# Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for the Federal Public Service and RCMP



## QV (6 Oct 2021)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-vaccine-mandate-1.6201528
		


What is the general consensus here?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-vaccine-mandate-1.6201528
> 
> 
> 
> What is the general consensus here?


I cannot speak for the Public Service, but IMHO, it took waaay too long to make it mandatory for the CAF.

It has been nothing but pain trying to get things done at work while dancing around the “don’t ask, don’t tell vaccination” policy.

If somebody wants to disobey that legal order and test that part of the NDA- let them.


----------



## Scott (6 Oct 2021)

Public service: max level grievance immediately, then courts.


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2021)

It’ll get grieved, lawsuits will be filed, but while all of those work through the system (and probably amount to nothing) I fully expect some people will see pay and allowances stop in mid November. I expect we’ll see maybe a third to a half of them change their minds right quick once that reality sets in. Salaries and pensions are easy to take for granted, much harder to walk away from.


----------



## stoker dave (6 Oct 2021)

It is absolutely the right thing to do.   Except in some EXTREMELY RARE circumstances, everyone eligible should and must be vaccinated.   It is the road out of this pandemic.   It is the safe thing to do.  It is the honourable thing to do.  It is the kind thing to do.


----------



## QV (6 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-vaccine-mandate-1.6201528
> 
> 
> 
> What is the general consensus here?











						Sweeping federal vaccine mandate goes into force Oct. 30 and targets last holdouts
					

'Simply having a personal conviction that vaccines are bad will not be nearly enough to qualify for an exemption,' Trudeau siad




					nationalpost.com
				




Posting another article. I noted the comments in the comment section from one to the other are very different.


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> Sweeping federal vaccine mandate goes into force Oct. 30 and targets last holdouts
> 
> 
> 'Simply having a personal conviction that vaccines are bad will not be nearly enough to qualify for an exemption,' Trudeau siad
> ...


And the contents of the comments sections are, as always, worth exactly what you paid for them.

This is now something that will be a matter of law, and handled through legal processes. A small proportion of federal employees are going to be bitterly disappointed at the outcome of this.


----------



## lenaitch (6 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> And the contents of the comments sections are, as always, worth exactly what you paid for them.
> 
> This is now something that will be a matter of law, and handled through legal processes. A small proportion of federal employees are going to be bitterly disappointed at the outcome of this.


Every labour law and human rights expert, including the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, who I have seen in the media, say that the mandates will survive challenge.  As well, there was breakdown I saw - somewhere - on the position of just about every 'mainstream' religion and none cited a faith reason for refusing to be vaccinated.


----------



## ballz (6 Oct 2021)

For the CAF, it's called unlimited liability... get on with it. I can't see how an argument exists that we can tell someone to charge head-first into certain death, but not take a vaccine that billions of people have taken with no issues.


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Every labour law and human rights expert, including the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, who I have seen in the media, say that the mandates will survive challenge.  As well, there was breakdown I saw - somewhere - on the position of just about every 'mainstream' religion and none cited a faith reason for refusing to be vaccinated.


Yup, this is happening, and it’s gonna stick.


----------



## HiTechComms (6 Oct 2021)

Devils Advocate.

As I am sitting here waiting for my offer to get re-tendered because I came in contact with some one that had covid that got it from a fully vaccinated individual and now I need an additional med clearing which is still yet to be approved. 

I understand that if I finally get in that CAF will vaccine me and I have no issue with it but I simply don't think the vaccine will solve anything. 
Luckily turns out that I am immune to covid or at least I am one of those that were completely asymptomatic not even the sniffles but then again I do not have any comorbidity as the majority of the hospitalized individuals do.

The data is coming in from all over the world. Gibraltar, Israel, Singapore, USA (Vermont) and Sweden and VEARS Database and its not showing a positive outcome for the Vaccine. Some countries are now banning vaccine (Norway, Ontario, Holland)for certain age groups.  Vaccine away but I think this is not going to change the pandemic as its more of a political creature then a health one.  I think in the end it will be get the vaccine and then get sick to get natural immunity, the goal posts will shift and it will be "learn to live with it".

I think that these mandates will comeback and bite us in the ass as the studies of long term effects are still not finished. There have been lots of medications and vaccines that turned out to be a giant disaster for health of people and these vaccines are still Authorized for Emergencies but not Approved for General usage. Lets hope that this is not the case here, because we all know this will result in massive lawsuits.

In the end I will take the vaccine and I have no issue but I will not pretend that this vaccine will just make the pandemic go away as the data shows Vaccinated people still can get sick and transmit the virus and even some of those individuals will die.


----------



## cyber_lass (6 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Devils Advocate.
> 
> As I am sitting here waiting for my offer to get re-tendered because I came in contact with some one that had covid that got it from a fully vaccinated individual and now I need an additional med clearing which is still yet to be approved.
> 
> ...


A vaccine is never about total immunity. It is about making the virus less lethal, and clearly it is well demonstrated to do that. At least in my province, where I watch the number about 89% of those in hospital with covid are unvaxxed. Those in ICU.... 100% have been unvaxxed. So there is that.


----------



## HiTechComms (6 Oct 2021)

cyber_lass said:


> A vaccine is never about total immunity. It is about making the virus less lethal, and clearly it is well demonstrated to do that. At least in my province, where I watch the number about 89% of those in hospital with covid are unvaxxed. Those in ICU.... 100% have been unvaxxed. So there is that.


My problem is that this has been always a political power play and the ever moving goal posts. This is why Vaccines will not solve anything, the pandemic will just continue for political controls. Social Passports are next "health" push whether you like it or not. Pet peeve is that all these powers were delegated to un-elected officials that started ruling via dictates and not laws passed through parliament or legislature.

As a counter if you look at Sweden no mandates and there are no worse off then any other state that did.

_shrug_ I cannot do anything about this, pandemic will go on for as long as it can be milked by the Political parties. Having said that I found the lock downs are great for me personally. _shrug_


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> My problem is that this has been always a political power play


So I hear this arguement and please, please, tell me which of the many Govt's we have in Canada, and around the world, have gained some sort of power they didn't have before covid.   I mean just name one specific....


----------



## Weinie (6 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> My problem is that this has been always a political power play and the ever moving goal posts. This is why Vaccines will not solve anything, the pandemic will just continue for political controls. Social Passports are next "health" push whether you like it or not. Pet peeve is that all these powers were delegated to un-elected officials that started ruling via dictates and not laws passed through parliament or legislature.
> 
> As a counter if you look at Sweden no mandates and there are no worse off then any other state that did.
> 
> _shrug_ I cannot do anything about this, pandemic will go on for as long as it can be milked by the Political parties. Having said that I found the lock downs are great for me personally. _shrug_


Sigh............you are either mis-informed or a troll. If you are mis-informed, please seek other *credible* sources of info.


