reasons.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Thanks for hearing me Lake, I agree wholeheartedly that this is almost impossible to reconcile until we have the benefit of hindsight.

If you read through this thread and others like it on this board you will see many times when someone has been shouted down as unsympathetic/uncaring if they mention anything possibly counter to the shutdown and completely isolate model of dealing with this. To be open and honest I understand the motivation behind these responses as they are intended to herd society into the safest possible place no matter the other consequences. As I have said before, if I was in charge I would likely adopt the same prescriptive response as it is the safest way to protect everyone.

In the same spirit, I can understand someone believing that the risks inherent in relatively untested vaccines are so great that the safest way forward for them is to not only not get vaccinated but to also encourage those around them to follow the same path. I don't agree with them and I certainly don't agree with violent or derisive protest actions, but I can look at their risk assessment thinking and understand why they have made the choices they have.

Sadly, some of our more broadly educated members apparently cannot do this in spite of their comprehensive education which should have embedded some less prejudicial and myopic thought processes.

The statistics are quite clear: the risks from the disease FAR outweigh the risks from any of the vaccines.

[Scorpius]

From the New York Times:

BREAKING NEWS

The U.S. will open the Canada and Mexico borders for fully vaccinated travelers in November, lifting a 19-month ban that began with the pandemic.

Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:08 PM EST

Those who provide proof of vaccination and are looking to visit families or friends or shop in the United States will be allowed to enter next month, senior administration officials said, just weeks after President Biden lifted a similar sweeping ban on foreigners looking to travel to the country from overseas.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

The statistics are quite clear: the risks from the disease FAR outweigh the risks from any of the vaccines.

I don't want to start an argument, but I don't actually subscribe to that "truth." The risks from vaccines (and the risks from Covid for that matter) won't be clearly measured for some time to come.

But death/serious illness now vs. potential complications (however severe they may be) in the future is a pretty simple bet. Get a vaccination, be a part of the greater good and suck it up. At least we will all be in the same boat. Hmmm. I think we're gonna need a bigger boat.

[Mike OReilly]

Looks like Quebec blinked:

(CBC)
Quebec postpones vaccination mandate for health-care workers to Nov. 15

Quebec Health Minister Christian Dubé is giving health-care workers 30 more days to get adequately vaccinated, despite repeatedly saying the hard deadline, originally set for this Friday, wouldn't be moved.

Health-care workers now have until Nov. 15 to get the necessary shots and avoid being suspended without pay.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Looks like Quebec blinked:

(CBC)
Quebec postpones vaccination mandate for health-care workers to Nov. 15

I know how many feel about vaccination and healthcare workers, but at this moment in time, blinking seems like the most pragmatic approach, to permit other measures, goading, encouragement to have influence.

Other measures could be tried too, such as no new hires, transfers or promotions going to unvaccinated workers. Could also be a requirement for contract renewals.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I know how many feel about vaccination and healthcare workers, but at this moment in time, blinking seems like the most pragmatic approach, to permit other measures, goading, encouragement to have influence.

Other measures could be tried too, such as no new hires, transfers or promotions going to unvaccinated workers. Could also be a requirement for contract renewals.

I'm not in favour of idle threats. If you're not prepared to follow through, don't draw the line. Otherwise, the opposite lesson is learned.

Most jurisdictions require healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated for influenza or other contagious diseases during any outbreak. In those cases (that I'm aware of) workers aren't fired, but are sent home without pay for the duration of the outbreak. Similar action with kids in schools during outbreaks. Very few have lost their minds over these mandates.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I'm not in favour of idle threats. If you're not prepared to follow through, don't draw the line. Otherwise, the opposite lesson is learned.

We are in unusual circumstances. We are not really setting precedents here, other than trying to seek the least destructive path out of this pandemic. If the month reprieve results in at least half of the Quebec holdouts getting vaccinated... that's a big win.

They can still apply the hammer later if necessary. And as I mentioned, they can also wage a war of attrition against the holdouts: no pandemic bonus (what they are going to do), no transfers or promotions, new hires MUST be vaccinated.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We are in unusual circumstances. We are not really setting precedents here, other than trying to seek the least destructive path out of this pandemic. If the month reprieve results in at least half of the Quebec holdouts getting vaccinated... that's a big win.

I'm all in favour of pragmatic approaches to problems, which is why I don't think idle threats do anyone any good. If the government has real reason to think a month delay will make a difference, then sure... go for it.

I just think we should all stop pretending that the hard-core anti crowd can be reasoned into a changed position. They're operating based on different needs. And drawing red lines, and then failing to follow through, just emboldens their position.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I just think we should all stop pretending that the hard-core anti crowd can be reasoned into a changed position. They're operating based on different needs. And drawing red lines, and then failing to follow through, just emboldens their position.

You're not wrong, but you know as well as I it's never going to happen. There aren't a lot of politicians interested in self-immolation.

[desodave]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We are in unusual circumstances. We are not really setting precedents here, other than trying to seek the least destructive path out of this pandemic. If the month reprieve results in at least half of the Quebec holdouts getting vaccinated... that's a big win.

They can still apply the hammer later if necessary. And as I mentioned, they can also wage a war of attrition against the holdouts: no pandemic bonus (what they are going to do), no transfers or promotions, new hires MUST be vaccinated.

Some of this is Collective Bargaining 101 ... there are always "deadlines" set, some firmer than others. You often relax a position when there has been some significant movement from the other side. What it is in this deferral is difficult to see imo unless the gov't didn't realize the depth of their problem ... and if so they made a big mistake as Mike suggests. It's interesting to me to see the reaction from many of the unions/associations whose members are facing mandates. The Nurses association in PQ has said they will remove licensing from nurses who refuse to vaccinate. Most organizations have not opposed the mandates at all ... just said they would defend workers unjustly terminated. That to me says they're just prepared to defend those who have been denied a reasonable accommodation, ie, they have some kind of case for a medical deferral. By defense, I mean that they are prepared to go all the way through the full arbitration procedures in their agreements. Reality is that overwhelming numbers of union members support the mandates ... so its just how far you go to protect the minority rights.