----------



## HiTechComms (6 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So I hear this arguement and please, please, tell me which of the many Govt's we have in Canada, and around the world, have gained some sort of power they didn't have before covid.   I mean just name one specific....


Delegation of Government functions to bureaucrats, ones that we cannot vote out. Coercion of medical procedures. Now passports coming you can add that too. Slow creep of a social credit score and state surveillance.

You are right about what power they gained that they didn't have before covid. Well before covid they would commit political suicide but now they just rule by dictate and people have no alternatives and the complete facade of democracy. I guess the Political Power that has been gained is in the form of Authoritarianism based on moral dictates that dissolved all semblance of rights and privileges. Now that a precedence has been set of Authoritarian rule for your own safety I guarantee the government will have no problem manufacturing more emergencies to Rule over the people by edict. These precedents will get codified into law and judicial and executive branches will enforce.

I doubt any incoming politician will challenge this precedent because there is nothing more permanent then a temporary government measure.
This has been going on for two years and its not getting any better according to every media outlet its getting worse even if the stats show that it is not the case. _shrug_ I tuned out the noise.

I am sure you will disagree with me, then again I was born in a Socialist country these are the same type of political maneuvers the Communists and Marxists used to rule by edict over people.

These are my observation based on previous experiences, I doubt we will have the same perceptions.  Again these are my observations, and musings from a Civilian that was born and raised in a different culture and a political system.

*shrug*Mandate away and nothing will change and the pandemic will continue. Just more of the same political noise and ramblings of you are killing Grandma moral bashing. I don't mind nor care.


----------



## HiTechComms (6 Oct 2021)

Weinie said:


> Sigh............you are either mis-informed or a troll. If you are mis-informed, please seek other *credible* sources of info.


What are those sources, take mere seconds to look for CDC, various government medical info etc. I looked at them. If I am misinformed would you kindly correct me with the Laws that were passed that we required these measures for the last two years.  Any way moot point.  Nothing is going to change. Government will government away.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Delegation of Government functions to bureaucrats, ones that we cannot vote out. Coercion of medical procedures. Now passports coming you can add that too. Slow creep of a social credit score and state surveillance.
> 
> You are right about what power they gained that they didn't have before covid. Well before covid they would commit political suicide but now they just rule by dictate and people have no alternatives and the complete facade of democracy. I guess the Political Power that has been gained is in the form of Authoritarianism based on moral dictates that dissolved all semblance of rights and privileges. Now that a precedence has been set of Authoritarian rule for your own safety I guarantee the government will have no problem manufacturing more emergencies to Rule over the people by edict. These precedents will get codified into law and judicial and executive branches will enforce.
> 
> ...


So,...nothing then?


----------



## Scott (6 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> My problem is


Wheeeeeee, an opinion follows...


HiTechComms said:


> this has been always a political power play and the ever moving goal posts. This is why Vaccines will not solve anything, the pandemic will just continue for political controls. Social Passports are next "health" push whether you like it or not. Pet peeve is that all these powers were delegated to un-elected officials that started ruling via dictates and not laws passed through parliament or legislature.
> 
> As a counter if you look at Sweden no mandates and there are no worse off then any other state that did.


Fact phase:


HiTechComms said:


> _shrug_ I cannot do anything about this,


More opinion.


HiTechComms said:


> pandemic will go on for as long as it can be milked by the Political parties. Having said that I found the lock downs are great for me personally. _shrug_


I think your problem is your opinion.


----------



## Haggis (6 Oct 2021)

There is likely a small but vocal percentage of the PS who will either neglect to report thier vax status on the new self- reporting tool or refuse to get vaxed on personal conviction. They will eventually acquiesce to Trudeau's edict or find themselves unemployed, ineligible for EI and heroes of the anti-vax movement.  Perhaps this is the beginning of DRAP 2.0 whereby the PS self-culls.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2021)

I'm happy about the general consensus here.

Unless the vote is rigged of course.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Oct 2021)

Haggis said:


> There is likely a small but vocal percentage of the PS who will either neglect to report thier vax status on the new self- reporting tool or refuse to get vaxed on personal conviction. They will eventually acquiesce to Trudeau's edict or find themselves unemployed, ineligible for EI and heroes of the anti-vax movement.  Perhaps this is the beginning of DRAP 2.0 whereby the PS self-culls.


I'm okay with self culling in this case, just based on how the venn diagram for anti vaxxers overlaps with general crappy to work with people.  Even some of our resident nut jobs are full of support for vaccination, so honestly don't know anyone at risk of losing their job here.


----------



## HiTechComms (6 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So,...nothing then?


I guess so. Politicians will Politic away.

Maybe we can start mandating Exercise and Diets to the general public. PT for everyone! Mandatory Fun PT day! 


Navy_Pete said:


> I'm okay with self culling in this case, just based on how the venn diagram for anti vaxxers overlaps with general crappy to work with people.  Even some of our resident nut jobs are full of support for vaccination, so honestly don't know anyone at risk of losing their job here.


Self Culling ? Death ? How/What ? I don't understand. PS Lingo?


----------



## mariomike (7 Oct 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Every labour law and human rights expert, including the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, who I have seen in the media, say that the mandates will survive challenge.


If the mandates do not survive challenge, I would expect to see Work Refusals from vaccinated employees refusing to be cooped up - say in an aircraft cockpit or car - with an unvaccinated co-worker.

Can you refuse to work along side an unvaccinated person?


----------



## Remius (7 Oct 2021)

Well, of those who aren’t vaccinated I suspect that they will just roll up their sleeves and get it done.  That will leave a small group that the PS can manage without while they try and ride this out.

I think the CAF has 4K that aren’t vaccinated.  So I suspect a good chunk of those will either get it done or release early if they can.  It will be interesting to see how many actually don’t get the shot.


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Self Culling ? Death ? How/What ? I don't understand. PS Lingo?


Self culling as in not getting the shots and getting fired.


----------



## lenaitch (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Devils Advocate.
> 
> As I am sitting here waiting for my offer to get re-tendered because I came in contact with some one that had covid that got it from a fully vaccinated individual and now I need an additional med clearing which is still yet to be approved.
> 
> ...



I live in Ontario and am unfamiliar with the province "banning" vaccines for certain age groups.  They are not approved for under-12s because of the initial lack of clinical trials (which is changing) but that is different than being "banned".

Any number of "dictates" have been lifted. I can now eat in a restaurant and fly on a plane, where before I could not.  I still have to wear pants - damned government.

You are possibly correct that Covid may never go away.  Virus' mutate to survive, some faster and more effectively than others.  Some have been eradicated, either completely or in the First World, through, whatdayaknow, mandatory vaccination.  While it would be nice to eradicate it, the point is to make its impact on society more manageable.

I don't know your situation, but if you are trying to get into the military, your lack of desire to be managed or governed by others unless every simple, single direction is supported by a vote in the House, it may not go well.  Not every business decision in the private world flows directly from the Board either.


----------



## mariomike (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Politicians will Politic away.


I don't take medical advice from them, or internet "researchers", or media personalities.

I just follow the direction of the local Dept. of Public Health.


----------



## QV (7 Oct 2021)

Trudeau did say they were going to apply everything they’ve learned during the pandemic to the climate emergency, so that should be fun.


----------



## Kilted (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Devils Advocate.
> 
> As I am sitting here waiting for my offer to get re-tendered because I came in contact with some one that had covid that got it from a fully vaccinated individual and now I need an additional med clearing which is still yet to be approved.
> 
> ...


Should I go get my tin-foil hat?


----------



## captloadie (7 Oct 2021)

For all those itching to start filling in charge sheets, you may want to lay down your pens. My understanding of the policy to be issued is we will not be ordering anyone in the CAF to get vaccinated. Therefore, no one will be charged or face disciplinary measures for not being vaccinated. What the CAF will do is make it a condition of employment, and deal with individuals who are unwilling to be vaccinated as administrative burdens and start release processes, after placing them on LWOP.


----------



## QV (7 Oct 2021)

How they are going about this is not right. You have a choice, if you make the wrong choice they‘ll prevent you from earning a living including doing so in a manner to prevent EI. This is quite the precedent.

Wait until they do this again for something some of you don’t agree with.  “This is just a new condition of continued employment, but you have a choice”.


----------



## brihard (7 Oct 2021)

captloadie said:


> For all those itching to start filling in charge sheets, you may want to lay down your pens. My understanding of the policy to be issued is we will not be ordering anyone in the CAF to get vaccinated. Therefore, no one will be charged or face disciplinary measures for not being vaccinated. What the CAF will do is make it a condition of employment, and deal with individuals who are unwilling to be vaccinated as administrative burdens and start release processes, after placing them on LWOP.


That’s consistent with the TBS policy applying to the rest of the government. The only way someone should eat discipline is dishonesty on the attestation or vaccine records.


----------



## Haggis (7 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> That’s consistent with the TBS policy applying to the rest of the government. The only way someone should eat discipline is dishonesty on the attestation or vaccine records.


Lots of military case law out there about falsifying documents like fitness tests.


----------



## Remius (7 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> That’s consistent with the TBS policy applying to the rest of the government. The only way someone should eat discipline is dishonesty on the attestation or vaccine records.


Will be interesting glow they deal with class A reservists. No such thing as leave without pay.  ED&T I guess.  Not sure. Doesn’t RPSR automatically punt them to NES if they miss enough days?


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Will be interesting glow they deal with class A reservists. No such thing as leave without pay.  ED&T I guess.  Not sure. Doesn’t RPSR automatically punt them to NES if they miss enough days?



One parade a month is all it takes to stay in. I'm sure that if there are any Class A 'dissenters' they will be able to manage that.


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> If the mandates do not survive challenge, I would expect to see Work Refusals from vaccinated employees refusing to be cooped up - say in an aircraft cockpit or car - with an unvaccinated co-worker.
> 
> Can you refuse to work along side an unvaccinated person?


Some of the rather odd State Governors down here mask banning mandates (I mean how dimwitted do you need to be for that one?) have not survived legal challenges because they endanger the rights of the immune compromised.

*I'm a Republican and I think the Political aspect to Vaccination is outright disgusting.

Forced vaccinations have been a thing for over 100 years -- I don't get why now some folks all of a sudden think it something to make an issue out of.


----------



## Remius (7 Oct 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> One parade a month is all it takes to stay in. I'm sure that if there are any Class A 'dissenters' they will be able to manage that.


The policy though that we’ve received is no vaccine no pay.


----------



## HiTechComms (7 Oct 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I live in Ontario and am unfamiliar with the province "banning" vaccines for certain age groups.  They are not approved for under-12s because of the initial lack of clinical trials (which is changing) but that is different than being "banned".
> 
> Any number of "dictates" have been lifted. I can now eat in a restaurant and fly on a plane, where before I could not.  I still have to wear pants - damned government.
> 
> ...


I have no issues with authority. Again, I have no issue with being mandated a vaxx. I have no issue with being told what to or managed, or governed. As long as some one is paying me for it and takes the liability than its not an issue. 

My whole devils advocate bit is that the government is taking on a unknown liability of this medicine. Why take the risk?





						Drug and vaccine authorizations for COVID-19: Authorized drugs, vaccines and expanded indications - Canada.ca
					

Drugs that have been authorized by Health Canada for use in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic




					www.canada.ca
				




If there are problems found the government will just get sued.  Cannot get sued if you don't mandate and simply say well is voluntary. There have been many incidents of meds getting pulled and major lawsuits.

Moderna advisory in Ontario








						Ontario recommends Pfizer shots instead of Moderna for young adults over possible heart risks
					

'I know that this news may make some people nervous.... But the benefits of vaccination continue to significantly outweigh the risks of COVID-19'




					nationalpost.com


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> I have no issues with authority. Again, I have no issue with being mandated a vaxx. I have no issue with being told what to or managed, or governed. As long as some one is paying me for it and takes the liability than its not an issue.
> 
> My whole devils advocate bit is that the government is taking on a unknown liability of this medicine. Why take the risk?
> 
> ...


Risk versus reward.

 The potential side effects are minor for the vast vast vast majority.   Even those who get COVID once vaccinated are unlikely (very very very unlikely) to have significant issues from it.
   As opposed to those who have gotten COVID or who have not and remain unvaccinated.
US Death toll is over 700k now, that's a decent sized Mathusian Check...


----------



## HiTechComms (7 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Self culling as in not getting the shots and getting fired.


Gotcha.. 

People will do people things. Jahova's refuse blood transfusions.  

I guess I fall into self culling if I join the Military? I mean war and all? _shrug_ 
Again I do ride Motorcycles as well.


----------



## Remius (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> Gotcha..
> 
> People will do people things. Jahova's refuse blood transfusions.
> 
> ...


You missed the point about self culling in respect to force reduction.  That is what he meant.


----------



## HiTechComms (7 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> Risk versus reward.
> 
> The potential side effects are minor for the vast vast vast majority.   Even those who get COVID once vaccinated are unlikely (very very very unlikely) to have significant issues from it.
> As opposed to those who have gotten COVID or who have not and remain unvaccinated.
> US Death toll is over 700k now, that's a decent sized Mathusian Check...


I agree. Risk Vs Reward.  The question is whether the government or the individual should make the decision with in the Legal framework of the country. Not sure why USA is always the country everyone compares too, I mean its only fair we use Sweden as an example as well.

I have no problem getting the vaccine. Then again I also have and Advanced Directive.  I have very little skin in the game myself.


----------



## mariomike (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> I have no problem getting the vaccine.


Good. 

In the pioneer days, a man could go his own way. But, these days you've got to play ball. Especially in the army.


----------



## Kilted (7 Oct 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> One parade a month is all it takes to stay in. I'm sure that if there are any Class A 'dissenters' they will be able to manage that.


Not if being vaccinated is a requirement to enter the building and sign in.  The concept of "get vaccinated or get out" shouldn't be too much different for the reserves.

There might be some difficulty in tracking in some places, CIC and Canadian Rangers for example.

The other question is how long will this vaccine mandate last?  If someone were to go sub-reserves and try and get back in just shy of five years from now to maintain their qualifications, would they still need it at that point?


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> You missed the point about self culling in respect to force reduction.  That is what he meant.


And specifically, the people that are semi-competent enough to not get fired, but not usually a joy to work with. Hard to work on technical issues with people operating on Facebook memes and misinformation vice OQE (for example in the form of multiple double blind studies proving vaccine efficacy).

Had a previous supervisor like that and it was a nightmare; they were either a total cowboy disregarding basic practices/safety procedures or wouldn't change their mind when you presented actual evidence/policies/procedures to do something differently. Being an anti-vaxx for them was a feature, not a bug.

Would rather have an empty billet than have someone there that is just not-shit-enough to get fired, but otherwise mobile ballast that makes actual progress harder, and at least you can try and fill an empty billet with a non-oxygen thief.

I don't wish any actual harm on anti-vaxxers, but in this case they are statistically much more likely to get sick and die, which would just be a Darwin award, but they can also kill medically vulnerable people that can't get vaccinated, so my empathy for them is pretty low.


----------



## Kilted (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> People will do people things. Jahova's refuse blood transfusions.


They also don't serve in the military.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2021)

> So I hear this arguement and please, please, tell me which of the many Govt's we have in Canada, and around the world, have gained some sort of power they didn't have before covid.   I mean just name one specific....



The regional travel bans in BC were a novelty, and by no means were legal opinions wholly on the government side.  But the bans were done, and no-one challenged them.  So the boundary - a fuzzy one to begin with - has moved.


----------



## cyber_lass (7 Oct 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The regional travel bans in BC were a novelty, and by no means were legal opinions wholly on the government side.  But the bans were done, and no-one challenged them.  So the boundary - a fuzzy one to begin with - has moved.


But it is not permanent power. Emergency situations call for drastic measures. Why there are state of emergency rules. Those are now lifted and people can travel. So still not sure what power they got they didn't have before.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2021)

The question of whether they had the power was not settled.  And I'm skeptical that having pushed a boundary once, government won't push it again, with less of an excuse.


----------



## lenaitch (7 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> My whole devils advocate bit is that the government is taking on a unknown liability of this medicine. Why take the risk?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An imperfect comparison, but back in the early '70s, governments started mandating seat belt use in vehicles.  Obviously, there was no opportunity for clinical trials, just academic research and experience from other jurisdictions.  Surviving a collision that likely previously made you dead, often resulted in injury, sometimes serious, particularly when it was just lap belts.  But not dead.  I don't recall anyone even trying to hold the State liable, let alone successfully.

I would think the government would face greater liability if they didn't mandate, particularly as it relates to healthcare and long-term care institutions.  My 100-year-old father-in-law is in long-term care, and I don't support his contacts, whom he has virtually no choice interacting with, deciding their own terms of employment. There is also the issue of international travel and transportation.  We don't live on an island.  If we left our airlines, border controls, international commercial traffic, etc. as a free-for-all, while other countries imposed rules, where would our economy be?


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The question of whether they had the power was not settled.  And I'm skeptical that having pushed a boundary once, government won't push it again, with less of an excuse.


PET with the FLQ Crisis - a lot of places abused the powers they had - I'm mean I'm all for kicking hippies to the curb - but those powers went away - and the issues created enough pushback that the Act was changed because of that -- that was 51 years ago though - I was a wee baby - and I no longer know if the populace would complain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Oct 2021)

and if a long term issue from the vaccine pops up in 7-10 years from now, will those same people making the rules, be willing to share the blame? The companies insured that they can't be held responsible, so if something does happen, it will be the levels of government that mandated it that will be held responsible.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2021)

I've always said there's a chance that 10 years from now a lot of us could have an extra hand growing out of our foreheads.....but RIGHT NOW the evidence suggests the vaccine is the right thing to do for humanity.


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> PET with the FLQ Crisis - a lot of places abused the powers they had - I'm mean I'm all for kicking hippies to the curb - but those powers went away - and the issues created enough pushback that the Act was changed because of that -- that was 51 years ago though - I was a wee baby - and I no longer know if the populace would complain.


Metro Toronto with Operation Soap - the largest mass arrest in Canada since the FLQ Crisis.

The hippies and draft dodgers were kicked out of Yorkville, Rochdale and the Yonge St. Strip.

Some referred to it as "urban renewal".








						Urban renewal - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB (8 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> Metro Toronto with Operation Soap - the largest mass arrest in Canada since the FLQ Crisis.


Op Soap had the exact reverse outcome of what was intended by Toronto




mariomike said:


> The hippies and draft dodgers were kicked out of Yorkville, Rochdale and the Yonge St. Strip.
> 
> Some referred to it as "urban renewal".


LOL


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> and if a long term issue from the vaccine pops up in 7-10 years from now, will those same people making the rules, be willing to share the blame? The companies insured that they can't be held responsible, so if something does happen, it will be the levels of government that mandated it that will be held responsible.


Given that the vaccine has left the body after 72 hours(like most vaccines), and that studies are starting to show a drop in antibodies after 8 months, I doubt we will see long term side effects of the vaccine. While people can claim the covid 19 vaccine is experimental, it is anything but now. Covid vaccines have the largest data set of any vaccine in human history, mRNA technology has been around for a couple decades now, and while covid 19 is new,  Corona viruses are not so they aren't starting from scratch.


----------



## Quirky (8 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> and if a long term issue from the vaccine pops up in 7-10 years from now, will those same people making the rules, be willing to share the blame? The companies insured that they can't be held responsible, so if something does happen, it will be the levels of government that mandated it that will be held responsible.



Out of all the crap people put in their mouth on a daily basis without question and hesitation, being concerned about a tested and proven vaccine is the ultimate sign of stupidity.


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2021)

lenaitch said:


> An imperfect comparison, but back in the early '70s, governments started mandating seat belt use in vehicles.  Obviously, there was no opportunity for clinical trials, just academic research and experience from other jurisdictions.  Surviving a collision that likely previously made you dead, often resulted in injury, sometimes serious, particularly when it was just lap belts.  But not dead.  I don't recall anyone even trying to hold the State liable, let alone successfully.


"They took away our Freedom!"
Wait till they tell them they can't smoke in bars and restaurants any more. 








						1980s news clips on seatbelt mandates resurface amid vaccine debate
					

‘If you don’t want to wear it, that’s your choice!’ a seatbelt refuser said in the 1980s, in a refrain that is eerily familiar in the age of Covid




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Oct 2021)

Quirky said:


> Out of all the crap people put in their mouth on a daily basis without question and hesitation, being concerned about a tested and proven vaccine is the ultimate sign of stupidity.


None of us have any idea about the long term benefits or side effects of this vaccine and clearly the manufacturer didn't either, otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens. There is a particular treatment for women that was promoted years ago by the medical profession that only showed up with bad side effect 30 years later. Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> . . .  does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.



Sounds like war.



> . . . otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens.  . . .



And that is nothing new in the case of vaccines.  While Canada may not have (or had, I wasn't bothered with doing a deep dive on related legislation) a specific law in place that indemnifies vaccine producers from liability, the contractual arrangements for procuring vaccines will usually include an indemnity clause (_the manufacturers request and the government agrees because they know that is the only way the system will work_).  It didn't start with Covid-19 vaccines; if one looked into it the same would be true for the annual flu vaccine, the many immunizations that every child gets (_or at least the children with sensible parents - my bias is showing_) and even some of the one off, special authorization vaccines that soldiers have been occasionally jabbed with (_I know - I had a copy of the contract on my desk before getting the jab_).  However, this pandemic may have been the good kick in the arse that the Canadian Government needed to institute (like a lot of countries) a more formal arrangement for a "pan-Canadian Vaccine Injury Support Program".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Oct 2021)

You notice that the FDA EUA still covers Pfizer original vaccine which grants it the immunity. However that immunity does not cover their newly released name brand of the vaccine. It will be interesting to see which version the company produces? 

Meanwhile a little humour helps


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> . Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.


Sounds a lot like democracy....


----------



## kev994 (9 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> None of us have any idea about the long term benefits or side effects of this vaccine and clearly the manufacturer didn't either, otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens. There is a particular treatment for women that was promoted years ago by the medical profession that only showed up with bad side effect 30 years later. Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.


I hear that dying of COVID is a pretty bad long-term side effect, so there’s that.


----------



## cyber_lass (9 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> None of us have any idea about the long term benefits or side effects of this vaccine and clearly the manufacturer didn't either, otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens. There is a particular treatment for women that was promoted years ago by the medical profession that only showed up with bad side effect 30 years later. Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.


Not sure where you get 30 years from... "In Canada, the history of thalidomide dates back to April 1, 1961. There were many different forms sold, with the most common variant being called Talimol.[41] Two months after Talimol went on sale, pharmaceutical companies sent physicians letters warning about the risk of birth defects.[41] It was not until March 2, 1962, that both drugs were banned from the Canadian market by the FDD and, soon afterward, physicians were warned to destroy their supplies.[41]". It was known quite early, but unfortunately


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Oct 2021)

No this is another treatment for women, that my wife was telling me about, I get the details later


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Oct 2021)

cyber_lass said:


> Not sure where you get 30 years from... "In Canada, the history of thalidomide dates back to April 1, 1961. There were many different forms sold, with the most common variant being called Talimol.[41] Two months after Talimol went on sale, pharmaceutical companies sent physicians letters warning about the risk of birth defects.[41] It was not until March 2, 1962, that both drugs were banned from the Canadian market by the FDD and, soon afterward, physicians were warned to destroy their supplies.[41]". It was known quite early, but unfortunately



What makes you think he was referring to Thalidomide?  I thought it was transvaginal mesh.


----------



## cyber_lass (10 Oct 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> What makes you think he was referring to Thalidomide?  I thought it was transvaginal mesh.


From the phrasing, that would be my guess. Plus what you are talking about is not banned, as far as I can tell. There are side effects, like any procedure, but it is not banned.  I could be wrong. Though the only person that knows is the poster.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Oct 2021)

cyber_lass said:


> From the phrasing, that would be my guess. Plus what you are talking about is not banned, as far as I can tell. There are side effects, like any procedure, but it is not banned.  I could be wrong. Though the only person that knows is the poster.



And neither is Thalidomide "banned".  It is still used, just not for the purpose that led to the tragedies of the early sixties.  In most cases, drugs or other medical items that have late discovered adverse side effects are not banned, but removed from the marketplace by the manufacturer, either due to reduced demand or as a business decision when the cost of defending the product outweighs its profitability profile.  My supposition that he was referring to mesh was a first thought, it could easily have been Accutane.  There's probably a few others that could come to mind, or would if I was bothered to do a little research.

The example he used is inconsequential.  The point, I think, that he was trying to make is that drug manufacturers (vaccine makers specifically) do not care about potential long term effects as long as they can turn a profit and not be sued.  Well, duh!  They are, first and foremost, a business.  If they don't make a profit they don't remain in business.  As I previously noted, it is common practice for vaccine manufacturers to be "somewhat" shielded from legal action.  Why would it be in the public interest to provide such limited protection to vaccine manufacturers?  To quote from a 2018 report - Designing a No-Fault Vaccine-Injury Compensation Programme for Canada: Lessons Learned from an International Analysis of Programmes - "(it) help(s) to stimulate vaccine innovation and manufacturing thereby keeping the costs of vaccines low for public programmes".



			https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Keelan-Wilson_NoFaultVaccine_CPHS_2011.pdf
		



> Utility of a no-fault approach
> 
> Since the injuries related to vaccines generally occur despite best practices in both manufacturing and delivery, injured parties in Canada cannot use negligence to establish fault (Kutsela 2004; Manitoba Law Reform Commission 2000; Peppin 2005). In addition, most vaccine-related injuries are idiosyncratic in nature making it nearly impossible to predict who might have a serious adverse event (Institute of Medicine 1985; Jacobson et al. 2001). Though there have been many Canadian vaccine injury cases tried over the past few decades in Canadian courts, because of these features of vaccine injury *there has not been a single successful vaccine injury case in Canada* (Manitoba Law Reform Commission 2000). This has led several of the presiding judges in these cases to include in their judgments an acknowledgement of the unfairness of a legal system that lacks the mechanism to provide compensation in cases where people are clearly injured while participating in a public good (see for example Morgan v City of Toronto).
> 
> ...



And from south of the border (also 2018 - predating the pandemic)








						Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Protecting Vaccine Makers from State Lawsuits
					

The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine.In the 57-p




					www.policymed.com
				





> Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Protecting Vaccine Makers from State Lawsuits​
> The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine.
> 
> In the 57-page opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court explained that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act) preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2021)

Freeland admits most federal employees exempt from proof of vaccination requirements
					

With 300,540 federal public service employees, the Treasury Board in a Policy On COVID-19 Vaccination said numerous exemptions would cover some 212,000 employees.




					thepostmillennial.com


----------



## Furniture (11 Oct 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Freeland admits most federal employees exempt from proof of vaccination requirements
> 
> 
> With 300,540 federal public service employees, the Treasury Board in a Policy On COVID-19 Vaccination said numerous exemptions would cover some 212,000 employees.
> ...


I saw that link posted elsewhere yesterday, and can point out one massive error, the CAF is definitely included in the vaccine mandate. A message from the A/CDS and DM was sent to all DWAN/O365 accounts about it on Friday, telling us we have until the 29th to complete our attestation form.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2021)

No, it's not. If you read down in the email spam, it links to the TB Policy and the CAF is clearly labeled as an exlcusion. CAF members have their own administration system that's very different from a civilian public servant so if the CAF ia going to make a rule it will have to leverage those policies not the PS ones.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

The TBS policy is only one component of the federal mandate. So yes, CAF is included in the mandate, through its own directives. No, it is not included in the TBS policy- but it doesn't need to be. It is fully within the authority of the CDS to order his own equivalent to this for the purpose of achieving the federal policy objective.


----------



## Furniture (11 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> No, it's not. If you read down in the email spam, it links to the TB Policy and the CAF is clearly labeled as an exlcusion. CAF members have their own administration system that's very different from a civilian public servant so if the CAF ia going to make a rule it will have to leverage those policies not the PS ones.


While the data presented may be factually correct WRT the TB policy, it is presented out of context, in such a way that it is giving a false idea to viewers. That's either an error, or an intentional decision to inflame people in order to generate views/shares.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2021)

Going by the subject of medical "oops" 





						Zantac Lawsuit Help
					






					www.zantacsupportclaims.com


----------



## Messerschmitt (12 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> If the mandates do not survive challenge, I would expect to see Work Refusals from vaccinated employees refusing to be cooped up - say in an aircraft cockpit or car - with an unvaccinated co-worker.
> 
> Can you refuse to work along side an unvaccinated person?


Why? Are the vaccines so bad? I thought people got the vaccine because they are everything that was promised.



Colin Parkinson said:


> You notice that the FDA EUA still covers Pfizer original vaccine which grants it the immunity. However that immunity does not cover their newly released name brand of the vaccine. It will be interesting to see which version the company produces?


You would be correct if you think none of the FDA approved version of Pfizer is available in the US. Only the EUA version (they are exactly the same, but if you take the EUA version, they have the complete immunity. I'm still unclear if in the US you can still get any compensation for side effect of fully FDA approved vaccines, I haven't done the research on that).

Call yourself and ask where the fully FDA approved version can be found in US

18008793477






						Contact Us | Pfizer
					






					www.pfizer.com


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Going by the subject of medical "oops"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gotta' love the line at the bottom...."this is lawyer advertising".  

Might as well have said " please don't brake the ambulance too hard, it gives us time to slow down and not to run right into the back".


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2021)

Messerschmitt said:


> Why? Are the vaccines so bad?


Who said they were?

As far as Work Refusals go, my former employer will suspend unvaccinated employees on 1 Nov., and terminate them on 13 Dec.

So, Work Refusals there would seem unlikely.

YMMV depending on workplace.









						Can you refuse to work alongside an unvaccinated colleague in B.C.?  | Globalnews.ca
					

Employment lawyers are split on your right to turn down work with an unvaccinated person, while government officials have provided no clear direction.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Gotta' love the line at the bottom...."this is lawyer advertising".
> 
> Might as well have said " please don't brake the ambulance too hard, it gives us time to slow down and not to run right into the back".








						Health Canada assessing NDMA in ranitidine - Canada.ca
					






					www.healthycanadians.gc.ca


----------



## Bluf (12 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> The TBS policy is only one component of the federal mandate. So yes, CAF is included in the mandate, through its own directives. No, it is not included in the TBS policy- but it doesn't need to be. It is fully within the authority of the CDS to order his own equivalent to this for the purpose of achieving the federal policy objective.


Indeed.  The NDA already has provision for refusing a vaccine (s. 126).  We'll see how refusals are applied now. LWOP then release, or charge, found guilty (pretty easy as it's pretty straight forward although we could dispute the 'reasonable excuse'), and then released?  There's probably an intent not to surcharge the military justice system as well.

NDA, s. 126: 
Refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment

*126* Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, wilfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.


----------



## brihard (12 Oct 2021)

126 has been previously discussed. Common consensus is they’re trying to avoid that and will proceed administratively. So far, nobody to my knowledge has cited any instance of a CAF member being ordered to get the Covid vaccine.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> 126 has been previously discussed. Common consensus is they’re trying to avoid that and will proceed administratively. So far, nobody to my knowledge has cited any instance of a CAF member being ordered to get the Covid vaccine.


Not yet, once the deadline arrives...


----------



## brihard (12 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Not yet, once the deadline arrives...


Speculation or solid info? Ordered vaccines would be a huge deal.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Speculation or solid info? Ordered vaccines would b a huge deal.


Why? I had to get polio and yellow fever to deploy, and also get an MMR booster. I got the optional Hep A booster as well. Not sure how that is different from requiring a COVID vaccine, when there are numerous possibilities for getting domestically deployed, and continue to be available for foreign taskings (given that most countries will require proof of vaccination to enter).

There are multiple options for vaccines in this case which are fully approved by Health Canada, so totally different than the experimental anthrax vaccine case. Even with the very rare cases of vaccine complications, you're statistically still far more likely to get killed by COVID (by a factor of about 500) and think the incidents of even hospitalization or long COVID symptoms crater for the vaccinated folks, so it's really easy to make the case using facts. If the flu killed 2% of people and left 15-25% with long term symptoms, we'd probably all be ordered to get that vaccine as well.

I suspect there is a lag for an official order just because of how the government rolled out the direction, which seemed to surprise pretty much everyone, and will be followed up with an actual CANFORGEN in the near future. Direction is out though to complete the attestation, and we've been told to expect further clarification on the rest of it (and very specifically to not go any futher than the attestation until specific higher order direction comes down).


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Speculation or solid info? Ordered vaccines would b a huge deal.


You don't just mandate something as mandatory, set a deadline, and then do nothing after. There will be consequences for those who refuse to vaccinate.  If the CAF did nothing, the CoC would loose a lot of what credibility it has left.


----------



## brihard (12 Oct 2021)

Why? Because of the highly politicized nature of this. Anyone willing to throw away their job would probably eat the charge out of principle, which could really bog down the military justice system. 



MilEME09 said:


> You don't just mandate something as mandatory, set a deadline, and then do nothing after. There will be consequences for those who refuse to vaccinate.  If the CAF did nothing, the CoC would loose a lot of what credibility it has left.



Right, but you can go disciplinary or administrative. Losing your job is a much more significant consequence than a 126 charge. That can be achieved administratively, which is consistent with the government’s stated approach, and the rest of the federal sphere.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Why? Because of the highly politicized nature of this. Anyone willing to throw away their job would probably eat the charge out of principle, which could really bog down the military justice system.
> 
> 
> Right, but you can go disciplinary or administrative. Losing your job is a much more significant consequence than a 126 charge. That can be achieved administratively, which is consistent with the government’s stated approach, and the rest of the federal sphere.


And what do you do after they still do not follow the order after a 126 charge? Vaccination parade with the MPs? Or give them a deadline and charge again? We have little details on the administrative recourse here.


----------



## Ostrozac (12 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> 126 has been previously discussed. Common consensus is they’re trying to avoid that and will proceed administratively. So far, nobody to my knowledge has cited any instance of a CAF member being ordered to get the Covid vaccine.


The system seems really reluctant to go down the 126 route. It might be because they have legal advice that it won’t stand up if tested in court. Is it something as simple as being difficult to actually prove that someone refuses a vaccine, as the doctor that offered you the shot wouldn’t be able to testify?


----------



## QV (13 Oct 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> The system seems really reluctant to go down the 126 route. It might be because they have legal advice that it won’t stand up if tested in court. Is it something as simple as being difficult to actually prove that someone refuses a vaccine, as the doctor that offered you the shot wouldn’t be able to testify?


I’ve been curious about this also. It’s unlike the CAF to ask soldiers to participate (via MM attestation), it’s usually a “shall do”, or a parade.  Granted only a few months ago the DND page for the civ Chief HR Officer stated mandatory vaccination wasn’t supported in Canadian law but that has been stripped since the government announcement, wonder what changed in law? 

Threatening livelihoods to compel mandates are a very passive aggressive greasy way to go about it. Just pass a law or in the case of the CAF issue an order and be done with it. If a law or order is not going to fly, then neither does the coercion.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> I’ve been curious about this also. It’s unlike the CAF to ask soldiers to participate (via MM attestation), it’s usually a “shall do”, or a parade.  Granted only a few months ago the DND page for the civ Chief HR Officer stated mandatory vaccination wasn’t supported in Canadian law but that has been stripped since the government announcement, wonder what changed in law?
> 
> Threatening livelihoods to compel mandates are a very passive aggressive greasy way to go about it. Just pass a law or in the case of the CAF issue an order and be done with it. If a law or order is not going to fly, then neither does the coercion.


Likely no one wants to take responsibility for issuing such an order


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Likely no one wants to take responsibility for issuing such an order


They eventually organize a committee and then have a vote and create an Order in Council, with details protected by Cabinet privilege, so no one can be directly blamed and everyone can share in the glory.


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2021)

They simply don’t need to order it. The objective is a vaccinated workforce, so the most effective mechanism is to make it a condition of employment. Anyone who doesn’t satisfy that condition of employment becomes no longer advantageously employable. Purely an administrative thing. It’s not a discipline or conduct matter like not groping your subordinates or not robbing a cab driver, so there’s no need to try to treat it as one. It’s not a misbehaviour to correct through punishment. It’s a change in what the institution requires of its employees.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> They simply don’t need to order it. The objective is a vaccinated workforce, so the most effective mechanism is to make it a condition of employment. Anyone who doesn’t satisfy that condition of employment becomes no longer advantageously employable. Purely an administrative thing. It’s not a discipline or conduct matter like not groping your subordinates or not robbing a cab driver, so there’s no need to try to treat it as one. It’s not a misbehaviour to correct through punishment. It’s a change in what the institution requires of its employees.


I'd argue it isn't a change at all, universality of service has existed for a long time. So have vaccines, you signed the dotted line saying you can be ready to go anywhere. Sometimes that means getting a needle to you don't become a medical burden on a task force. Don't like it? Maybe you should if read the fine print more before joining.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I'd argue it isn't a change at all, universality of service has existed for a long time. So have vaccines, you signed the dotted line saying you can be ready to go anywhere. Sometimes that means getting a needle to you don't become a medical burden on a task force. Don't like it? Maybe you should if read the fine print more before joining.


Exactly.  There is all sorts of medical information we are already required to submit to our employer (The CAF).  Any number of things or lack of things could get us dismissed.   Many are essentially conditions to join and stay in.


----------



## Bob Sakomano (13 Oct 2021)

It is also at this point an issue of freedom of movement. Being fully vaccinated is already a necessity for travelling, crossing borders without quarantine, etc. So public health rationale aside, the chain of command has an operational basis to track individual vaccination status as a matter of readiness for tasking/deployment/training generally.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Oct 2021)

Bob Sakomano said:


> It is also at this point an issue of freedom of movement. Being fully vaccinated is already a necessity for travelling, crossing borders without quarantine, etc. So public health rationale aside, the chain of command has an operational basis to track individual vaccination status as a matter of readiness for tasking/deployment/training generally.


Here's my only question, should it really be the CoC we disclose this to? As being medical should it be disclosed only to CFHS for our medical files which our CoC shouldn't be allowed to know about ?


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Here's my only question, should it really be the CoC we disclose this to? As being medical should it be disclosed only to CFHS for our medical files which our CoC shouldn't be allowed to know about ?



So we can't form up a 'leper colony' to use to breach the enemy's defences, I assume?


----------



## Bob Sakomano (14 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Here's my only question, should it really be the CoC we disclose this to? As being medical should it be disclosed only to CFHS for our medical files which our CoC shouldn't be allowed to know about ?


It's parsing a bit, but yes, it should be the CoC. The issue is your vaccination status, which impacts your freedom of movement. While the underlying information is medical, the CoC would need to know your status in order to determine if you would be able to meet criteria to cross borders, to avoid quarantine if you are a close contact of a case, to use commercial air/train, etc.

They would also need to know specifically what medical exemptions might apply (e.g. allergy, or temporary exemption due to myocarditis/pericarditis), because those exemptions vary from location to location. Some locations might, or might not, accept an exemption from vaccination in order to travel or avoid quarantine based on these reasons. For example, BC does not permit medical or religious exemptions to its provincial vaccine passport programme: even if you have a genuine medical or religious exemption to vaccination, you cannot access non-essential places where vaccination is required.

The odd part is that, for attestation purposes, past infection + partial series is acceptable as "fully vaccinated", for Quebec residents. This is because Quebec public health guidelines accept past infection + partial series as sufficient. But other jurisdictions don't. It would have been more useful to the CAF to adopt the more common standard for "fully vaccinated" (i.e., complete series), because that way you could be sure that these individuals are actually G2G for travel. Of course the number of CAF members who got infected and only a partial series in Quebec is probably relatively small. But it could come up. This is why a DAG (which would be based on actual medical records, and where "green" = full series; along with the other "mission-essential vaccinations" - there's no COVID-specific DAG item, they're all lumped in together) would still be necessary for actual taskings/deployments.


----------



## ueo (14 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Here's my only question, should it really be the CoC we disclose this to? As being medical should it be disclosed only to CFHS for our medical files which our CoC shouldn't be allowed to know about ?


Old Yellow books were held in the MIR then handed to Coy Clks for DAG process then to  member . Process reversed on Endex.  Don't see a problem, the vax is not a condition or disease, therefore not med conf. Or has that changed since I left?


----------



## TCM621 (14 Oct 2021)

I have to say I would preferred being ordered to get the vaccine than the way they are handling it. It would be more honest. 

The military gave me my vaccines so why do I have to attest to my status? Because the CoC is not allowed to know the specifics of my medical status. Then they threaten all sort of career implications and administrative measures for those who don't comply while telling you that you are supposed to take this as pressure from your CoC. What the hell do they think threatening someone's ability to earn a living is if not pressure? 

This is just more talking out of both sides of their mouth again. Take a fucking stand rather than trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you can enforce vaccinations as an employment condition, line everyone up and let them choose jab or employment. Just be honest, it would be a welcome change.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I have to say I would preferred being ordered to get the vaccine than the way they are handling it. It would be more honest.


That does seem like the more honest approach.

This promising in MonitorMass seems like the DLN approach to leadership.


----------



## Bob Sakomano (14 Oct 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I have to say I would preferred being ordered to get the vaccine than the way they are handling it. It would be more honest.
> 
> The military gave me my vaccines so why do I have to attest to my status? Because the CoC is not allowed to know the specifics of my medical status. Then they threaten all sort of career implications and administrative measures for those who don't comply while telling you that you are supposed to take this as pressure from your CoC. What the hell do they think threatening someone's ability to earn a living is if not pressure?
> 
> This is just more talking out of both sides of their mouth again. Take a fucking stand rather than trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you can enforce vaccinations as an employment condition, line everyone up and let them choose jab or employment. Just be honest, it would be a welcome change.



I would respectfully disagree - I think this process is keeping us honest where this is coming from. It's clear this is being driven by the PM's direction to the civil service, not something from the CAF leadership. If it were being driven by the CAF, it would be as per usual requirements: it would be added to the standard vaccines everyone needs (6643-12 Core Health Protection Recommendations, like measles, tetanus, etc.), which are assessed for in the APRV. People would then be "red", "yellow" or "green" accordingly. FEs would retain ability to choose to employ/deploy these individuals as usual (e.g. after clarifying with Medical what the risk actually is - still respecting privacy but doing a risk assessment). Because the COVID vaccine would be lumped in with all the others, it would not be possible for the CoC to know your COVID vaccine status specifically from the APRV.

As I mentioned above, separate from the force health protection rationale for vaccination, there is now a freedom of movement reason for the CoC to know vaccination status specifically - similar to how Yellow Fever vaccine is a separate "mission essential" vaccine and separate item on the DAG. The PM's civil service requirement kind of pre-empted/accelerated the need for that. But again, if it were being driven by the CAF, we would not have defined "attestation green" criteria that don't actually mean you are necessarily green to travel: that issue with past infection + partial series being OK for Quebec residents to be "attestation green", but not actually being green to travel across borders, for example. The fact that this special case was included makes it clear that we are simply matching the PM's civil service directive.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Oct 2021)

On class A side, while we are being told further direction to come, like we are told it will be if unvaccinated you won't be allowed to parade. Now if you don't show up after a month you technically go NSE and the unit can release you. Think you can all see where this is going, and I approve


----------



## Quirky (15 Oct 2021)

Once the dust settles I wonder how undermanned all these organizations will become. The CAF was shrinking in 2020 prior to the vaccine mandates and this will only make things worse. Soon we won’t be able to respond to domestic or international threats, not that we can now.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Oct 2021)

Quirky said:


> Once the dust settles I wonder how undermanned all these organizations will become. The CAF was shrinking in 2020 prior to the vaccine mandates and this will only make things worse. Soon we won’t be able to respond to domestic or international threats, not that we can now.


Majority of the CAF is already vaccinated, any that this effects will be the minority not the majority


----------



## TCM621 (15 Oct 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Majority of the CAF is already vaccinated, any that this effects will be the minority not the majority



You are not wrong but we are at like 77% TES already. Even a small amount hurts. 

As I said earlier, it isn't about the vaccine for a lot of people. I have heard a lot of fully vaccinated people get pissed at this. I understand that our leadership is hampered by the political leadership but they have been talking out of both sides of their mouth since the beginning of this pandemic. This has eroded what little trust the rank and file have with senior leadership even more. That will be the biggest factor in people releasing.


----------



## OceanBonfire (17 Oct 2021)

Over 90% of the CAF fully vaccinated:









						Senior army commander says 90 per cent of Canadian personnel are fully vaccinated
					

A senior military commander in Western Canada says he doesn't expect much opposition from Canadian Forces personnel over mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				












						Over 90 per cent of Canadian military personnel fully COVID-19 vaccinated, official says - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Ottawa is requiring federal employees, including members of the military, be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by the end of this month.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Fitz4444 (23 Oct 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> I understand that if I finally get in that CAF will vaccine me and I have no issue with it but I simply don't think the vaccine will solve anything.
> Luckily turns out that I am immune to covid or at least I am one of those that were completely asymptomatic not even the sniffles but then again I do not have any comorbidity as the majority of the hospitalized individuals do.


I just got an email as an applicant asking if I was vaccinated. I got sent a paper I had to sign and list the dates of my first and second dose. you can fill it out and say your partially vaccinated, say your seeking exemption for a medical or religious reasons.  unvaccinated because you dont want to comply or share vaccination status.  I never seen the option "waiting for you guys to do it" on the paper. I would suggest you just get it before they ask you to.


----------



## HiTechComms (24 Oct 2021)

Fitz4444 said:


> I just got an email as an applicant asking if I was vaccinated. I got sent a paper I had to sign and list the dates of my first and second dose. you can fill it out and say your partially vaccinated, say your seeking exemption for a medical or religious reasons.  unvaccinated because you dont want to comply or share vaccination status.  I never seen the option "waiting for you guys to do it" on the paper. I would suggest you just get it before they ask you to.


I read the warnings of the vaccine not to take it with in 21-28 days of being exposed to covid. It also specifically stated to not take it with in 14 days of enrollment. No offence but I will do what was conveyed to me in the communications I have received from the CFRC rather then take advice from the internet.

I will wait until I am in this case. I will simply let the CAF take on the responsibility and thus liability. At least I will have access to a doctor which I cannot do so now. I feel more confident that there will be medical supervision in the CAF then I could get as a civilian, because I always get a reaction to shots, I always get sick with fever.


----------



## Fitz4444 (24 Oct 2021)

your already got selected? if that's the case that's cool. I was just saying that from this point on you need to be vaccinated or on your way to be in order to get an offer from what I gathered from the email. Probably to weed out all the unruly people that do not like to conform to rules and make life difficult for the CAF. I guess a few might have slipped through the cracks though.


----------

